# Women in Islam & Judaeo-Christian religions



## Artfuldodger (Nov 1, 2013)

Interesting from a sociological study is the difference our Gods place on women in our religion. Islam, Judaism, & Christianity all have patriarchal doctrines.

1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}. The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Qur'an 7:19-25}
2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}
3. The Bible Forbids Women from Speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}. The Qur'an says Women Can argue with the Prophet {58:1}
4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as an Adulteress, while men are not {Matthew 5:31-32}. The Koran does Not have Biblical double standards { Qur'an 30:21}
5. In The Bible, Widows and Sisters do Not Inherit Any Property or Wealth, Only men do{Numbers 27:1-11}The Koran Abolished this male greediness { Qur'an 4:22} and God Protects All.
6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives{I Kings 11:3} In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only under certain situations (with the Wife's permission)and Prefers you Marry Only One Wife{ Qur'an 4:3} The Koran gives the Woman the Right to Choose who to Marry.
7. "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 the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}
One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the woman who was raped? According to the Bible, you have to spend the Rest of Your Life with the man who Raped You.
The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:" It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)".
Would the Christian men Reading this prefer the Women they know to Be Christian or Muslim?
8. The Bible also asks Women to wear veils as in Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}, this lowers the chance of rape, (God Forbid), see statistic link below.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ra...
9. Women were given rights to Vote less than a 100 years ago in the (US), while the Quran (42:38) gave
Women Voting rights almost 1,500 years ago.
10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky. There have been Muslim Women Presidents through out the centuries, but to this date, the oppressive mentality of the men in the Western U.S.A. has stopped any Women from becoming Presidents in predominately Christian countries,while the Muslim countries have voted for and elected Female Presidents.
Here is a list of previous Female Muslim leaders:
Khadija bint Khuwaylid
Aishah bint Abu Bakr
Fatimah bint Muhammad
Barakah
Ramlah bint Abu Sufyan
Rumaysa bint Milhan
Umm Salamah
Asma bint Abu Bakr
Zaynab al-Ghazali
Maryum Jameelah 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110504094422AAJ8ZCU


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 1, 2013)

comments of the famous Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal Saadawi. Her "politically incorrect" statements included : "the most restrictive elements towards women can be found first in Judaism in the Old Testament then in Christianity and then in the Quran"; "all religions are patriarchal because they stem from patriarchal societies"; and "veiling of women is not a specifically Islamic practice but an ancient cultural heritage with analogies in sister religions". The participants could not bear sitting around while their faiths were being equated with Islam. Thus, Dr. Saadawi received a barrage of criticism. "Dr. Saadawi's comments are unacceptable. Her answers reveal a lack of understanding about other people's faiths," declared Bernice Dubois of the World Movement of Mothers. "I must protest" said panellist Alice Shalvi of Israel women's network, "there is no conception of the veil in Judaism." The article attributed these furious protests to the strong tendency in the West to scapegoat Islam for practices that are just as much a part of the West's own cultural heritage. "Christian and Jewish feminists were not going to sit around being discussed in the same category as those wicked Muslims," wrote Gwynne Dyer. 

http://www.twf.org/Library/WomenICJ.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 1, 2013)

It appears that men are the weaker sex in terms of sexuality. It was easier for God to restrict women's sexuality than to control ours. 
Did God make women too beautiful, alluring,  & intriguing? 
It's almost like women must be modest so that we don't lust. If we do it's the women's fault.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 1, 2013)

There are websites dedicated to modest women's wear for Christian women and Apostolic women.  This just shows that our society isn't that different from Islamic culture in that regard. We've just moved away from that way of thinking a little faster than them but the roots of Christian women dressing modestly is part of the history of Christianity.
My own mother wasn't allowed to wear pants or shorts. Sunbathing in provocative swimwear was prohibited. This was just for women. Men could go shirtless. I reckon women are better at controlling their urges.
I've often wondered why the Apostolic & Mennonite women dress differently than most women in American society but the men in those faiths don't.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 3, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting from a sociological study is the difference our Gods place on women in our religion. Islam, Judaism, & Christianity all have patriarchal doctrines.
> 
> 1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}. The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Qur'an 7:19-25}
> 2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}
> ...




Yeah, if you can get past the female genital mutilation, women really have it made in Islam.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 3, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> 9. Women were given rights to Vote less than a 100 years ago in the (US), while the Quran (42:38) gave
> Women Voting rights almost 1,500 years ago.



I guess someone forgot to tell the Kuwaitis:

_"Kuwaiti women gained the right to vote and stand for political office in 2005 after years of campaigning and a push by senior ruling family members."_

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...ing-kuwait-idUSBRE9A208O20131103?feedType=RSS




Artfuldodger said:


> 10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky.



I guess someone forgot to tell the Saudis, too.  Women there:

_" ... are not allowed to travel abroad, open a bank account or work without permission from a male relative."_


Who knew that the Religion of Peace was also the Religion of Women?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Nov 3, 2013)

Ooch!  This is going to really burn the butts of some the the born again bible thumpers in here!


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 3, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> comments of the famous Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal Saadawi. Her "politically incorrect" statements included : "the most restrictive elements towards women can be found first in Judaism in the Old Testament then in Christianity and then in the Quran"; "all religions are patriarchal because they stem from patriarchal societies"; and "veiling of women is not a specifically Islamic practice but an ancient cultural heritage with analogies in sister religions". The participants could not bear sitting around while their faiths were being equated with Islam. Thus, Dr. Saadawi received a barrage of criticism. "Dr. Saadawi's comments are unacceptable. Her answers reveal a lack of understanding about other people's faiths," declared Bernice Dubois of the World Movement of Mothers. "I must protest" said panellist Alice Shalvi of Israel women's network, "there is no conception of the veil in Judaism." The article attributed these furious protests to the strong tendency in the West to scapegoat Islam for practices that are just as much a part of the West's own cultural heritage. "Christian and Jewish feminists were not going to sit around being discussed in the same category as those wicked Muslims," wrote Gwynne Dyer.
> 
> http://www.twf.org/Library/WomenICJ.html



It's hard to pick the funniest line out if this article, but I'm gonna go with this one:



> It is bewildering why the religion that had revolutionized the status of women is being singled out and denigrated as so repressive of women.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 3, 2013)

Timeline in Muslim countries  allowing women to vote;

    1918 - Azerbaijan Democratic Republic
    1920 - Albania[1]
    1921 - Azerbaijan[1]
    1924 - Tajikistan,[1] Kazakhstan[1]
    1927 - Turkmenistan[1]
    1930 - Turkey[1]
    1932 - Maldives[1]
    1938 - Uzbekistan[1]
    1945 - Bosnia, Indonesia,[1] Senegal[1]
    1946 - British Palestine[1]
    1947-(Since Independence) - Pakistan[1]
    1948 - Niger[1]
    1949-1953 - Syria[1]
    1952 - Lebanon[1] (An educational requirement was dropped in 1957).[2]
    1956 - Comoros,[1] Egypt,[1] Mali,[1] Mauritania,[1] Somalia[1]
    1957 - Malaysia[1][3]
    1959 - Tunisia[4]
    1960 - Gambia[1]
    1961 - Sierra Leone[1]
    1962 - Algeria[1][3]
    1963 - Iran,[1][3] Morocco[1][3]
    1964 - Libya,[3] Sudan[1]
    1965 - Afghanistan[1][5]
    1970 - Yemen[1]
    1972 - Bangladesh[1][3]
    1973 - Bahrain[4]
    1974 - Jordan[1][3]
    1978 - Nigeria
    1980 - Iraq[4]
    1985[6] - Kuwait (female suffrage later removed, re-granted in 2005)
    1993[3]-1994[1] - Kazakhstan
    1994 - Oman[7]
    1999 - Qatar[8]
    2006 - United Arab Emirates[9]
    2015 - Saudi Arabia[10][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_women's_suffrage_in_majority-Muslim_countries


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 3, 2013)

I wasn't trying to show the difference between women's rights in the three religions as much as the difference between women & men.
In the three religions I mentioned there are differences between men and women's rights, functions, & requirements. 
I'm not saying it's wrong, just interesting. Especially since it is a connecting factor of many religions. If it was just a Christian element it would be more understandable.
On a side note the conditions of women in Arabia before Islam were supposedly worse. Genital mutilation isn't a Muslim practice although some do perform this practice.
FGM is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, and animists in 28 countries in Africa, a few in the Middle East, as well as some immigrant communities in North America, Europe and Australia. According to the WHO, nearly half of FGM cases occur in Egypt and Ethiopia. 
Coptic Christians live in Egypt.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 4, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Coptic Christians live in Egypt.



... and are persecuted endlessly by the Muslim majority:

_Not only are the churches, monasteries, and institutions of Egypt's Christians under attack by the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters-nearly 100 now have been torched, destroyed, ransacked, etc.-but Christians themselves are under attack all throughout Egypt, with practically zero coverage in Western media._

http://www.christianpost.com/news/coptic-christians-killed-for-ransom-in-egypt-103730/


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 4, 2013)

Centerpin,

Do you have any Muslims in your family?  Do you have any good friends that are Muslims?  I have some idiot Fundamentalist Christians in my family.  Should I judge all Christians by their beliefs?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2013)

Why do Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have differences between men and women's rights, functions, & requirements? Same God, different beliefs later on? Do other world religions other than from the God of Abraham have differences between men & women?  Are there any religions where women have the same rights or better rights than men?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2013)

Does it appear that many of the dress code requirements for women and modesty in general for women are because men can't control their sexual urges as well as women can? I don't see much of a difference between how I dress and my male Pentecostal coworkers. I do see a big difference between how my wife dresses compared to the Pentecostal wives. Hair, clothing, & jewelry come to mind. I call on them because they tend to be more traditional or Biblical in their dress code.
The history of how women dressed in the Middle East before, during, and after Jesus was among us as a human, could be interesting.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2013)

I was just comparing my childhood with my parents concerning dress.
Girls didn't wear pants to school when I was in Elementary & Jr High.
My Mom was never allowed to wear pants or shorts growing up.
In her day men had short hair and women had long hair. When I was in High School in the seventies boys had long hair and girls had short skirts. Even Christian girls wore very short skirt way above their knees. It would be frowned upon today. 
I guess some of this is related to Religion and some is related to Society. Sometimes they overlap to various religions.  
I do hope it is from God and not man.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger,

I'm excited for you as you go deeper down the rabbit hole.  I hope you find answers that satisfy you and that ring of truth.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 5, 2013)

Do you have any Muslims in your family?  No.

Do you have any good friends that are Muslims?  No.

I have some idiot Fundamentalist Christians in my family.  Should I judge all Christians by their beliefs?  No.


----------



## Mako22 (Nov 6, 2013)

"1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners"

The above statement is not true but is a classic example of the complete biblical ignorance that is rampant on this site.


----------



## HawgJawl (Nov 6, 2013)

You could add the kidnapping of young virgin girls that was ordered by God in Numbers 31:15-18 and Judges 21:10.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 21, 2013)

This thread makes a mockery of the truth.  Unbelievable.  Simply unbelievable.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This thread makes a mockery of the truth.  Unbelievable.  Simply unbelievable.



How so? I really just wanted to explore the differences between men and women in the various religions more than perceptions between the three.
Why is it a mockery of the truth? I would like to explore the truthful reason for the differences. In your opinion why does  God want man to be the head of the woman? Why can't women be preachers? Stuff like that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 22, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> How so? I really just wanted to explore the differences between men and women in the various religions more than perceptions between the three.
> Why is it a mockery of the truth? I would like to explore the truthful reason for the differences. In your opinion why does  God want man to be the head of the woman? Why can't women be preachers? Stuff like that.



Well if you want to explore the truthful reasons for the difference, why don't  you begin by starting with the actual truth of what is actually being implied by your OP.
Like I said, it's a mockery.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 22, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wasn't trying to show the difference between women's rights in the three religions as much as the difference between women & men.



Funny, I don't get this from the title of the thread nor the OP.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 22, 2013)

Woman's purpose more than rights. Maybe my references weren't too good either.
I would appreciate better references that maybe aren't as biased.
Even from a sociological viewpoint as well as religious.

I would still like to see more viewpoints; opposing, positive, or negative.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Dec 26, 2013)

I stopped for supper on Christmas night at a restaurant.
I thought I'd have to end up at a Chinese place, but I happened to spot some kind of Muslim restaurant instead. I'm not sure if the restaurant is of the Middle East / Arab type, or the Pakistan/ Iran/Afghan type.  But none of the women there wore normal Western clothing (though some of the men did).  Some of the women wore dresses that showed their ankles and hands and faces, but others were totally covered except a slit for their eyes (well, and their hands when they  came out from under those robes).  

The food was good.  I haven't had lamb in a while.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 26, 2013)

I can say this i'm not that old so the new ways of things came in. I love my wife to the point of no return. I let her walk and do whatever makes her heart happy. With most women now they see no point in having a man around. they believe that it can all be done by themselves. they don't have to cook,clean, or even worry with it as long as they work. We're equal in their eyes, they should make as much money as i do, etc... this is a complicated subject by the way. me an my wife confer on it not in judgement but trying to figure out this confused world... Okay now if i let her make the decisions on whats right and wrong then often she gets carried away and wants to start walking on me to gain her place give them an inch and take a mile.. this becomes a problem.. i have to put my foot down or show my hind end till she comes around.. She doesn't cut wood and load it, she doesn't crawl under the house and fix the water, my son will walk on her like a sidewalk until i straighten him out, i built our house with my hands she did paint. so where do we stand.. if she doesn't listen to me or have a higher respect for what i say. then if it  comes down to life or death she could use her own ways to make her own judgement to doom our whole family..  i come to the conclusion theirs a reason and a purpose of why the bible puts it out their like it does.. is it no better if you already know your purpose as a man? is it not better that you know your purpose as a woman? it makes sense thats why.. if your both great providers then more than likely your marriage works cause you don't see each other but yet these are the ones who question our moral fiber that holds our familys together.

i believe its difference in being a man or being a boy or a toy.. ive seen households where the women run it and it leads to alot of confused non sense conversation between the men that visit.. its okay if she wants to leave and go do her own house then do it.. if she wants me to leave i'll leave no fuss.. have it all i'm gone.. i'm not playing games here and i feel sorry for those that play games with so much to lose.. either i'm the ruler of the house or she is.. if she thinks she is then do it.. i'm not needed here. i walk the world alone.. if i'm the ruler then listen to what i say, i'm not mean or nothing, she just needs to be a woman and correct me when i'm wrong and i've gotta be man and admit when i'm wrong.. {problem now is no one will admit their wrong: i'll hope i always admit my mistakes and i hope she does..


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 26, 2013)

i feel i need to explain further,, i can see their side of things that they feel oppressed by a ruler and it rough being a woman..

feel my pain,, and see my side of being a man, i always feel oppressed by a ruler to. but mine is the ultimate ruler.. i don't get to just run all over doing what i want.. why because it leads me to a bad place.. 

its no difference in being born a man than being born a woman.. we're in this together.. know your role play your part.. in the work place it gets really complicated and the rules change.. but at home the rules are already given to us.. for the workplace we gotta compromise..

alot of me get in complicated and don't wanna help her with housework cause they feel its not their place, but does she not help you.. why wouldn't you help your wife out and make her day every now and then?
she takes care of you when your sick..
where my problem lays is when your out working all day and shes playing on the internet or whatever and now i have to fix my own food and take care of myself.. now why am i solely relying on myself for this? she its a fine line... i can do the same if i'm laying around an not helping her..

i'm just as confused all i want is to just go work at daylight and return in the dark.. the world has gaves us to much time to get lost in our own ways..


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2013)

From someone's blog:
The more we talked, the more we touched on "issues of commonality", such as head covering, modesty, distinction between males and females, and having people say hurtful things to you because they just don't get it. We also discussed a few general differences between the "big three" faiths, including the fact that Jewish women can appear to be uncovered because there is that allowance for wigs as a hair covering.

I found this article when I came home, and of course, thought "what a coincidence". The author points out just a few general similarities between the Muslima and the typical Orthodox Christian woman, including the origins of our modest dress and head coverings, and women in the public sphere. She writes: 

Protocol for clothing, particularly in Islam, has become a symbol for what many outside these traditions see as a repression of women’s rights. At the same time, many women in both Islam and Orthodox Christianity would claim that the hijab (for Muslims) and the veil (for Orthodox women) are, in fact, representative of their spiritual freedom.
Isn't that what we headcovering women have been saying? That for us all, it is a spiritual freedom, and an individual choice.

http://thoseheadcoverings.blogspot.com/2013/05/orthodox-christian-women-vs-muslim-women.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2013)

The link I quoted in post #2 is from a Muslim woman trying to defend her religion as far as how they treat women in Islam or Muslim Countries.
From this woman:
What intrigued me the most about the Montreal conference was one question: Were the statements made by Saadawi, or any of her critics, factual ? In other words, do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions ? Do Judaism and Christianity , truly, offer women a better treatment than Islam does? What is the Truth? 

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one's utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Quran has instructed Muslims to say the truth even if those who are very close to them do not like it:

http://www.twf.org/Library/WomenICJ.html

I feel she is trying to be non-biased as possible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2013)

I am at least willing to read her side even if I don't agree. Look at the strides women have made in Christian countries. Maybe we are ahead of Islam and Judaism in that respect. Maybe we shouldn't be if it takes us from what the Word of God says. In many ways Christians are willing to change when perhaps they shouldn't. We are willing to become more secular when other religions aren't. There are sects & denominations within Christianity that don't believe change is always good. 

I feel studies in this respect can lead us to better understand our fellow men. Jefferson studied the Koran when we were fighting on the Barbary coast. He wanted to learn everything he could about his enemy.

The Muslim woman goes on to say:
To label the status of women in the Muslim world today as "Islamic" is as far from the truth as labelling the position of women in the West today as "Judaeo-Christian". With this understanding in mind, Muslims and non-Muslims should start a process of communication and dialogue in order to remove all misconceptions, suspicions, and fears. A peaceful future for the human family necessitates such a dialogue.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2013)

I've been in many discussions where we were encouraged to show our differences. Then we discussed those differences and why we had them. The discussions were not to divide us but to help us learn to live with our differences. Sometimes when we really get to know someone different, we find out they really aren't that different from us.
I am really into Sociology and enjoy reading about people's differences including Religion. I have no secret agenda in this discussion. I'm definitely not trying to make a mockery of the truth or Truth. I wish all to see the "Light."
Participation isn't mandatory.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 27, 2013)

your right i like that spiritual freedom they we're receiving.. i've been lost and still can get lost but for now he's showed me my path.. my path in my family comes down to either i lead us the way the bible says or theirs no point in even considering heaven at all or any of Gods good deeds.. Now on the other hand if i go biblical on her and she turns to the world well i have too stick to my bible and what it says.. Things of this world shouldn't concern me if i'm wanting my spot in heaven.  So i would give her the world and everything but my personal belongings that i use to kill food with, wear, or i use to make money with.. she gets everything else.. Cause if you offer everything to them and with what the world is saying about women s  rights let them choose.. do you want the world and all the things in it or do you wanna stick on this long hard road as pilgrims and make it to a better place.. I told mine i'd be waiting at the gate for her and then we'd wait on our son.. If she chooses the world then she didn't truly have God in her heart and i would have been waiting for eternity, then my sons path would have changed and i might not get to see him for eternity... the world has many answers but most of them are selfish answers about them..


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 29, 2013)

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 30, 2013)

That a good verse clarified for me as saying, no matter who they are be slave,Atheist,Christian,Muslim,Gay etc. we're all one and have our place with Jesus. That is true too if you think about all the different  Religions that there is in America we're still Americans and are bound by the Laws of the land, and to the leaders of the Country as one whole body as an example. I would think it would still be the same under Gods Law because we're still all his people and bound to his Laws which should be first in our lives. to each their own good things. let me know if i'm off..


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 1, 2014)

Never read so many misinterpretation garbage on the OP in my life, as someone who lived in the middle east for 40 years , all I have to say this is all - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 1, 2014)

In 1995 Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem wrote an essay entitled Women in Islam versus Women in the Judeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth & The Reality (see, e.g., http://www.islam101.com/religions/women3.html). Posted on many Islamic websites, it one of the most popular pro-Islamic works on the subject of women. It is an example of the typical Muslim apologetic against Christianity, in that he overstates, misrepresents or otherwise asserts positions that are simply not true. He begins by claiming that the narrative about Eve puts women in a bad light, one they do not recover from until the advent of Islam. From there, he naturally concludes that daughters are seen as evil in Scripture and Biblical legislation does not give any rights to women whatsoever. With such a view of Christianity (and Judaism), it is little wonder that he sees Islam as the real liberator of women. But it is a straw man that he has built, one that collapses on further scrutiny. For example, contrary to his claim, Eve is not presented in the Bible as the sole reason for the introduction of sin. It is rather the man, Adam, who is frequently referred to as the human agent allowing sin to enter the world.

Many other arguments are offered by Abdel Azeem to persuade the reader to see the "real" Christianity, which is corrupted, and the "real" Islam, which is egalitarian. 

Finally, his last line reads "something is right about Islam and it is time to find that out" but should be rewritten to capture the essence of his thesis: "something is wrong with Christianity, so accept Islam"! Unfortunately, that is the spirit of his essay. It is full of innuendo, vitriol and unsubstantiated accusation. My hope is that I have counter-balanced his enmity and provided a more honest look at how both religions have defined and delivered the female into the modern world.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azeem/myths.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 1, 2014)

There has been a need to answer many of the challenges Muslims posit concerning the way we treat women in Christianity, compared to the example in Islam. To aid us in this endeavour, we have set about just such a task, using as our model, a paper written by Sherif Muhammad (abbreviated as SM in the following), which challenges many of our precepts concerning women. While this paper by SM will be used as a model, our responses will include auxiliary challenges and responses to aid the reader in better assessing the wider debate.

The stated aims of SM concerning this issue are laudable, to compare the position of women in the three religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) without attempting to denigrate the traditions they do not share. However, one is forced to question SM’s motives as he tends to repeat a number of errors in his assessment, seven to be exact…which include:

    He ignores virtually all positive statements about women from the Bible, thus painting an extremely biased and inaccurate perspective of Biblical teaching on women.
    He often either ignores or glosses over troublesome, negative texts towards women, in the Qur'an and the hadith.
    Conversely, despite his observations that many people who claim to practice a religion are ignorant or bound by culture, and his insistence that his concern is, mainly, the position of women in the three religions as it appears in their original sources, not as practised by their millions of followers in the world today, he is, nonetheless, happy to point to any negative examples involving modern Christians or Jews.
    Yet, ironically, he down-plays many of the more serious oppressions in modern Muslim societies.
    SM often demonstrates an extremely selective use of both Biblical and Qur'anic texts and Christian and Muslim traditions.
    He also demonstrates a poor understanding of Christian hermeneutics, specifically the purpose of and relationship between the Old and New Covenants [Testaments].
    His use of the church fathers and of apocryphal Christian writings are inappropriate, as he does not understand the nature of the authority that such sources have in Christian thought.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azeem/women_response.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 1, 2014)

A Response to Sherif Abdel Azeem's
Eve's Fault  and  Eve's Legacy
by Anthony Wales

This article is written in response to the widely used Muslim publication, Women In Islam Versus Women In The Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth And The Reality, by Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem. At this time, it only answers to the first couple of sections of the Muslim booklet, titled "Eve's Fault" and "Eve's Legacy". Sherif Abdel Azeem's words are in blue and Anthony Wales' words are in black.

    Eve's Fault?

    The three religions agree on one basic fact: Both women and men are created by God, the Creator of the whole universe. However, disagreement starts soon after the creation of the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. The Judaeo-Christian conception of the creation of Adam and Eve is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. The serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, he put all the blame on Eve, "The woman you put here with me --she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it." Consequently, God said to Eve:

    "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

    To Adam He said:

    "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree... Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life..."

    The Islamic conception of the first creation is found in several places in the Quran, for example:

    "O Adam dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?' They said: 'Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost'" (7:19-23).

    A careful look into the two accounts of the story of the Creation reveals some essential differences. The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.

The Bible does not place all the blame on Eve and no blame on Adam. The Bible merely records Adam trying to put all the blame on Eve. He also tries to blame God when he says to him, "the woman you put here with me" (3:12). These statements do not mean that God and Eve are to blame and Adam is innocent. Scripture is merely telling us what Adam did after he committed the first sin. It is also encouraging us to recognise that we often blame other people and things for our sins, and must learn to take responsibility for our failings.

Adam, Eve and the snake (an implicit reference to the devil, see Revelation 12:9) are all to blame. God knows this, and he therefore judges them fairly and gives them all punishments for their sins. At the same time, God shows mercy to Adam and Eve (and all people). He clothes Adam and Eve, and makes them mortal so that they can't keep sinning forever (3:21-24). According to Christian interpretation, God also promises to send a Redeemer in chapter 3, verse 15 - a Redeemer who will crush Satan and bring human beings eternal life.

Christianity does not teach that God punishes us for the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather, it says that we are all affected by their sin. This is because sin is an infinite offence against God and has a great impact on us and on the world. To claim that the sin of Adam and Eve has no impact on us shows, in my opinion, a failure to recognise the reality of sin. Also, forgiveness restores friendship with God but it does not remove the effects of sin (such as increased attraction to sin, and the transmission of original sin).

http://www.answering-islam.org/Wales/eve.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2014)

The Role of the Christian Women in the Family, Church and Society
by Rev Larry D. Ellis
Just as my brothers and sisters with whom I have now come to disagree, I recognize the social pressure to accept the values of our progressive thinking on equal pay for equal work, education and experience and legal equality in many areas of our society for both sexes. However, the strength of these pressures pale when compared to being faithful to what I believe is God's plan for our lives together as revealed in Holy Scripture. There are those who are fueled by great senses of injustice against women both in and out of the church.

There is no such authoritarian meaning present in the word used here in the text. The Greek word actually used here by Paul was kephale. This also can mean the head of the body but not in the sense of boss. It was also used to mean "foremost" in terms of position (as a cornerstone in a foundation or capstone over a door. It was never used to mean leader, boss, chief or ruler. Kephale is also a military term. It means one who leads, but not in the sense of director, General or Captain or someone who orders the troops from a safe distance. Its meaning is quite the opposite. A kephale was the one who is out front in the sense of the soldiers who are at the front lines of battle or even out doing reconnaissance gathering information to bring back to the troops in order to make certain the mission can be accomplished. In these images there actually is no intention of the husband being the one who is in primary authority. The husband is called to the front lines in support and protection of his wife.

These two words in Greek can both be translated head in English. One means "boss" and the other means "physical head" or "the first soldier into battle". Unfortunately, an English-speaking person who reads that the husband is the head of the wife will infer that the husband is to rule over the wife. This is what Aristotle taught and most Hellenized people thought. It was certainly the cultural practice of the day. The husband was an arche to his wife, head of the household and ruler over all his family. Paul deliberately went against the culture and religious tradition and used a very different word. Sadly, people who rely only on an English translation cannot know this due to the present connotation of the word head.

The author believes that a fundamental consequence of Jesus' earthly ministry here is to elevate womanhood to equal status with manhood in the family, church and society. Jesus initiated the liberation of women from the cultural strongholds that perpetuated self-deprecating mindset in the women of the day. The males in society ran the Jewish, Greek and Roman secular and sacred societies. Women seldom if ever challenged this structure. They had no individual or collective economic, political or social power. Many men both then and now have generally maintained the status-quo, enjoying self-indulgence while their wives essentially maintain two full-time jobs and generally work more hours than do most men. The author believes that women do not simply have equal value with men but different roles in the family and church. The roles or the ministry to which one is called is determined by God's call to us individually, not one's gender.

The husband is not accountable to God for the spirituality of his wife. "Every person will give account of himself to God." (Romans 14:12) The husband is not called to pontificate anything within the family. Nowhere in scripture is he called to be the intermediary between his wife and God or his wife and anyone else. He is never instructed to insist that she blindly go along with his opinions or to embrace his convictions without examination. It is ironic that the very passage where Paul teaches the early church to bring unity and mutuality into marriage relationships is widely used to denounce it and perpetuate the cultural and religious tradition of a patriarchy.

http://worshipandchurchmusic.com/role_of_christian_women.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2014)

1 Corinthians 11:3
But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Matthew Henry:
We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels.

Pulpit Commentary:
The headship of Christ is stated in Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15; and its application to the superiority of man is laid down also in Ephesians 5:23. The subordinate position of the woman is also stated in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 3:1, 5, 6, etc. This, however, is merely an ordinance of earthly application. In the spiritual realm "there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). The head of the woman is the man. In Christ the distinctions of the sexes are done away.

Gill's Exposition:
And the head of the woman is the man, The man is first in order in being, was first formed, and the woman out of him, who was made for him, and not he for the woman, and therefore must be head and chief; as he is also with respect to his superior gifts and excellencies, as strength of body, and endowments of mind, whence the woman is called the weaker vessel; likewise with regard to pre-eminence or government, the man is the head; and as Christ is the head of the church, and the church is subject to him, so the husband is the head of the wife, and she is to be subject to him in everything natural, civil, and religious. Moreover, the man is the head of the woman to provide and care for her, to nourish and cherish her, and to protect and defend her against all insults and injuries. 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Ga 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.

the head—an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public.

of every man … Christ—(Eph 5:23).

of … woman … man—(1Co 11:8; Ge 3:16; 1Ti 2:11, 12; 1Pe 3:1, 5, 6).

head of Christ is God—(1Co 3:23; 15:27, 28; Lu 3:22, 38; Joh 14:28; 20:17; Eph 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [Chrysostom]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171].


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 4, 2014)

In Reality Islam is the worse religion in the world concerning Women , saw it everyday.
Women are considered personal property in Islam , they have no rights next to a man or even a male slave.
They must submissive to males or die ,if a muslim woman is raped in Islam it is the woman's fault not the rapist and she will be executed , either by her father of brothers or the law. She must walk behind a man never in front or by his side . Anyone who believes all that garbage about women in Islam having any rights or having a good life.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2014)

Lowjack said:


> In Reality Islam is the worse religion in the world concerning Women , saw it everyday.
> Women are considered personal property in Islam , they have no rights next to a man or even a male slave.
> They must submissive to males or die ,if a muslim woman is raped in Islam it is the woman's fault not the rapist and she will be executed , either by her father of brothers or the law. She must walk behind a man never in front or by his side . Anyone who believes all that garbage about women in Islam having any rights or having a good life.



Has this type of submissiveness to males ever been a part of Christianity or Judaism? Did Jesus dying on the cross remove this veil from women?
Any comments on 1 Corinthians 11:3 or other New Testament verses regarding women's roles?
But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Thanks for responding as one who has been in the Middle East. I can only use my parents stories of women in America and their churches as examples. We in America have made great strides in equality among women which I see as a good thing. Somehow though I must balance my feelings with my Biblical beliefs.
What about women in Judaism? Is it closer to Christianity or Islam?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2014)

We in America have made great strides in giving women equal rights. Not so in the Middle East. 
From a secular standpoint this is wonderful. What about from a Christian or biblical viewpoint?
Let's just look at the various Christian sects in our own country. Have the Mormons, Amish, and Pentecostals stayed closer to the correct Christian values in regarding women and other denominations have ventured farther away trying to appease the secular community?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2014)

Lowjack said:


> In Reality Islam is the worse religion in the world concerning Women , saw it everyday.
> Women are considered personal property in Islam , they have no rights next to a man or even a male slave.
> They must submissive to males or die ,if a muslim woman is raped in Islam it is the woman's fault not the rapist and she will be executed , either by her father of brothers or the law. She must walk behind a man never in front or by his side . Anyone who believes all that garbage about women in Islam having any rights or having a good life.



One thing you mentioned and I touched on earlier is if a woman is raped, it's her fault. In Christianity we don't go that far but we do tend to place more force on what women wear vs what men wear. It's almost like men can't control their sexual lust so women are to dress accordingly. We tend to blame women for acting provocative as in inducing rape by their actions or clothing. 
We tend to believe the girl should stop the sexually advances of the boy in the dating world. We place more pressure on the women than on the men to stop us as if we are the weaker sex in sexual sins.


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> One thing you mentioned and I touched on earlier is if a woman is raped, it's her fault. In Christianity we don't go that far but we do tend to place more force on what women wear vs what men wear. It's almost like men can't control their sexual lust so women are to dress accordingly. We tend to blame women for acting provocative as in inducing rape by their actions or clothing.
> We tend to believe the girl should stop the sexually advances of the boy in the dating world. We place more pressure on the women than on the men to stop us as if we are the weaker sex in sexual sins.



In Islam is totally different they don't assume the woman might be guilty , they are guilty unto death , both by family rights and Shariah Law , they will be beheaded,
We must remember that the first Believers were Jews so the women went to synagogues were the women and the men sat separated sections , this was part of the law of moses , but the Jews never treated their women as property , a Jew who beat his wife was prosecuted and if he killed her he had to make restitution and had to abandon that town and family , no so with muslim men.
The jewish wife was treated as a queen of her household and respected and loved.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2014)

Lowjack said:


> In Islam is totally different they don't assume the woman might be guilty , they are guilty unto death , both by family rights and Shariah Law , they will be beheaded,
> We must remember that the first Believers were Jews so the women went to synagogues were the women and the men sat separated sections , this was part of the law of moses , but the Jews never treated their women as property , a Jew who beat his wife was prosecuted and if he killed her he had to make restitution and had to abandon that town and family , no so with muslim men.
> The jewish wife was treated as a queen of her household and respected and loved.



Is that the view of the Koran or regional cultural practices?
I've read excerpts on the treatment of women from the Koran and it appears to have verses for and against the mistreatment of women. 
We have female Muslims in the US who don't feel oppressed. I've read where some of the women in the middle east don't feel oppressed. They just see their lifestyle as worship, likewise Pentecostal women don't feel anymore oppressed that the average American girl.
I've always wondered how people who oppress feel about women or blacks(years ago) in Heaven? In other words, do they see them as have a different soul or spirit?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 14, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Centerpin,
> 
> Do you have any Muslims in your family?  Do you have any good friends that are Muslims?  I have some idiot Fundamentalist Christians in my family.  Should I judge all Christians by their beliefs?



You don't have any idiot muslims in your family? Just idiot Christians?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 14, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Has this type of submissiveness to males ever been a part of Christianity or Judaism? Did Jesus dying on the cross remove this veil from women?
> Any comments on 1 Corinthians 11:3 or other New Testament verses regarding women's roles?
> But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
> 
> ...



If you are free in Christ you are free indeed.....you don't have to check the male or the female box to apply either.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> You don't have any idiot muslims in your family? Just idiot Christians?



No. The Muslims in my family are not religious and therefore not idiots.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 15, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> If you are free in Christ you are free indeed.....you don't have to check the male or the female box to apply either.


 
Amen!

Welcome back, great to see ya 'round these parts


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 21, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> No. The Muslims in my family are not religious and therefore not idiots.



Well that's good. They are not religious? Why are they called Muslims? Muslim is a religion....but whatever. Perhaps they are just nonpracticing muslims. Born into the religion but not religious. Makes sense to me. So you could say they are Arabic, South Africans, Iraqi, but not muslims because that is a religion.  Miscombobulated  crapola


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 21, 2014)

Lowjack said:


> In Reality Islam is the worse religion in the world concerning Women , saw it everyday.
> Women are considered personal property in Islam , they have no rights next to a man or even a male slave.
> They must submissive to males or die ,if a muslim woman is raped in Islam it is the woman's fault not the rapist and she will be executed , either by her father of brothers or the law. She must walk behind a man never in front or by his side . Anyone who believes all that garbage about women in Islam having any rights or having a good life.



Maybe if I was a good Muslim woman, I'd receive 17 male virgins as my reward......uh no thanks....LOL.


----------



## Denton (Jan 22, 2014)

Lowjack and Artfuldodger seem to be coming from opposite sides of history. Artful is discussing the text of the quran while lowjack is describing current practices.  It appears that in the thousand years between the two viewpoints the underlying culture, male dominance, and biased interpretation have fostered a very different outcome in some muslim groups as described in the quran.  

Western Christian history also has its male dominated episodes as well, the effects of which we are still feeling today.  

There are so many factors other than the religion itself that determine the gender roles in a society that we cannot simply look at the religion alone and judge it the cause of inequalities or indecencies.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 22, 2014)

Denton said:


> Lowjack and Artfuldodger seem to be coming from opposite sides of history. Artful is discussing the text of the quran while lowjack is describing current practices.  It appears that in the thousand years between the two viewpoints the underlying culture, male dominance, and biased interpretation have fostered a very different outcome in some muslim groups as described in the quran.
> 
> Western Christian history also has its male dominated episodes as well, the effects of which we are still feeling today.
> 
> There are so many factors other than the religion itself that determine the gender roles in a society that we cannot simply look at the religion alone and judge it the cause of inequalities or indecencies.



Those are some good points. I was trying to see all things that contributed to the difference between men and women and their genders roles in society.
I would have to start with looking at religion because this is is where it begins. In Christianity God made Adam first and then made Eve as a help mate.  
For some reason God thought it best in his plan to have man as the head over woman. I would like some ideas on why God did this? 
Christianity isn't the only religion where men are the head. Why would a different God also do this? Especially if this different God doesn't even exist.
Another line of my thoughts was, and this could be more social, is the difference in how Christian countries have changed compared to Muslim countries in women's roles.  Christian, Muslim, and Judiasm countries stated out very similar in women's roles in thier prospective societies. Three different religions with roots to the God of Abraham so you would think they would have the same basic beliefs in the roles of women.
Again I'm not trying to imply anything, just learn by exploring. I took Sociology in High School and it kinda opened my eyes to all of the worlds different countries, societies, and religions. We all are very similar in many ways and we are all different in many ways as we all seek basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter.
I believe it is OK to study sociology just as it is OK to study science without loosing touch with Christianity.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 22, 2014)

One thing I find interesting and mentioned earlier is the differences in women's roles & dress within Christian denominatons and how this has changed over the years. Women wearing pants to church and not covering their heads anymore is interesting. Women wearing their hair short. Women adorning their bodies with jewelery.
True men's clothing and adornments have also changed but is there a different standard for women than men from God?  In other words is it Biblical? Why would it be in God's plan for women to dress and act differently from men?


----------



## Denton (Jan 22, 2014)

The roles of women and men 2000 years ago varied from tribe to tribe.  Some tribes, like the Iroquois, placed women in strong leadership roles alongside the men.  The Abrahamic tribes, or at least the writers of the Torah specifically, apparently held a different opinion on the role of a woman.  

At this point we cannot know what drove that decision.  What we should keep in mind is that the bible was not written in isolation but collected from verbal histories gathered from disparate origins. The Abrahamic god was in direct competition with other gods, such as Ba'al. Conflict does more to cement beliefs than just about anything and a more militaristic faith is a more male dominated faith.  That faith is under pressure to protect tradition, to protect manhood, and to protect his women.  

We see this today, Ultra-conservative christians see themselves as under attack every day and are very firm in their beliefs of the traditional place of a wife. The middle east and africa have seen more years of war than of peace in the last 100 years.  That kind of pressure pushes the militant form of islam to the fore and unfortunately for their women, that kind of society is male dominated to the point that to get ahead, men must be more manly then their peers.  This results in firm roles for women, less rights for women (example, rape), and severe penalties for anything not manly (homosexuality).  

The west's many years of peace (punctuated by horrible wars to be sure but over all peace) have allowed women to step forward and lead in non-militaristic settings, and thus raising the leadership starting point for their daughters each time until we are nearly (arguably not yet) equal. 

Throughout history, women have been held back in only one regard, physical strength.  Even in prehistoric times women could often out gather what the men could provide by hunting. Without war, their leadership potential can be realized at the same time that men can be relaxed enough to recognize their abilities.  

So, the Old Testament was written during conflict and reflects that in its severe militarism.  The new testament was a product of comparatively peaceful roman times and reflects that in its kindness.  I am less familiar with the societal security of Muhammad's time although as a trader, he seems to also have seen more peace than war.  But his followers in the Middle East have seen a lot of war (in the last 100 years) and the teachings/interpretations of their Mullah's reflect the militaristic nature of their times.  

If you want a version of Islam that is mostly peaceful and a driver of science, look into the period of Islamic control of Spain, Jerusalem before the Crusades, or of old Cairo.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 3, 2014)

1. A wife is a man’s property:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.- Exodus 20:17
2. Daughters can be bought and sold:

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.- Exodus 21:7
3. A raped daughter can be sold to her rapist:

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. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
4. Collecting wives and sex slaves is a sign of status:

He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 1 Kings 11:3
5. Used brides deserve death:

If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
6. Women, but only virgins, are to be taken as spoils of war:

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. Numbers 31:17-18
7. Menstruating women are spiritually unclean:

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water....

...The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge. You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them. Leviticus 15: 19-31
8. A woman is twice as unclean after giving birth to a girl as to a boy:

A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.

If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. Leviticus 12: 1-8
9. A woman’s promise is binding only if her father or husband agrees:

When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said. When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand.

But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her....

...A woman’s vow is meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. Numbers 30:1-16
10. Women should be seen and not heard:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
11. Wives should submit to their husband’s instructions and desires:

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
12. In case you missed that submission thing...:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24.
13. More submission:

and childbearing as a form of atonement: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2: 11-15
14. Women were created for men:

For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.1 Corinthians 11:2-10
15. Sleeping with women is dirty:

No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb. Revelation 14:3-4


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> 1. A wife is a man’s property:
> 
> You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.- Exodus 20:17
> 2. Daughters can be bought and sold:
> ...



Art,

Have you found any scripture that says these rules are no longer in effect?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 4, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Art,
> 
> Have you found any scripture that says these rules are no longer in effect?



I haven't really looked into that. I was just showing the Christian connecton of women's roles. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. In fact it was a good thing at one time in Christianity even if it's not anymore.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I haven't really looked into that. I was just showing the Christian connecton of women's roles. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. In fact it was a good thing at one time in Christianity even if it's not anymore.



I think there is a very important distinction between society/culture evolving or God changing His rules.

On other threads, many people have taken a firm stand against what they see as a direct assault on the Church by an organized movement aimed at changing the public perception of an act which scripture calls a sin into an accepted practice which is no longer considered sin.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 22, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Art,
> 
> Have you found any scripture that says these rules are no longer in effect?



Most of the new covenant. Not all but some...the 10 commandments is still in effect in my opinion.


----------



## Denton (Feb 23, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Most of the new covenant. Not all but some...the 10 commandments is still in effect in my opinion.



What separates the 10 commandments from the rules that artful posted?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 27, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Centerpin,
> 
> Do you have any Muslims in your family?  Do you have any good friends that are Muslims?  I have some idiot Fundamentalist Christians in my family.  Should I judge all Christians by their beliefs?



I have some muslim idiots in my family, so that makes us even....don't it? Your token Christian, my token muslim....not only is she an alcoholic, she's a cocain addict and steals from everyone she can. Should I judge her and not let her come to my house to take what she will, or should I just be a Christian idiot, who lets crack addicts in to steal. Well really I won't...she took my $400 paycheck out of my purse at the hospital while my brother was dying in cicu.....so I guess you and I are even when it comes to being 'prejudice' for no reason at all, eh? Should I judge all muslims by that.....of course not....yet you judge all of us Christians on here, no mercy or grace for our downfalls, just out and out judgemental behaviour on your part all the time....Lord have mercy on your spirit of discernment and your total hatefulness towards any Christian.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 27, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Art,
> 
> Have you found any scripture that says these rules are no longer in effect?



IMHO, those  'judicial laws' were for Israel as a nation. Those laws have been put aside, at least temporarily. In my opinion the 10 commandments are still in effect, I can't find one that 'any' moral person shouldn't abide by, Christian or not. The scripture I find is that Jesus fulfilled the law because the Jews nor us who are grafted in can follow those laws, He died on the cross to take that punishment for us 'all'. 

Christ fulfilled all the prophesy in the OT, and not to abolish the law of Moses and/or the 10 commandments but to fulfill it, 'make it so'.

The NT tells us that gentiles are not unclean, nor is pork, and that God is no respecter of persons, male or female, so we can sit together in church, etc. Yet God's 'chosen' were given laws for obedience sake. Jesus is the new convenant between ALL men because the Jews did not believe He was our Saviour....thank you God for giving us ALL a chance to come into the kingdom.

For whosoever believes in Christ will be saved, thank you again God for your mercy and grace to all of us, not only your 'chosen people' but for ALL.  The practices of the Jews, even today have not changed, it's God grace on everyone that was extended to the rest of us who are not Jews but were/are not meant for us as gentiles. I could go on and on...but God didn't change, that  was/is His plan for salvation....Jesus Christ.


----------



## blood on the ground (Feb 28, 2014)

Would this be a bad time to ask for an amen?


----------



## Denton (Feb 28, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Art,
> 
> Have you found any scripture that says these rules are no longer in effect?





mtnwoman said:


> IMHO, those  'judicial laws' were for Israel as a nation. Those laws have been put aside, at least temporarily. In my opinion the 10 commandments are still in effect, I can't find one that 'any' moral person shouldn't abide by, Christian or not. The scripture I find is that Jesus fulfilled the law because the Jews nor us who are grafted in can follow those laws, He died on the cross to take that punishment for us 'all'.
> 
> Christ fulfilled all the prophesy in the OT, and not to abolish the law of Moses and/or the 10 commandments but to fulfill it, 'make it so'.
> 
> The NT tells us that gentiles are not unclean, nor is pork, and that God is no respecter of persons, male or female, so we can sit together in church, etc. Yet God's 'chosen' were given laws for obedience sake. Jesus is the new convenant between ALL men because the Jews did not believe He was our Saviour....thank you God for giving us ALL a chance to come into the kingdom.



But what scripture says the OT laws have been temporarily suspended? 

So Christ fulfilled the prophesies so that the OT would be applicable to gentiles as well, ok.  Where in the NT does it say that OT laws don't apply? Does it get specific about gentiles and pork?  

And aside from the first 4 commandments, I agree, they are good morality guides that all religions tend to profess.  Holding them apart from the other OT rules just because we agree with them and not about pork is fine, we just have to recognize that  that is what we are doing.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 28, 2014)

As a means for IMPUTED righteousness the entirety of the law was nailed to the cross along with the body of the One who took it all on and fulfilled it before the Father.
Measuring life by its means (law) will provoke sin awareness, and grace will be of no effect.
Being free from the law a believer is a prisoner of the righteousness of God in Christ in his "inner man", what the scriptures call the new creation.  This tends to flip out the religious legalists, who pound the stake of the law into the hearts of their hearers, and trample the Son of God.  Call me blinded by grace but, IMO, it's all there in scripture. Scripture is clear that when the commandment 'comes', sin REVIVES and death occurs.
Thanks be to God for the body of the Holy One, to deliver us from the trap of showy, fleshly performed religious works. 
I'd rather live by the power of (His) indestructable life (faith, grace) than any foolish command-based liturgy.

That's a wrap for me on this, unless Chapter/verse might be handy with some stuff here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 28, 2014)

Denton said:


> But what scripture says the OT laws have been temporarily suspended?
> 
> So Christ fulfilled the prophesies so that the OT would be applicable to gentiles as well, ok.  Where in the NT does it say that OT laws don't apply? Does it get specific about gentiles and pork?
> 
> And aside from the first 4 commandments, I agree, they are good morality guides that all religions tend to profess.  Holding them apart from the other OT rules just because we agree with them and not about pork is fine, we just have to recognize that  that is what we are doing.




Acts 10:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Romans 11:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day.

Romans 8:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

So you only believe in the first 4? Alrighty then...here they are

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 28, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> As a means for IMPUTED righteousness the entirety of the law was nailed to the cross along with the body of the One who took it all on and fulfilled it before the Father.
> Measuring life by its means (law) will provoke sin awareness, and grace will be of no effect.
> Being free from the law a believer is a prisoner of the righteousness of God in Christ in his "inner man", what the scriptures call the new creation.  This tends to flip out the religious legalists, who pound the stake of the law into the hearts of their hearers, and trample the Son of God.  Call me blinded by grace but, IMO, it's all there in scripture. Scripture is clear that when the commandment 'comes', sin REVIVES and death occurs.
> Thanks be to God for the body of the Holy One, to deliver us from the trap of showy, fleshly performed religious works.
> ...



Amen!


----------



## Denton (Mar 1, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Acts 10:13-15
> King James Version (KJV)
> 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
> 
> ...



AND BEHOLD, THE POWER OF BACON in our bias towards this passage!!! So here he may have removed all the dietary rules that were placed on the Jews in Leviticus, or so says anyone who loves bacon.  Yet line 15 still leaves room for vagueness.  It just says don't call common what god has cleansed.  It doesn't say that god cleansed pork, all it says is to not call common what god has already cleansed, meaning that Peter's distinction, "i have not eaten anything that is common or unclean" is wrong, there are only unclean and clean in the eyes of the lord, not unclean, clean, common, or noble.  Nothing here says he cleansed bacon.  So lets look at the broader passage, in the vision, Peter saw, "all manner of four footed creatures, reptiles, and birds".  Beef was already available for him to eat, same as many other 4 footed creatures. Reptiles were new, but chicken and birds were not. The passage is STILL too vague so anyone could be right you or jews who keep kosher. 



mtnwoman said:


> Romans 11:6-8
> King James Version (KJV)
> 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
> 
> ...



Ok, so this passage confused me with its diction, but here goes, 6 is setting up the conundrum, Deeds alone without the will to act for god, are just deeds so why do them? And if you already have the will of god, then what do we care for deeds? 

7 has the answer, Israel did not obtain it (I assume he was seeking for perfection/holiness/good/a sinless life?), the choice to seek it meant that he did obtain it (in the eyes of god?), and the rest were blinded (you're going to have to explain that one to me, blinded to what?)

So if just by attempting to obtain "it" israel accomplished it, well that's nice, so the attempt is what counts, kind of a combination of grace and work.  

BUT, the New American Standard Bible says something different, 

7What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but *those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day.”

this is completely different!!! Now it is entirely by grace, and work has nothing to do with it.  "those who were chosen got it" while the rest were "hardened" and blinded, to this very day.  Well dang, now the attempt isn't even necessary because its only who gets chosen.  

The common english bible is the same, 

7 So what? Israel didn’t find what it was looking for. Those who were chosen found it, but the others were resistant. 8 As it is written, God gave them a dull spirit, so that their eyes would not see and their ears not hear, right up until the present day.[a]

the New English Translation also has this "chosen" aspect to it, 

6 And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it. The rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear,
to this very day.”

So now I see, the laws don't matter, not even the attempt matters, all that matters is if you are chosen and if you are not, then you are worse than just left out, you are actually hardened against being able to change your mind! 



mtnwoman said:



			Romans 8:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
		
Click to expand...


I've heard this one before by people who break the law here on earth and are fine with that since they will still go to heaven.  It STILL does not take back the laws the jews follow because those can also be considered the law of the spirit of life, not laws of sin and death since they too are also in the bible.  This is more a passage about not following laws on earth that contradict with your faith and say nothing about the old testament laws as those laws have not been (correct me please) or ever were referred to as "laws of sin and death".  



mtnwoman said:



			So you only believe in the first 4? Alrighty then...here they are
		
Click to expand...


ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' [/QUOTE]

Please go back to my post and reread it.  I said the exact opposite. that the first 4 commandments are not moral rules at all but simply to pacify a jealous god. They are useless except to ensure that no other god, namely Ba'al, was not worshiped ESPECIALLY since at the time, the jewish god was competing with a lot of other religions, Ba'al, the romans, even golden calves, etc.  All of the other religions say the same things as the last 5 commandments, don't steal, lie, cheat, kill, covet.  This was nothing special and cave men living in family groups knew these rules as the best way to live harmoniously with each other way before the jews.  

Honoring your father and mother, eh, yeah, the establishment always wants external justification to be right, always.  I love my parents, but I knew a lot of other parents who shouldn't be honored.  

The first 4 commandments are useless in teaching morality.  The others are universal and not special to christianity at all.*


----------



## Denton (Mar 1, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> As a means for IMPUTED righteousness the entirety of the law was nailed to the cross along with the body of the One who took it all on and fulfilled it before the Father.
> Measuring life by its means (law) will provoke sin awareness, and grace will be of no effect.
> Being free from the law a believer is a prisoner of the righteousness of God in Christ in his "inner man", what the scriptures call the new creation.  This tends to flip out the religious legalists, who pound the stake of the law into the hearts of their hearers, and trample the Son of God.  Call me blinded by grace but, IMO, it's all there in scripture. Scripture is clear that when the commandment 'comes', sin REVIVES and death occurs.
> 
> ...



I think this is very healthy and a great way to live.  Please don't change.  Rules, I don't need your stinkin rules, I will live as moral and christlike a life as I can guided by his example.  Period.  

I wish more people lived like you.  

You have to admit though, this is a very liberal understanding and dissolves any morality argument you have down to, "I, guided by the holy spirit, don't think it is moral" as you are choosing which morality laws to give more merit to.  Like working on the sabbath, or gay marriage, or eating pork, etc.  As long as it is you deciding, guided by whatever you wish. I'm glad you take personal responsibility for your beliefs.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 10, 2014)

GunnSmokeer said:


> Some of the women wore dresses that showed their ankles and hands and faces, but others were totally covered except a slit for their eyes (well, and their hands when they  came out from under those robes).



Were those exposed hands serving food, or taking money at the checkout....LOL


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 10, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Man tries to divide, Jesus unites.



If you are free in Christ, you are free indeed!


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 10, 2014)

Denton said:


> Honoring your father and mother, eh, yeah, the establishment always wants external justification to be right, always.  I love my parents, but I knew a lot of other parents who shouldn't be honored.



Well no kiddin'. 

My parents were righteous, so that commandment was made for people like me....not for everyone.

Same thing as being submissive to a cocaine dealing husband. God didn't only give us a heart to obey Him, He gave us a brain to rightly divide the Word.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 10, 2014)

Denton said:


> AND BEHOLD, THE POWER OF BACON in our bias towards this passage!!! So here he may have removed all the dietary rules that were placed on the Jews in Leviticus, or so says anyone who loves bacon.  Yet line 15 still leaves room for vagueness.  It just says don't call common what god has cleansed.  It doesn't say that god cleansed pork, all it says is to not call common what god has already cleansed, meaning that Peter's distinction, "i have not eaten anything that is common or unclean" is wrong, there are only unclean and clean in the eyes of the lord, not unclean, clean, common, or noble.  Nothing here says he cleansed bacon.  So lets look at the broader passage, in the vision, Peter saw, "all manner of four footed creatures, reptiles, and birds".  Beef was already available for him to eat, same as many other 4 footed creatures. Reptiles were new, but chicken and birds were not. The passage is STILL too vague so anyone could be right you or jews who keep kosher.



Actually God was speaking of the gentiles, once known as the 'unclean'.  Saying to go sup with the gentiles and what they eat which has been cleansed....kinda like double My pleasure in them that do believe. They eat pork, they do this or that (they as in gentiles)....they are no longer unclean, they don't obey the laws of Lev, but they do believe/accept Christ, they and what they do has been cleansed...(gentiles)


----------



## Denton (Mar 11, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Well no kiddin'.
> 
> My parents were righteous, so that commandment was made for people like me....not for everyone.
> 
> Same thing as being submissive to a cocaine dealing husband. God didn't only give us a heart to obey Him, He gave us a brain to rightly divide the Word.



So you can pick which parts of the bible apply to you?


----------



## Denton (Mar 11, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Actually God was speaking of the gentiles, once known as the 'unclean'.  Saying to go sup with the gentiles and what they eat which has been cleansed....kinda like double My pleasure in them that do believe. They eat pork, they do this or that (they as in gentiles)....they are no longer unclean, they don't obey the laws of Lev, but they do believe/accept Christ, they and what they do has been cleansed...(gentiles)



I still don't think this act removes the dietary restrictions with any certainty.  The vision Peter gets is of many four footed creatures but it does not specifically say that all four footed creatures are ok to eat.  We can assume that some of what Peter saw was previously not allowed because he argues with God that God must be wrong because Peter had never eaten anything which was considered unclean. But again, there is that lack of certainty because the words don't expressly remove all dietary restrictions.  If acts 10-12 had said, "Wherein _every_ manner of beasts" then yes, then any beast could be eaten.  But it only says "Wherein _all_ manner of beasts" and we cannot know which beasts he was shown to eat.  

Small distinctions like this define denominations so I'm not above making them even though I like your understanding of this passage.  

The rest of the passage is Peter taking some very liberal assumptions with God's vision to him.  Nowhere did it say he could mingle with gentiles, only that "What God hath cleansed, call not common" in relation to the vision of animals peter saw, not of anything else and especially not of breaking new ground with gentiles.  

Peter could have been smited right there for mixing it up with gentiles but I think he got away with it because he brought the holy spirit (and laid the groundwork) for the church to become as large as it has by allowing gentiles into christianity.  Or he could have been led to do it by god but the story here doesn't say at all.  Nowhere does any vision tell him to do this, he just went with it.  God probably owes Peter for making this call on his own.  

Also, nowhere in this passage does it say that Peter broke with his previous dietary laws.  Nowhere does he eat pork or anything else.  Nor is "keeping company" a euphemism for eating food it's just to spend time together.  I wish this passage was more specific.  A common ailment of the Bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 11, 2014)

Denton said:


> Also, nowhere in this passage does it say that Peter broke with his previous dietary laws.  Nowhere does he eat pork or anything else.  Nor is "keeping company" a euphemism for eating food it's just to spend time together.  I wish this passage was more specific.



Acts 15 is very specific.


----------



## Denton (Mar 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Acts 15 is very specific.



Very helpful.  Why do you say it's specific?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 11, 2014)

Denton said:


> Why do you say it's specific?



Did you read it?


----------



## Denton (Mar 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Did you read it?



I did.  Did you read my analysis and comparison of what God said and what Peter did or did not do with his interpretation of God's vague words?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I did.



Then you know why I said it is specific.




Denton said:


> Did you read my analysis and comparison of what God said and what Peter did or did not do with his interpretation of God's vague words?



Yes.


----------



## Denton (Mar 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Then you know why I said it is specific.



This is going in circles.  Please put some effort in your response and explain why it is specific.  My response explains why I don't think so.  Your response is just you putting your fingers in your ears and pouting.  I'm here for a debate not a shouting match.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> Please put some effort in your response and explain why it is specific.



I've put in a lot of effort when this topic has come up before.  Use the search function.  I'm tired of repeating myself.


----------



## Denton (Mar 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I've put in a lot of effort when this topic has come up before.  Use the search function.  I'm tired of repeating myself.



I searched "Acts 10" through  your posts and didn't see anything regarding its specificity between God's message and Peter's interpretation of it in the almost 500 posts that the computer thought might be helpful but none of them actually contained the phrase "Acts 10".    I don't think you've really said anything about Acts 10 before.    If you have, you can just copy and paste it here.  Otherwise please be helpful in your other future posts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> I searched "Acts 10" through  your posts and didn't see anything regarding its specificity between God's message and Peter's interpretation of it in the almost 500 posts that the computer thought might be helpful but none of them actually contained the phrase "Acts 10".    I don't think you've really said anything about Acts 10 before.    If you have, you can just copy and paste it here.  Otherwise please be helpful in your other future posts.



I never mentioned Acts 10.  I referenced Acts 15.


----------



## Denton (Mar 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I never mentioned Acts 10.  I referenced Acts 15.



But we're talking Acts 10 and the cleansing of all meat. I don't know why you referenced Acts 15.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> But we're talking Acts 10 and the cleansing of all meat. I don't know why you referenced Acts 15.



_Because it relates to the topic at hand!_ 

You were lamenting the fact that Acts 10 was not specific, so  I said, "Acts 15 _is_ specific."  It discusses the law's application to the Gentiles in very specific terms, and Peter is the spokesman.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> So you can pick which parts of the bible apply to you?



I was saved under the new covenant and because of the new covenant. I don't have to kill a lamb for passover or take grain to the store house, do you? I don't have to light candles or wear a scarf on my head, does your wife or do other women at your church. Are they picking and choosing also? Do they sit apart from the men? I try to abide by the 10 commandments and do not pluck out others eyes, do you? I don't get what your asking me. If you follow all the laws of the OT, good for you. I guess, obviously by your question you are insinuating that you don't pick and choose, and you follow all the laws of the OT....am I correct?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> Also, nowhere in this passage does it say that Peter broke with his previous dietary laws.  Nowhere does he eat pork or anything else.  Nor is "keeping company" a euphemism for eating food it's just to spend time together.  I wish this passage was more specific.  A common ailment of the Bible.



Peter was a Jew....do practicing Jews today eat pork? Do they believe in Christ?

I am not a Jew and at least obviously Peter was talking about dietary laws, God was not. For us gentiles eating outside of the dietary laws made us unclean, but God considered us clean or could be cleansed by hearing and the believing gospel.  I eat pork but washed in the blood of Christ, which makes me clean...I would be considered unclean by orthodox Jews I suppose, but Christ's blood has cleansed me...that's what I get out of the scripture.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> But we're talking Acts 10 and the cleansing of all meat. I don't know why you referenced Acts 15.


 I eat beef and pork and chicken, not all meat. Some meat is just nasty to a lot of us...cat, dogs,lions, elephants, giraffes, goats, rodents, etc etc. I believe the scripture, again, means that even though the gentiles lived by different rules didn't mean we were unclean as long as we  accepted Christ for who He was, irregardless of our practices. We (gentiles) did not have to abide by Jewish 'judicial/government' laws to be accepted/invited into salvation. I'd love to meet one person who can abide by all the law and perfect enough to enter heaven because of that reason.  Scripture tells me that there is none who are sinless....and I believe that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting from a sociological study is the difference our Gods place on women in our religion. Islam, Judaism, & Christianity all have patriarchal doctrines.
> 
> 1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}. The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Qur'an 7:19-25}
> 2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}
> ...



And then there's this:

RELIGION
Pregnant Woman Sentenced To Death For Converting To Christianity In Sudan



http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/pregnant-woman-sentenced-death-converting-christianity-sudan


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2014)

And this

Boko Haram and the return of the Nigerian slave trade

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/boko-haram-and-the-return-of-the-nigerian-slave-trade/


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2014)

This:

'You have no faith in God. I'm going to kill you before the community find out': Muslim father slapped and beat his 14-year-old daughter with a tennis racquet when she started dating white boy


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tennis-racquet-started-dating-white-boy.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This:
> 
> 'You have no faith in God. I'm going to kill you before the community find out': Muslim father slapped and beat his 14-year-old daughter with a tennis racquet when she started dating white boy
> 
> ...



Good examples of bad things done in the name of religion. One question I have is why were women involved in all three of your examples? 
Muslims do treat women way worse than Christians ever have. Why are these grown men treating women so hateful? Are they really that evil? What has made them so evil? Is it Satan or their fathers? Where did their hatred come from and when did it start? Is it related to religion in any way? Why does some religions promote hatred?
Muslims treat women like slavery. Is slavery a form of hatred or evil? How can one have sex with one they hate?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2014)

After listening to some of the music young people listen to on the radio, I must assume they hate women too. They just can't act on it because we have laws. I wonder how they would act if we didn't? What religion are they?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2014)

There was a time when people in the Bible had concubines. (Note that a concubine in the Old Testament context is not a mistress, but more like a lesser wife. The relationship was as binding as a marriage, although the concubine may not have had all the privileges of the full wives.) Perhaps the two most famous are Abraham and Jacob, although Kings David and Solomon also had numerous concubines. 
While concubinage was at least accepted, if not approved, in the Old Testament, it is not acceptable for Christians.

http://www.minuteswithmessiah.com/question/concubines.html

The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and (rape excepted) none of them resulted in capital punishment for either party,[11][12][13] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship.[7] For instance, Jacob is dishonoured when his son Reuben sleeps with his concubine Bilhah [14] but the consequence is that Reuben is disgraced and cut out of the genealogical line.[15] David is portrayed as having been dishonored when his son Absalom deliberately has public sex with all his father's concubines on the roof of the palace, on the advice of David's former counsellor Ahithophel.[16] Absalom does this not just as an act of sexual potency but to show the nation that everything David had is now his, that he is the king and in total command and that David is disgraced, exiled and not coming back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage


If I told everyone I had a concubine it would be viewed as hatred toward my wife. My wife would see it this way. If I had slaves and had sex with one of them, my wife would see it as hatred towards her. Concubinage hasn't always been viewed as evil and neither has having a mistress. Why would any man want to have sex with someone other than his wife knowing how it would make his wife feel? Why was this form of hatred once not a form of hatred?


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 15, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I guess someone forgot to tell the Kuwaitis:
> 
> _"Kuwaiti women gained the right to vote and stand for political office in 2005 after years of campaigning and a push by senior ruling family members."_
> 
> ...



What the Kuwaitis/Saudis_ say is legal _(on paper, under the West's watchful eye) and what is actually allowed within families are two different things - just like the two different black eyes the women get if they actually do these things.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2014)

LONDON (TrustLaw) - Afghanistan, Congo and Pakistan are the world's most dangerous countries for women due to a barrage of threats ranging from violence and rape to dismal healthcare and "honour killngs", a Thomson Reuters Foundation expert poll showed on Wednesday.

India and Somalia ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, in the global perceptions survey by TrustLaw, the Foundation's legal news service.

http://www.trust.org/item/?map=factsheet-the-worlds-most-dangerous-countries-for-women/


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2014)

In 2011, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pardoned a teen girl who'd been jailed for adultery. She said she'd been raped and fell pregnant as a result. Karzai pardoned her on condition she marry her rapist. Mr. Karzai's government has jailed hundreds of women for having sex out of wedlock and other "moral crimes."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...-Afghan-women-caused-by-far-more-than-Taliban

That's a strange concept, being expected to marry your rapist.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 16, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why was this form of hatred once not a form of hatred?


 
God waits on *all of us* patiently until the light comes on.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 17, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> God waits on *all of us* patiently until the light comes on.[/QUOTE
> 
> Amen! He stands knocking at the door. We have to let Him in, He doesn't push the door open. When the door is opened from the inside and we invite/let Him in, then He 'dines' with us and we with Him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2014)

Pregnant Pakistani woman stoned to death by her family

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nant-pakistani-woman-stoned-to-death/9628161/


----------



## centerpin fan (May 28, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pregnant Pakistani woman stoned to death by her family
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nant-pakistani-woman-stoned-to-death/9628161/



The Religion of Peace strikes again.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2014)

Thems the rules and their society is fine with it. It does not seem that the God of Abraham is displeased enough to stop it.


----------



## strutlife (Jun 14, 2014)

My question to the original op. WHY would you even wanna compare Christianity to muslims/islam? If you wanna practice islam and be a muslim go right ahead. It appears to me that you are attempting to sell muslim/islam to individuals on here. It's your choice. You are told muslim/islam is a religion. muslim/islam is a "way of life." The majority of what you referenced from the bible came from the Old Testament. muslims/islam took the lives of 2 of my fellow soldiers, friends and people I had contact with on a daily basis. So, I really don't care to read the quran or any of the muslim/islam CRAP you wanna post. Your profile says you were in the Navy. I really can't believe someone who served this country would even compare these two books.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 15, 2014)

strutlife said:


> My question to the original op. WHY would you even wanna compare Christianity to muslims/islam? If you wanna practice islam and be a muslim go right ahead. It appears to me that you are attempting to sell muslim/islam to individuals on here. It's your choice. You are told muslim/islam is a religion. muslim/islam is a "way of life." The majority of what you referenced from the bible came from the Old Testament. muslims/islam took the lives of 2 of my fellow soldiers, friends and people I had contact with on a daily basis. So, I really don't care to read the quran or any of the muslim/islam CRAP you wanna post. Your profile says you were in the Navy. I really can't believe someone who served this country would even compare these two books.



I'm not trying to "sell" islam to anyone just compare the religions on how we view women differently than men. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all worship the God of Abraham. There are sociological  ties to our religious beginnings and similarities  such as circumcision. 
All three have advanced or changed their  views or beliefs on the treatment of women than from our shared history. Some better than others. Islam being the slower religion to change their views of women in some Islamic countries more than others. I can certainly see how some or even most Islamic countries treat women badly. Why haven't they seen the light that we have and allowed women to preach or wear pants? Why can't women preach in certain Christian denominations? Why can't women dress  scantily without being blamed for causing lust in men in Christian societies? Islamic societies have their women cover their bodies so as to not cause the lustful desires in the men folk.

I really don't see my Navy career as a factor as my enemy was  the ones trying to kill or overtake me or my fellow comrades regardless of his religion.
Example being in WWII in which my Father was fighting both Christians and Shinto.

Again my main comparison was the historical beginnings of how the three Abrahamic religions view or viewed women and how they have changed and why. 
Why do we treat women differently here in America today than say 100 years ago? Christianity or the Bible hasn't changed so why did our society's view? 

I'm against individuals, factions, or countries killing my comrades in arms regardless of their religion or lack there of or their skin color. As far as I'm concerned they could recommission the submarine I was on and I would join the crew to go drop one Trident missile on the whole bunch of them. I'm OK with collateral damage.

And thanks for your service and sacrifice in fighting the Axis and protecting our freedom.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2014)

Another example of how Muslim treatment of women is superior to that of Christians:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...ls-kidnapped-forced-into-islam-claims-report/

550 Coptic Christian girls and and women in Egypt alone kidnapped by Muslim men.  The 10 who managed to escape all told a similar story:

"that Salafi Muslim men threatened them, moved them through a network of safe houses and forced them into conversion and arranged marriage. Once they had converted, they said, they were threatened that fleeing as an Islam apostate is punishable by death."

Either these guys or the author quoted in the the OP are badly mistaken, because regarding the OP:



> 2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}



Well what about the kidnapping of a daughter?   Is that a loss or a gain?  If women have so much inherent value in Islam, which is it?



> 3. The Bible Forbids Women from Speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}. The Qur'an says Women Can argue with the Prophet {58:1}



Kind of hard to believe given even women abducted and married into the religion against their will are guilty of apostasy and thus the death penalty for leaving Islam..........which they never actually joined.



> 7. .....The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:" It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)".



But I guess if you kidnap, assault and rape the child prior to the marriage then she is no longer technically a "virgin" and thus the consent to marry isn't necessary.



> 8. The Bible also asks Women to wear veils as in Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}, this lowers the chance of rape, (God Forbid), see statistic link below.



So a Coptic Christian woman, or any other unveiled woman for that matter, is just asking to be raped, literally,  right?




> 10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky


. 

....but only from the grave.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 20, 2014)

I stand corrected, when Jesus died on the cross he removed any and all laws pertaining to gender roles and returned equality of the man and his help mate as was set up before the fall. 
Grace has enlightened me to many of my faults. Man has divided the sexes and the cross has reunited their equality. I'm such a loser. Amen to the power of God and his grace on my pitiful soul. 
Mercy there was grace and grace was free. Pardon there was multiplied to me, There my burdened soul Found liberty, At Calvary. 

My study into women's roles and the Laws that separated men and women have been redeemed by the cross. The other two religions that share Christianity's roots have totally missed the mark of grace. They are still trying to save themselves by laws.  
I truly have learned a lot since starting this thread.
I'm truly humbled by what I have been recently enlightened to.

Now what can we as Christians do to correct the problem of Americans and Muslims who are still trying to live by the Law? How can we show or teach that these gender roles have been erased by the cross?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 30, 2014)

Woman who killed her rapist to be hanged today.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...d-killing-attempted-rapist/?intcmp=latestnews

Somehow this doesn't line up with what the OP portrays.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2014)

While it would be easy to compare the atrocities of today's Islamic countries with some Christian countries of yesteryear, the good news is we've advanced faster than some or most. Read about the mass rapes during WWll as an example.
While we can show differences between some Muslim countries with some Christian countries that is not what the OP is asking.

The OP states;
Interesting from a sociological study is the difference our Gods place on women in our religion. Islam, Judaism, & Christianity all have patriarchal doctrines.

I wanted to discuss it from a religious standpoint, not countries. If one ventures down to the Political forum, one might find ideas that individuals hold as Christian that might not be. This is the same as in Muslim countries. Christians, Muslims, and Jews sometimes develop religious beliefs that leave the actual writings of their Gods.
All three of the aforementioned religions all worship the same God of Abraham. We have different views on who Jesus is. 
The Torah, Bible, and Koran tell us exactly what the differences are between men and women. Differences mostly have to do with roles and not salvation. 
The history on Women's rights has more to do with a country's cultural changes than it's founding religion. 

I wanted to explore these differences, not the differences of countries. The differences or likenesses of women's roles in the Bible, Torah, and Koran and why they even exist.
Why are all three patriarchal ?
It's natural to use the behavior of Muslim countries as an example of Islam just as it's natural to use our culture to explain Christianity.
Maybe that is actually what Christianity and Islam is but I don't think so.


----------

