Women rights in Christianity?

[ChrisP]

I personally think there is too much talk about "rights" and not enough talk about responsibility. Religion doesn't give people rights - it gives them responsibility and if they uphold that responsibility they are rewarded.

Quite right. Maybe the question should not be about rights. But rather whether or not women, and the responsibilities that God sets out for them in the Bible, are valued equally by God? I would say yes as a spirit/soul is a spirit/soul regardless of sex.

Your thoughts?

 

[jonny]

Quite right. Maybe the question should not be about rights. But rather whether or not women, and the responsibilities that God sets out for them in the Bible, are valued equally by God? I would say yes as a spirit/soul is a spirit/soul regardless of sex.

Your thoughts?

I have no doubt that the responsibility of women is equal to the responsibilty of men. I will quote The Family: A Proclamation to the World that was issued by my church a few years back.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Men and women are equal - this is shown in Genesis when Eve was created from Adam's rib by the Lord. I believe that this is a symbol that they stand side by side as equals in God's eyes.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Let's start with these two laws--do Israeli jews still follow/enforce them? And if so, do you think they are morally good laws?​

​

Yes we follow them, but as for punishments Hashem also commanded that the death penalty be administered only by a court of 23 ordained rabbis (tractate Sanhedrin).​

​

This is why Jews and I would assume Christians don't go around stoning people. I personally find the laws to be morally good since all morals come from Hashem, and since Hashem gave us these laws they must be morally good.

Okay, forgive me for going off the subject of christianity, but I'm curious and a little ignorant on this matter of the Rabbis. Why don't they exist?

There are these nasty people called the Romans who killed out the last of the Ordaining Rabbi's. There is no longer a striaght line of Ordination from Moses.

 

[Scott1]

Again easy way out... Well if you udon't know the answer this is a good way out.

No.... I keep telling you the answer, but it is not what you want to hear. You refuse to accept the fact that just because you don't understand Christianity that it must be flawed in some way.

Let me tell you this my friend and please don't get offended but its a fact. How can a Human interpretation with Human involvement have the perfect word.

Your misunderstanding does not offend me.... my Church's human interpretation/involvement is protected by the power of God, the perfect word, so I'm not worried about any "problems".... THAT is a fact.

Yes, I know Bible is not a Law book but how come it gives laws like

... and if you continue to ignore everyone trying to teach you about Christianity you will forever be asking "how come?". There is a difference between the Old Testament Law and the New Testament.

I would recommend you to see what Islam has to give Women

Oh... I understand what you are doing now.... :sarcastic

 

[Darkdale]

I personally think there is too much talk about "rights" and not enough talk about responsibility. Religion doesn't give people rights - it gives them responsibility and if they uphold that responsibility they are rewarded.

Damn good post! Bravo! :clap

I'm surprised it took this many posts for this point to be raised, but I'm glad that it was.

 

[Fatmop]

This is why Jews and I would assume Christians don't go around stoning people. I personally find the laws to be morally good since all morals come from Hashem, and since Hashem gave us these laws they must be morally good.

Is that why? I assumed that we don't stone people to death anymore because such a punishment is considered too barbaric and wrong-headed. I would be glad to see the history behind capital punishment laid out before me, but I don't expect that America stopped lynching people simply because we ran out of ordained rabbis or priests or judges that would confirm it.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Is that why? I assumed that we don't stone people to death anymore because such a punishment is considered too barbaric and wrong-headed. I would be glad to see the history behind capital punishment laid out before me, but I don't expect that America stopped lynching people simply because we ran out of ordained rabbis or priests or judges that would confirm it.

Is American run by Jews? What Church runs America? Wait... It isn't run by a particular group of Rabbi's or Priests... You're just being silly now. Lynching stopped because there was reason behind it besides hate.

 

[Faint]

Is American run by Jews? What Church runs America? Wait... It isn't run by a particular group of Rabbi's or Priests... You're just being silly now. Lynching stopped because there was reason behind it besides hate.

No, Fatmop is right. We don't practice these things because they are barbaric and unreasonable.

I personally find the laws to be morally good since all morals come from Hashem, and since Hashem gave us these laws they must be morally good.

If you think people should be put to death because they cheat on someone, or if you think it is morally right to force a rape victim to marry her attacker because she did not scream for help (what if she was terrified, in shock, unconcious, gagged, etc.), I would say that you are being pretty damn immoral yourself, or maybe just naive. Do you not understand just how terrifying such a situation would be for a woman--marrying the guy who assulted her? I wonder how you can justify such things? Because they came from Hashem? This just helps to cement the idea that the Bible is detrimental to women's rights.

 

[dan]

Well i am asking the rights like

1.The RIGHT and duty to acquire education, own independent property, to earn money, express her opinion, re-marry after divorce or after becoming widow etc....

Tell about them

Of course you have those rights. Who says you don't?

 

[Deut 13:1]

No, Fatmop is right. We don't practice these things because they are barbaric and unreasonable.

People say abortion is barbaric, death penalty is the barbaric.

If you think people should be put to death because they cheat on someone, or if you think it is morally right to force a rape victim to marry her attacker because she did not scream for help (what if she was terrified, in shock, unconcious, gagged, etc.), I would say that you are being pretty damn immoral yourself, or maybe just naive. Do you not understand just how terrifying such a situation would be for a woman--marrying the guy who assulted her? I wonder how you can justify such things? Because they came from Hashem? This just helps to cement the idea that the Bible is detrimental to women's rights.

Yes, I choose to think it is acceptable. If you're not Jewish, then don't follow it, it's not my problem. If you're Jewish, then you better follow it. Even if you're Jewish and you choose not to follow the law, that's fine, just go someone else. It's the same with American Law, if you don't like it, then move to another country.

Back to the topic, if you are Jewish, then you accept all of Hashem's law's as good INCLUDING the one where Hashem tells us to ONLY administer these judgements through a court of Ordained Rabbi's. Unfortunetly, the romans killed off the direct line from Moses and we won't have more until Elijah returns so we don't break Hashem's law to punish other laws of His.

You're the one that is picking and choosing which Jewish laws you like, not me. You're the one trying to tell a Jew which is moral and not while ignoring the explanation of the given laws. Why don't you read ALL the laws then come back to me, it gets fustrating explaining laws to everyone. Do you know why I will never shake your wife's hand? No you don't, but you will consider me rude for not doing it. I don't sit here and bash Christianity because I don't know it. I'm not going to bash something I don't understand. I would expect the same curtousy from you.

 

[Faint]

People say abortion is barbaric, death penalty is the barbaric.

Yes, I choose to think it is acceptable. If you're not Jewish, then don't follow it, it's not my problem. If you're Jewish, then you better follow it. Even if you're Jewish and you choose not to follow the law, that's fine, just go someone else. It's the same with American Law, if you don't like it, then move to another country.

Back to the topic, if you are Jewish, then you accept all of Hashem's law's as good INCLUDING the one where Hashem tells us to ONLY administer these judgements through a court of Ordained Rabbi's. Unfortunetly, the romans killed off the direct line from Moses and we won't have more until Elijah returns so we don't break Hashem's law to punish other laws of His.

You're the one that is picking and choosing which Jewish laws you like, not me. You're the one trying to tell a Jew which is moral and not while ignoring the explanation of the given laws. Why don't you read ALL the laws then come back to me, it gets fustrating explaining laws to everyone. Do you know why I will never shake your wife's hand? No you don't, but you will consider me rude for not doing it. I don't sit here and bash Christianity because I don't know it. I'm not going to bash something I don't understand. I would expect the same curtousy from you.

I understand it just fine. It is an evil doctrine and clearly does little good by way of advancing (or promoting) women's rights. Hows that for understanding? I'm pretty much done with this thread since none of y'all (jewish or christian) have made a reasonable case that the Bible supports womens rights. The jury says, "we find christianity guilty of misogyny".

Follow whatever you want, but don't try to argue that these things are morally proper when you are taking an attitude that is dangerous to the life and liberty of the human race, particularly females--whatever country any of them live in.

 

[dan]

I understand it just fine. It is an evil doctrine and clearly does little good by way of advancing (or promoting) women's rights. Hows that for understanding? I'm pretty much done with this thread since none of y'all (jewish or christian) have made a reasonable case that the Bible supports womens rights. The jury says, "we find christianity guilty of misogyny".

Follow whatever you want, but don't try to argue that these things are morally proper when you are taking an attitude that is dangerous to the life and liberty of the human race, particularly females--whatever country any of them live in.

So how does a hedonist decide what is moral and immoral? What brand of moral philosophy do you subscribe to?

 

[Deut 13:1]

Follow whatever you want, but don't try to argue that these things are morally proper when you are taking an attitude that is dangerous to the life and liberty of the human race, particularly females--whatever country any of them live in.

Jewish females can leave anytime they want. We don't put a ankle bracelot on them. If they don't want to be Jewish, fine, leave. If they do want to follow Jewish laws, of their own accord, then they better know their responsibilities, like I know mine. I'm out for Shabbas. Shabbat Shalom all!

 

[Fatmop]

So how does a hedonist decide what is moral and immoral? What brand of moral philosophy do you subscribe to?

Quite probably a naturalistic and egocentric philosophy. That's not to say egocentrism is equated with the notion of 'instant gratification' - it's more based on the golden rule. However, your ad hominem attack still entirely fails to address the statement Faint made:
The jury says, "we find christianity guilty of misogyny"

Do you have a reply, or are you just going to sit there and act hypocritically?

 

[dan]

Quite probably a naturalistic and egocentric philosophy. That's not to say egocentrism is equated with the notion of 'instant gratification' - it's more based on the golden rule. However, your ad hominem attack still entirely fails to address the statement Faint made:
The jury says, "we find christianity guilty of misogyny"

Do you have a reply, or are you just going to sit there and act hypocritically?

What jury? By what evidence? My argumentum ad hominem is what juries and trials understand to be questioning the credibility of a witness or an attorney. Definitions must also be cleared up in a trial, and I want to know what this person defines as moral, and why they define it thus. The other problem is that this "jury" seems to have decided on the guilt of the defendant long before this trial, making the whole trial a mockery. If you want to push the trial metaphor then you must answer for it. Your witness.

 

[Fatmop]

This witness is not the only evidence that has been presented against Christianity. May I remind you that no one has provided satisfactory answers to the chauvanism presented in the Bible?

 

[Fatmop]

Also, what women's rights are present in Islam? Should I start a new thread to deal with that? I don't mean to be siding with Muslims on this issue, considering who started the thread...

 

[michel]

I understand it just fine. It is an evil doctrine and clearly does little good by way of advancing (or promoting) women's rights. Hows that for understanding? I'm pretty much done with this thread since none of y'all (jewish or christian) have made a reasonable case that the Bible supports womens rights. The jury says, "we find christianity guilty of misogyny".

Follow whatever you want, but don't try to argue that these things are morally proper when you are taking an attitude that is dangerous to the life and liberty of the human race, particularly females--whatever country any of them live in.

A jury of one? - I think you overate your opinion, my friend.

 

[TashaN]

Also, what women's rights are present in Islam? Should I start a new thread to deal with that? I don't mean to be siding with Muslims on this issue, considering who started the thread...

you don't have to because it's already there and they discussed it before they start a thread about women's rights in christianity and you can find the thread in here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20348

no need to repeat what other people already mentioned but you can add if you want and you can ask questions too.

 

[dan]

This witness is not the only evidence that has been presented against Christianity. May I remind you that no one has provided satisfactory answers to the chauvanism presented in the Bible?

No one has presented any chauvanism to me. Am i wrong?