Women rights in Christianity?

JerryL said:

Not a Christian-held position, ergo not applicable to this discussion.

Click to expand...

I disagree, because you're citing OT verses which require the study of the Mishnah and Gemora...

JerryL said:

In the first two cases I'm citing a *lack* of a rule against. Which verse lacks these rules? Um... all of them.

Click to expand...

There are penalties for forcing yourself on a woman... What are you trying to say?

JerryL said:

Where did God orfer genocide except for the vigrin girls? Try Numbers 31:17
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Click to expand...

Yevamos 60B. The sages teach that the Kohen Gadol's headplate identified the women whom the Divine wisdom condemened to death. When they passed the headplate, the guilty people's faces would turn a greenish complexion. Google, "Yevamos 60B" read about it, then come back a little more educated.

JerryL said:

I've known few Jews who follow a "don't work" requirement except during events like Shiva... not that I doubt such fundamentalists are out there (I assume I won't see any posts written by you on the Sabbath?).

Click to expand...

You will never see me post on ANY Shabbat, and on major holidays, like Yom Kippur which is next Wed Night.

JerryL said:

The Bible would seem clear that you have tricked someone into a sin and abomination by God, for which he should rightly be stoned to death.

Click to expand...

Where is it a sin for a non-jew to turn a light on? He's turning the light on for himself so he can look for something. He's not turning it on for me.

JerryL said:

Which one?

Click to expand...

This one...

Binyamin said:

I'll address the rest later, but I need to do some things. Tractate Sanhedrin

Jews view the Oral Law = to the Written Law so when I cite the Sanhedrin, I consider it equal to a biblical citeation. Here is something (A long read) which should help answer your questions.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin_toc.html

Click to expand...

I disagree, because you're citing OT verses which require the study of the Mishnah and Gemora...

Click to expand...

In instances where there are multiple inerpretations, I agree that non-cannocal texts can provide insight... but to a Christian they are just that, non-cannon.

There are penalties for forcing yourself on a woman... What are you trying to say?

Click to expand...

No, there are no Biblical penalties for the fact that sex was forced. Feel free to cite one.

Yevamos 60B. The sages teach that the Kohen Gadol's headplate identified the women whom the Divine wisdom condemened to death. When they passed the headplate, the guilty people's faces would turn a greenish complexion. Google, "Yevamos 60B" read about it, then come back a little more educated.

Click to expand...

That's nice. I'll repeat the passage for you:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

As you can see, the women were kept by the soldiers for themselves (actually, they were split between the soldiers and preists). I somehow doubt that they were all willing.

Where is it a sin for a non-jew to turn a light on?

Click to expand...

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You must not do any work-you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates - Exodus 20:10

This one...

Click to expand...

I have no interest in arguing with a website. It's rather like arguing with a rock. You are welcome to invet the autor of the site over here.

JerryL said:

In instances where there are multiple inerpretations, I agree that non-cannocal texts can provide insight... but to a Christian they are just that, non-cannon.

Click to expand...

Oh okay, if it makes you that happy, I'll concede that women in the Christian perspective may be treated differently then women in the Jewish context, if you concede you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Jews.

JerryL said:

No, there are no Biblical penalties for the fact that sex was forced. Feel free to cite one.

Click to expand...

Devarim (Deut) Chapter 22

JerryL said:

That's nice. I'll repeat the passage for you:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Click to expand...

I don't know how the hell you got that translation from the Hebrew....

וְעַתָּה, הִרְגוּ כָל-זָכָר בַּטָּף; וְכָל-אִשָּׁה, יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר--הֲרֹגוּ

"Now, kill every male amoong the young children among the women who have not know lying with a male, you shall kill."

But you know, feel free to check it, or even better, have some of the other people check it.

JerryL said:

As you can see, the women were kept by the soldiers for themselves (actually, they were split between the soldiers and preists). I somehow doubt that they were all willing.

Click to expand...

I'm missing your point, are you saying you don't agree with Hashem's

JerryL said:

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You must not do any work-you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates - Exodus 20:10

Click to expand...

Okay, so it's someone who lives and abides the rules. It's the same as the Government charging you with having pot. By being a citizen, you agree to their rules, and their court systems. I gave you the tractate and the link to read it if you were really interested in what the verse meant.

JerryL said:

I have no interest in arguing with a website. It's rather like arguing with a rock. You are welcome to invet the autor of the site over here.

Click to expand...

I'd invite Moses, but I don't think he would come join our site. The link was to the tractate Sanhedrin, which is the Oral Law that was given to Moses, it was written down before the Babylonian captivity to make sure that it wasn't changed. I didn't realize I was debating someone who didn't know anything about the Oral Law, I apologize.

I've been waiting for this talk to be printed and I'm glad it finally is. When I heard it last weekend I thought about this thread.

Here are some points that Dallin Oaks made about the role of women in Christianity in his talk:

President Spencer W. Kimball said this: "When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner"

President Kimball also declared, "We have heard of men who have said to their wives, 'I hold the priesthood and you've got to do what I say.' " He decisively rejected that abuse of priesthood authority in a marriage, declaring that such a man "should not be honored in his priesthood"

There are cultures or traditions in some parts of the world that allow men to oppress women, but those abuses must not be carried into the families of the Church of Jesus Christ. Remember how Jesus taught: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, . . . but I say unto you . . . " (Matthew 5:27–28). For example, the Savior contradicted the prevailing culture in His considerate treatment of women. Our guide must be the gospel culture He taught.

The principles I have identified for the exercise of priesthood authority are more understandable and more comfortable for a married woman than for a single woman, especially a single woman who has never been married. She does not now experience priesthood authority in the partnership relationship of marriage. Her experiences with priesthood authority are in the hierarchical relationships of the Church, and some single women feel they have no voice in those relationships. It is, therefore, imperative to have an effective ward council, where male and female ward officers sit down together regularly to counsel under the presiding authority of the bishop.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-559-8,00.html

Another talk that got me thinking about this thread on Sunday was by Jeffrey R. Holland:

First of all, I want you to be proud you are a woman. I want you to feel the reality of what that means, to know who you truly are. You are literally a spirit daughter of heavenly parents with a divine nature and an eternal destiny.1 That surpassing truth should be fixed deep in your soul and be fundamental to every decision you make as you grow into mature womanhood. There could never be a greater authentication of your dignity, your worth, your privileges, and your promise. Your Father in Heaven knows your name and knows your circumstance. He hears your prayers. He knows your hopes and dreams, including your fears and frustrations. And He knows what you can become through faith in Him. Because of this divine heritage you, along with all of your spiritual sisters and brothers, have full equality in His sight and are empowered through obedience to become a rightful heir in His eternal kingdom, an "[heir] of God, and joint-[heir] with Christ."2 Seek to comprehend the significance of these doctrines. Everything Christ taught He taught to women as well as men. Indeed, in the restored light of the gospel of Jesus Christ, a woman, including a young woman, occupies a majesty all her own in the divine design of the Creator. You are, as Elder James E. Talmage once phrased it, "a sanctified investiture which none shall dare profane."

Be a woman of Christ. Cherish your esteemed place in the sight of God. He needs you. This Church needs you. The world needs you. A woman's abiding trust in God and unfailing devotion to things of the Spirit have always been an anchor when the wind and the waves of life were fiercest.4 I say to you what the Prophet Joseph said more than 150 years ago: "If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates."

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-559-9,00.html

Oh okay, if it makes you that happy, I'll concede that women in the Christian perspective may be treated differently then women in the Jewish context, if you concede you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Jews.

Click to expand...

Umm.. no. I'm happy to discuss the role of women in Judaism on an appropriate thread.

Devarim (Deut) Chapter 22

Click to expand...

I don't see a single penalty for rape in there. I see one of the one's I mentioned about how women, unlike men, are required to be virgins and, unlike men, must mount an affirmitive defense if accused (13-21).

I also see penalties for:
- Sex with a married woman (22)
- Sex with an engaged woman (23-26)
- Sex with an unengaged virgin (28-29)

This is another good example of women as property in the OT.
- Note that when you have sex with a virgin, you owe her farther money. You've damaged his property and must compensate him.
- Note that there is no penalty *anywhere* for sex with a married or engaged man, nor for a man not being a virgin.

Which part are you thinking of?

I don't know how the hell you got that translation from the Hebrew....

Click to expand...

You don't like it? Let's try some of the world's most renown translators:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man," - NIV
""Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. " - NASB
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."- KJV
"And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain; " - YLT

Which word(s) are you disputing the translation of? I'm happy to get out my Hebrew concordance.

You also didn't address the problem with it in your symantic complaint, and ignored the following paragraphs that divided up the women as spoils.

I'm missing your point, are you saying you don't agree with Hashem's

Click to expand...

My points are:

• the women were kept by the soldiers for themselves
• I somehow doubt that they were all willing.

Okay, so it's someone who lives and abides the rules. It's the same as the Government charging you with having pot. By being a citizen, you agree to their rules, and their court systems.

Click to expand...

So then you assert that there can be no discussion of women's rights in the US because "they live there voulentarily"? That's absurd.

The Jews enforced the law on everyone in there sphere of influence (within their borders) as was ordered by God... though honestly this whole line seems like a red-herring to avoid dealing with the role of women in Christianity

I'd invite Moses, but I don't think he would come join our site

Click to expand...

Rhetoric. Make your own arguments or bow out.

I sincerely apologize for not reading much of this thread.

I must add that the Isis cult and Christianity were the only cults that allowed women to meaningfully participate in worship. By meaningfully I mean other than serving as "preistess" which is nothing more than "temple prostitute." Service as a temple prostitute cannot be defended as rights for women, as these preistesses were often sold by their parents or found as exposed babies and raised in the temple as sex slaves.

In 1 Cor 11.2-16, Paul gives regulations for Christian worship - to both men and women - so both participate in worship and both are similarly regulated.

"4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven." This prayer and prophesy are occuring in regular worship activities of Christians.

Also, women were widely included in the history of the early Church. Mary and Martha supported the ministry of Jesus. A business woman was the first convert in Philippi, and two women were the heads of house churches in the same city. See Phil. 4.2 2I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. 3Yes, I ask you also, true companion,[b] help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

However, it is very very critical to note that Christianity did NOT give women more rights than they already had in first century society. The Isis cult had participation of women, which may be why women were commanded to be silent in 1 Timothy - these particilar women may have been active in the Isis cult and then later taught similar doctrine in the churches or threatened the egos of their husbands. Paul also taught that wives should be submissive to their own husbands, which was the common practice of the day, and therefore healthy for Christianity. If wives submitted to their husbands, the Chrisitan family looked just like the pagan family - and therefore made Christianity look stable - they were not trying to destory society.

I must add that the Isis cult and Christianity were the only cults that allowed women to meaningfully participate in worship.

Click to expand...

Huh? "only" out of whom? Would you like 10 examples of religions with strong female participation from that period in time?

In 1 Cor 11.2-16, Paul gives regulations for Christian worship - to both men and women - so both participate in worship and both are similarly regulated.

Click to expand...

Right, "equal" being "women must learn in quiet submission" and "women may never be in a position of authority over a man" and "women must cover their head, for it is their shame"... Is that what you mean by "similar"?

Also, women were widely included in the history of the early Church. Mary and Martha supported the ministry of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Yet they are not listed in the spostles nor deciples, they do not have gospels. I'm not sure how "women were allowed to tag along" really constitutes "included".

Paul also taught that wives should be submissive to their own husbands, which was the common practice of the day, and therefore healthy for Christianity.

Click to expand...

So I presume that you don't believe that the Bible is the will of God, but rather of its authors?

Jerry,

If you know of active participation of women in other cults of the time, I would like to know. They would need to be within "earshot" of Paul - part of the first century Mediterranean world. I don't know of active participation outside of the Isis cult.

Women are listed as deaconesses and apostles.

Deaconess:

1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, 2that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

Qualifications of a deaconess
1 Tim 3.11 11 And the women likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.

"The women" is often translated "and their wives," but this is absent in the Greek. It is only "the women" - this is oten interpreted as regulations for female deaconesses, which are listed in Rom 16 and Phil 4.

Apostle:
7Greet Andronicus and Junia,[b] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[c] and they were in Christ before me.

There is no small dispute about Junia. In Greek, it could be a male or female name, and even a Greek speaking Church Father, Clement, said that it could go either way. In any case, Junia in Rom. 16.7 can be interpreted in Greek as a female apostle who was active before Paul, and was well known among the apostles as an active member of the group.

JerryL said:

Umm.. no. I'm happy to discuss the role of women in Judaism on an appropriate thread.

Click to expand...

This thread works since we're the only ones posting in.

JerryL said:

I don't see a single penalty for rape in there. I see one of the one's I mentioned about how women, unlike men, are required to be virgins and, unlike men, must mount an affirmitive defense if accused (13-21).

I also see penalties for:
- Sex with a married woman (22)
- Sex with an engaged woman (23-26)
- Sex with an unengaged virgin (28-29)

This is another good example of women as property in the OT.
- Note that when you have sex with a virgin, you owe her farther money. You've damaged his property and must compensate him.
- Note that there is no penalty *anywhere* for sex with a married or engaged man, nor for a man not being a virgin.

Click to expand...

So you agree there was punishment for forcing yourself on a married/engages/or unengaged woman? Cool, maybe you don't agree with the punishments, but, I fail to see why you would care. If you don't like, don't be Jewish. I don't see you in arms about abortion being illegal in the Neterlands, or abortion being legal in certain European countries. Why? Because you're not going to impose your beliefs on another group of people who are subject to your laws. So why are you trying to complain when Jews subject people who live within the borders and who know the rules? Why the double standard?

JerryL said:

You don't like it? Let's try some of the world's most renown translators:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man," - NIV
""Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. " - NASB
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."- KJV
"And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain; " - YLT

Click to expand...

Look at what you posted as the verse, and look at what those translations that you just cited say compared to what you originally posted.
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Notice how yours is telling us to save for yourself all virgins. Notice how the other ones you posted say the opposite? I don't have a problem with any one word of the translation, I have a problem with the WHOLE part. Here's a better solution. Post word for translation of the Hebrew and how you got that ****ty translation, maybe that will help.

JerryL said:

You also didn't address the problem with it in your symantic complaint, and ignored the following paragraphs that divided up the women as spoils.

Click to expand...

BECAUSE THE TRANSLATION YOU POSTED ADDS WORDS THAT ARE NOT IN THE HEWBREW. LOOK AT IT. WHERE DOES THE HEBREW SAY SAVE AND NEVER? IT DOESN'T. It's not my fault you're reading a crappy translation that implies they were used as spoils of war. What's worse, is the 4 world renown translators you posted got closer to the translation. Why would I sit here and debate a verse that isn't what it says? :banghead3 Just admit the translation you originally posted sucked and implied that G-d ordered them to sleep with virgins.

JerryL said:

My points are:

• the women were kept by the soldiers for themselves
• I somehow doubt that they were all willing.

Click to expand...

Yes certain women were allowed to live, but the translation you originally posted implied they were saved for the express purpose of sex. Again, if you choose to read something into the verse that isn't there, that's your problem, not mine.

JerryL said:

So then you assert that there can be no discussion of women's rights in the US because "they live there voulentarily"? That's absurd.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't discuss it. However, do you agree to the rules on abortion even though you may/may not support it?

JerryL said:

The Jews enforced the law on everyone in there sphere of influence (within their borders) as was ordered by God... though honestly this whole line seems like a red-herring to avoid dealing with the role of women in Christianity

Click to expand...

What's wrong with enforcing it in Jewish borders on people who know the law? If the court determines that they didn't know they were breaking the rule, they are innocent.

JerryL said:

Rhetoric. Make your own arguments or bow out.

Click to expand...

Here's a better solution, why don't you read the tractate Sanhedrin instead of being retarded and making stupid arguments when you still don't know how are courts work.

I love how you read one of the thing Moses wrote and ignore the Oral Law he also gave. Now who is picking and choosing?

This thread works since we're the only ones posting in.

Click to expand...

Not true at all, I'm posting in a quantum mechanics therad on another board, some science threads on this one, and a couple LEO threads on a martial board I'm part of. Those would be just as appropriate as this.

So you agree there was punishment for forcing yourself on a married/engages/or unengaged woman?

Click to expand...

Yes, much as there was a punishment for having sex with a married woman while wearing blue shoes. What I don't agree with is your assertion that the force had anything at all to do with the punishment.

Notice that you could not produce a punishment for raping a widow.

I don't see you in arms about abortion being illegal in the Neterlands, or abortion being legal in certain European countries. Why?

Click to expand...

To begin with because this is not an abortion thread. I know it's hard for you, but try to stay on-topic.

Are you retarded? Look at what you posted as the verse, and look at what those translations that you just cited say compared to what you originally posted.
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Notice how yours is telling us to save for yourself all virgins. Notice how the other ones you posted say the opposite?

Click to expand...

No, I notice every one (except yours) saying the same thing. Kill every non-virgin. The next sentance was the one that says to keep the virgins, but you didn't protest that one so I didn't re-cite it.

Your bold "kill has slept" is a command to kill the non-virgins. Had it said "kill has not slept" then it would be the opposite of what I said. In fact, the first translation I put up is word-for-word identical with the first in my list (I know cause I cut-n-paste them from the same Bible).

Here's a better solution. Post word for translation of the Hebrew and how you got that ****ty translation, maybe that will help.

Click to expand...

And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain;

BECAUSE THE TRANSLATION YOU POSTED ADDS WORDS THAT ARE NOT IN THE HEWBREW. LOOK AT IT. WHERE DOES THE HEBREW SAY SAVE AND NEVER? IT DOESN'T.

Click to expand...

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - KJV - numbers 31:18

and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves. - YLT - numbers 31:18

Would you like some more translations? Or are you going to continue to worry about whether it's "never", "not", or "haven't" had sex?

It's not my fault you're retarded and reading a crappy translation that implies they were used as spoils of war. What's worse, is the 4 world renown translators you posted got closer to the translation.

Click to expand...

You fail to notice that the bits you are referring to are 31:17, whcih is the command to kill, not 31:18, which is the command to keep. I've got King James and Young's above, I can easily cut-n-paste NIV, ASB, NASV, Darby, or any translation you like. They all say the same thing.

Why would I sit here and debate a verse that isn't what it says? :banghead3 Just admit the translation you originally posted sucked and implied that G-d ordered them to sleep with virgins.

Click to expand...

The New International Version (which, BTW, you later said was OK) sucks? OK. Which version would you like?


EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION agrees... well, except yours, but you are not even citing the right passage.

Yes certain women were allowed to live, but the translation you originally posted implied they were saved for the express purpose of sex. Again, if you choose to read something into the verse that isn't there, that's your problem, not mine.

Click to expand...

"Certain" in this case is "virgins" and they are kept "for yourselves". What do *you* suppose the reason that all men from infant to elderly were killed, and all girls, except the virgins, who were given to the soldiers?

I'm not saying you can't discuss it.

Click to expand...

Of course you are, every time you apologize for the command to stone to death anyone who works on the sabbath as "only people who choose to live there". Much like Stalin and Hitler only killed people who chose to live there.

What's wrong with enforcing it in Jewish borders on people who know the law? If the court determines that they didn't know they were breaking the rule, they are innocent.

Click to expand...

You miss my point because you've forgotten why you even bothered with creating this red-herring.

Here's a better solution, why don't you read the tractate Sanhedrin instead of being retarded and making stupid arguments when you still don't know how are courts work.

Click to expand...

I take that as an admission that you have no argument and are hoping to pass the proverbial buck.

I love how you read one of the thing Moses wrote and ignore the Oral Law he also gave. Now who is picking and choosing?

Click to expand...

You mean like you reading 3:17 and not 3:18?

But I've invited you to cite the Christian cannon that supports this. I'm still waiting.

FeathersinHair said:

+++MOD POST+++

Debating by calling the other person names not only doesn't help your argument, it also crosses the border of what's considered appropriate. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Click to expand...

Check your PM.

Jerry, take your time responding, I'm out for Shabbas.

If you know of active participation of women in other cults of the time, I would like to know. They would need to be within "earshot" of Paul - part of the first century Mediterranean world. I don't know of active participation outside of the Isis cult.

Click to expand...

Specifically in or bordering the Roman empire circa 100 CE? That's gonna narrow it down a bit...

Egypt: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/women2.htm
(from another site) "While women could become Pharaoh only in very special circumstances, they were otherwise regarded as totally equal to men as far as the law was concerned. They could own property, borrow money, sign contracts, initiate divorce, appear in court as a witness, etc. Of course, they were also equally subject to whatever responsibilities normally accompanied those rights."

Sparta: http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20in%20sparta.htm

Celtic lands: http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/celtic/women/

Asatruar (worship of the Viking pantheon, interesting to me for having a female god of war, and a male god of beauty) http://www.intercollege.se/viking/mythology2/main.html

Zoroastrianism (where I think the Jews got Shatan (Satan) from): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

I'm sure ther are more, those were one's I thought to look up.

"The women" is often translated "and their wives," but this is absent in the Greek. It is only "the women" - this is oten interpreted as regulations for female deaconesses, which are listed in Rom 16 and Phil 4.

Click to expand...

So we have two possible, but disputed passages. We should weigh these in light of everything else there.

The Etz Hayim Torah and Commentary incorporates the Hebrew Text based upon the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with English translation (Copyright 1985, 1999) provided by The Jewish Publication Society (JPS). Its translation of Numbers 31:17-18 is as follows:The text later goes on to note:The author then describes how these spoils were distributed.

Jayhawker Soule said:

The author then describes how these spoils were distributed.

Click to expand...

Of which Gods cut was 32 virgins.
Why did God want 32 virgins?

JerryL said:

Notice that you could not produce a punishment for raping a widow.

Click to expand...

A widow is allowed to remarry.

JerryL said:

No, I notice every one (except yours) saying the same thing. Kill every non-virgin. The next sentance was the one that says to keep the virgins, but you didn't protest that one so I didn't re-cite it.

Click to expand...

Oh okay, I understand, I thought that was your translation for 17. 18, I would translate as, "All the young children amond the women who have not known lying with a male you may keep alive for yourselves." The reason being is that they had not yet known the sin that their parents of Midian were being punished for. Each tribe sent 1000 soldiers to conquer (sp?) Midian for their sins, sexual immorality (ex. orgies). Has a virgin committed the sin? No. This is why they and small children were saved. They became slaves, but slaves were required to convert to Judaism. Note: Slavery back then isn't like the slavery of black people in the 1800's. It was more like being a butler. But slaves would be forced to convert to Judaism, I think it had to do with making sure that non-Jew slaves wouldn't influence Jews to sin(Working on the Sabbath, ect...) Anyways, as converts to Judaism, they would eventually be resposible for following all the laws. After 7 years, they were givin the option to be freed and could do as they wish.

JerryL said:

They all say the same thing.

Click to expand...

I made a mistake, I thought you were quoting the above verse. Read the full chapter, it explains the sins of of Midian, why they were being punished, and why the virgins were being saved. It mostly had to do with they were not going to be punished for the sins they didn't commit. Now, if you don't agree with slavery, that's a completely different argument then that of women have no rights. I stand by what I said, women have it easier then men in orthodox judaism. So they wear a wig and can't show their hair to anyone, that's not that big of a deal.

JerryL said:

"Certain" in this case is "virgins" and they are kept "for yourselves". What do *you* suppose the reason that all men from infant to elderly were killed, and all girls, except the virgins, who were given to the soldiers?

Click to expand...

The sins of Midian had to do with sexual immorality. Since virgins hadn't committed the sin, why would they be killed?

JerryL said:

Of course you are, every time you apologize for the command to stone to death anyone who works on the sabbath as "only people who choose to live there". Much like Stalin and Hitler only killed people who chose to live there.

Click to expand...

Well, you act like stonings were a every day thing, they were rare.

JerryL said:

You mean like you reading 3:17 and not 3:18?

Click to expand...

Yes, I made a mistake, I read 3:17 and thought you were saying 3:18 was translation for 3:17. I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake.

JerryL said:

But I've invited you to cite the Christian cannon that supports this. I'm still waiting.

Click to expand...

Why would I cite Christian canon that I've already said I don't know much about? I simply said, I would guess that Christians treat women similar to the way Jews do. I can go back and quote it if you want.

A widow is allowed to remarry.

Click to expand...

I miss your point... OK, let's try this pharsing: Notice that you could not find a punishment for raping an unmarried / unengaged widow.

Oh okay, I understand, I thought that was your translation for 17. 18, I would translate as, "All the young children amond the women who have not known lying with a male you may keep alive for yourselves." The reason being is that they had not yet known the sin that their parents of Midian were being punished for.

Click to expand...

If that were true, they would not have killed the infant boys. Wanna try another?

Each tribe sent 1000 soldiers to conquer (sp?) Midian for their sins, sexual immorality (ex. orgies).

Click to expand...

Wrong. Numbers 21-25: the Moabites brought some of the Isrealites to worship Baal of Peor (though sex is cited as one of the enticements to do so).

Has a virgin committed the sin? No. This is why they and small children were saved.

Click to expand...

No. Virgin girls were saved. Male children were slaughtered.

They became slaves, but slaves were required to convert to Judaism.

Click to expand...

Cite... there's no Biblical support for this claim. In fact, Jewesh and non Jewesh slaves were treated very differently according to Biblical law (which is senseless unless there was such a thing as a non-Jewesh slave).

Soldiers kept virgin girls as spoils of war. They've done in in a htousand cultures over a million years. They were sexual chattel.

Note: Slavery back then isn't like the slavery of black people in the 1800's. It was more like being a butler.

Click to expand...

You can beat slaves with no resprocussions, as long as they don't die (Exodus 21:20)
You can also have sex with them against or with their will, if the slave-girl is promised to another, there's a punishment; but not the same as with a free woman (Leviticus 19:20)

But slaves would be forced to convert to Judaism, I think it had to do with making sure that non-Jew slaves wouldn't influence Jews to sin(Working on the Sabbath, ect...)

Click to expand...

As I've alrady taught you, non-jews living in Jewesh lands are required to abide by the same laws anyway. You are arguing a false-dilemmia.

I made a mistake, I thought you were quoting the above verse. Read the full chapter, it explains the sins of of Midian, why they were being punished, and why the virgins were being saved. It mostly had to do with they were not going to be punished for the sins they didn't commit. Now, if you don't agree with slavery, that's a completely different argument then that of women have no rights. I stand by what I said, women have it easier then men in orthodox judaism. So they wear a wig and can't show their hair to anyone, that's not that big of a deal.

Click to expand...

They are being punished for leading Isrealis to false Gods.
The innocent boys were killed, as were innocent non-virgin girls.
There is no requirement at all to convert to Judaism as a slave (I'm not clear it would even be possible).
Slaves can be beaten and raped at will. There is no punishment or ether unless there is permenant injury (they must be released), death (punishment undisclosed), or they are promised to another (punishment undisclosed).

The sins of Midian had to do with sexual immorality. Since virgins hadn't committed the sin, why would they be killed?

Click to expand...

Ask the slaughtered virgin boys... but the sin was leading to the worship of false gods.

Well, you act like stonings were a every day thing, they were rare.

Click to expand...

They were required:
- for working on the sabbath
- for a girl having premarital sex
- for a child not listening when scolded
- for anyone "disrespecting" their parents

Why would I cite Christian canon that I've already said I don't know much about? I simply said, I would guess that Christians treat women similar to the way Jews do. I can go back and quote it if you want.

Click to expand...

I'm interested in discussing, on this thread, the view of women in Christianity. Anything you would like to say on that matter should be supported with Christian cannon. If you have nothing to add to that, then there's not much point in posting.

JerryL said:

If that were true, they would not have killed the infant boys. Wanna try another?

Click to expand...

Women are not required to go to worship, men are. So since the women didn't commit the sin of idolatry like the young male children who are required to go to worship as you just said here:

JerryL said:

No. Virgin girls were saved. Male children were slaughtered.

Click to expand...

Okay, that's settled.

JerryL said:

Cite... there's no Biblical support for this claim. In fact, Jewesh and non Jewesh slaves were treated very differently according to Biblical law (which is senseless unless there was such a thing as a non-Jewesh slave).

Click to expand...

From what I was taught, slaves would be forced to convert to help prevent your children from not sinning. For example, if a kid looks out a window and sees a non-gentile carrying a shopping back and shopping on the Sabbath, he will become jealous and might become led to sin. To help prevent this, slaves were converted so everyone in the community would abide by the laws. It's much easier as you know to live your life by the torah when everyone around you lives it. But if you're the only Jew it's very difficult, since there isn't kosher places to eat, limited supply of kosher food, you don't have a minyan, ect...

JerryL said:

Soldiers kept virgin girls as spoils of war. They've done in in a htousand cultures over a million years. They were sexual chattel.

Click to expand...

As was their punishment in this instance, it doesn't mean we should lead by the example and go around keeping the women in Iraq as spoils of war.

JerryL said:

You can beat slaves with no resprocussions, as long as they don't die (Exodus 21:20)

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.​

Click to expand...

This has to do with NON-Jewish slaves. Jewish slaves were treated by a different set of guidelines. Since the slave of this passage is called his master's property, he can only be a non-Jewish slave. Even though the master beat his slave with the rod, which he normally uses to enforce disciple, he is liable to the death penalty if he beats him so viciously that he kills him. However, if the slave lives for at least a full 24 hours, there is no death penalty because the master had a right to impose discipline and it is assumed that he did not intend to kill valuable property. Ramban notes that if the master struck his slave with a rock or some other potentially dangerous lethal wepeon - one that is usually not used for punishment - he would be liable to the death penalty even if the slave lingers on for a year before he dies because such an assault goes beyond any reason means of imposing discipline.

JerryL said:

You can also have sex with them against or with their will, if the slave-girl is promised to another, there's a punishment; but not the same as with a free woman (Leviticus 19:20)

'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.​

Click to expand...

This section is called: Shifchah Charufah. It's an unusual decree because it is unlike any other commandment in several ways. Briefly the sages state that it deals with a NON-Jewish slave who is owned by more then one partner. As a slave, you're forbidden to live with a Jew, but her master is allowed to have her live with a Jewish slave or a non-Jewish slave. When a Jewish-owned, non-Jewish slave goes free, he or she automaticcaly has the status of a fully pledged proselyte. Now, this woman was freed by ONE of her master's meaning that she has half her freedom and is still half slave. Because she has been made half free, she is prohibited to a nonjewish slave, but because she is still half slave, she is prohibited to an Israelite. Now, a Jew - slave or free - marries her, but since she is not completely free, such a marriage does not give her the full status of a married woman, so there is no death penalty for adultery with her. This passage teaches us that if a Jew cohabits with her, and both of them are aware of their sin, her penalty is lashes, and he is required to go do a sin offering, animal sacrifice.


Now Loa Neephdatah (Sp? transliteration) which means "And who has not been redeemed" clearly implies that no one has bought her freedom and she hasn't been freed by BOTH her masters. Had she been freed by BOTH, she would have been considered a fully Jewish women. That's what Rashi's take on it is.

JerryL said:

As I've alrady taught you, non-jews living in Jewesh lands are required to abide by the same laws anyway. You are arguing a false-dilemmia.

Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying, they live in the land, they are responsible for the laws. There is a difference between a Jewish slave and a non-Jewish slave. Initially, slaves were not required to convert, eventually because they were were allowed to sin on Shabbas which led to more Jews sinning, we required them to convert.

JerryL said:

They are being punished for leading Isrealis to false Gods.
The innocent boys were killed, as were innocent non-virgin girls.

Click to expand...

No, men are required to pray, so they also prayed to false gods, while the women, who don't go to worship are not punished since they have not:
1) committed sexual immorality
2) prayed to false gods and led the Jews astray (again)

JerryL said:

There is no requirement at all to convert to Judaism as a slave (I'm not clear it would even be possible).

Click to expand...

I BELIEVE it was a rabbinic decree, but I can look it up and get back to you. I'll be at a Tesheva for Yom Kippur, tons of books to do research with.

JerryL said:

Slaves can be beaten and raped at will. There is no punishment or ether unless there is permenant injury (they must be released), death (punishment undisclosed), or they are promised to another (punishment undisclosed).

Click to expand...

Non-Jewish slaves, to an extent, there are still punishments as I outlined above from Rashi and Rambon notes.

JerryL said:

Ask the slaughtered virgin boys... but the sin was leading to the worship of false gods.

Click to expand...

Exactly, women don't go to worship, men do.

JerryL said:

They were required:
- for working on the sabbath
- for a girl having premarital sex
- for a child not listening when scolded
- for anyone "disrespecting" their parents

Click to expand...

There were other things as well, but lets not dawn on them.

JerryL said:

I'm interested in discussing, on this thread, the view of women in Christianity. Anything you would like to say on that matter should be supported with Christian cannon. If you have nothing to add to that, then there's not much point in posting.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess we've both not been following what you want to discuss.

Women are not required to go to worship, men are. So since the women didn't commit the sin of idolatry like the young male children who are required to go to worship as you just said here:

Click to expand...

No, the problem was they convinced the Isrealites to do it... though the infant boys were not at all involved. They were slaughtered.

From what I was taught, slaves would be forced to convert to help prevent your children from not sinning. For example, if a kid looks out a window and sees a non-gentile carrying a shopping back and shopping on the Sabbath, he will become jealous and might become led to sin. To help prevent this, slaves were converted so everyone in the community would abide by the laws. It's much easier as you know to live your life by the torah when everyone around you lives it. But if you're the only Jew it's very difficult, since there isn't kosher places to eat, limited supply of kosher food, you don't have a minyan, ect..

Click to expand...

There's no command for this in the Bible. I'm not aware of anything that would indicate this was true in reality. In fact, it makes no sense in light of the fact that there are seperate rules (covering years of time) for Jewesh and non-Jewesh slaves. Why would the automatic release in 7 years be limited to Jewesh slaves if all slaves were converted to Judasim?

As was their punishment in this instance, it doesn't mean we should lead by the example and go around keeping the women in Iraq as spoils of war.

Click to expand...

Why not?

That said, the question at hand is the view of Christianity. The Biblical position is one of property... these examples are being used to understcore that point.

This has to do with NON-Jewish slaves.

Click to expand...

But you said:
If this is true, then there is no such thing as a non-Jewesh slave. You cannot have it both ways.

Also, can you support your claim that this only applies to non-Jewesh slaves?

Also, how is this different from slavery of blacks in America (which is the claim I was responding to).

Actualy, don't bother. Not a single of those answers addresses how Christian beliefs address women. Women are property in the OT, and not far from it in the NT.

This section is called: Shifchah Charufah. It's an unusual decree because it is unlike any other commandment in several ways.

Click to expand...

Nothing you said changes the fact that an owner could rape a slave... that slaves were property... which is what I said.

That's what I've been saying, they live in the land, they are responsible for the laws. There is a difference between a Jewish slave and a non-Jewish slave.

Click to expand...

Of course there is. Jewesh slaves have several different rules than non-Jewesh slaves. What the hell does this have to do with Christianity's view on women?

You argued that the women were not taken as property. I've proven you wrong. The nuances of who get's released and who gets kept in perpituity are irrellevent.

No, men are required to pray, so they also prayed to false gods, while the women, who don't go to worship are not punished since they have not:
1) committed sexual immorality
2) prayed to false gods and led the Jews astray (again)

Click to expand...

1. A toddler has not prayed to anyone.
2. A woman that's had sex was not neccessairily involved in seducing Isrealites.

Virgins were kept because they were booty (no puin intended). Any other interpretation is wishful thinking and entirely unsupported by the facts.

I BELIEVE it was a rabbinic decree, but I can look it up and get back to you.

Click to expand...

1. It's already been addressed
2. It's irrellevent.

Non-Jewish slaves, to an extent, there are still punishments as I outlined above from Rashi and Rambon notes.

Click to expand...

The Bible is clear and explicit. Non-Christian sources which conflict with Christian cannon are irrellevent.

Exactly, women don't go to worship, men do.

Click to expand...

Of course they did. They were the ones put in the seperate section and required to remain quiet. Further, you are not addreesing the policies of Baal, further the worship was not the crime, further infants don't worship, further it's irrellevent to keeping only the virgin women as slaves for the soldiers; which is what is at issue.

There were other things as well, but lets not dawn on them.

Click to expand...

Yes, there were many others. That was enough to establish my point, however. More just support me further.

Well, I guess we've both not been following what you want to discuss.

Click to expand...

"Everyone does it" is not a defense. Unless you would like to assert that I'm moving off topic to attack then using "off-topic" as a way to prevent response, which I don't think is true as I am often not responding to *your* attack based on it being off topic, I don't see that this is relevent.

Let me know if you're interested in the explanation of the verses. I'm not going to waste my time typing out what the Mishnah and Gemora has to say so you can say, "It's irrelevant". If you want to know, then let me know, I concede my argument that Christians treat women like Jew's treat women.

I can't sit here and explain verses that make no sense without the Oral Law (Mishnah and Gemora). If you're interested in learning what they have to say about your questions, then let me know. And trust me when I say learning since I know you haven't even read one thing about the Oral Law, especially since you thought when I linked it, it was what someone today had to say, when in reality, it's what Moses said. Kind of like how he wrote the Torah... I mean honestly how stupid are you?? You're also picking what Moses said. Moses gave the Oral and Written law and they go hand-in-hand. As I said, if you're interested in the Jewish take on the verses let me know, I give up trying to defend Christians.