Is it sinful to treat women with due respect and as equals?

[AtheistAgent]

(Yes, I'm being facetious)

Why are we giving women equal rights?

Why do we allow them to speak in church?

Why don't we insist that they marry their rapist after paying their father the bride price?

Why don't we stone them to death if they don't scream loud enough while being raped?

Why aren't we marrying off the virgins after we've killed off their entire extended family?

Why do Christians consider many Isis style Muslims to be corrupt immoral murderers when they are actually following the Old Testament rules more closely than almost any Christian?

The bible is the essence of morality (apparently) so why are we taking it upon ourselves not to follow explicit biblical instructions? Surely we are too small brained to know the mind of the amazing creator god so perhaps we shouldn't try to edit his message.

Christians seem pretty set on the parts of the bible that relate to subjects like homosexuality. Any reference to homosexuals is taken literally. Why aren't we following gods law as it relates to women?

[Davidjayjordan]

(Yes, I'm being facetious)

Why are we giving women equal rights?

Why do we allow them to speak in church?

Why don't we insist that they marry their rapist after paying their father the bride price?

Why don't we stone them to death if they don't scream loud enough while being raped?

Why aren't we marrying off the virgins after we've killed off their entire extended family?

Why do Christians consider many Isis style Muslims to be corrupt immoral murderers when they are actually following the Old Testament rules more closely than almost any Christian?

The bible is the essence of morality (apparently) so why are we taking it upon ourselves not to follow explicit biblical instructions? Surely we are too small brained to know the mind of the amazing creator god so perhaps we shouldn't try to edit his message.

Christians seem pretty set on the parts of the bible that relate to subjects like homosexuality. Any reference to homosexuals is taken literally. Why aren't we following gods law as it relates to women?

Women are our equals in all ways, except in minor ways that matter not. Only silly Paulian church people, treat women as inferior, Jesus never did.

[AtheistAgent]

[Replying to Davidjayjordan]

I'm constantly impressed how most Christian's consider the bible to be their source of moral guidance and yet spend most of their time disavowing large parts of it.

So you follow only the words and actions of Jesus on this topic and ignore Paul and other desciples?

This has encouraged me to write a new topic under christianity & religion - "What aspects of the bible do you stand behind?".

[Davidjayjordan]

[Replying to Davidjayjordan]

I'm constantly impressed how most Christian's consider the bible to be their source of moral guidance and yet spend most of their time disavowing large parts of it.

So you follow only the words and actions of Jesus on this topic and ignore Paul and other desciples?

This has encouraged me to write a new topic under christianity & religion - "What aspects of the bible do you stand behind?".

No, I said I believe and act in equality, this principle comes from many sources, but I find it a truth. Jesus stated it and lived it, Paul had problems with it and most church people have problems with it.

Dont use me as your excuse to acept or reject. Its my opinion from real life and real people and real situations in my travels and dealings with others. Its called mutual respect... or its called love... or its called Jesus and his life embodied by love.

[enviousintheeverafter]

No, I said I believe and act in equality, this principle comes from many sources, but I find it a truth. Jesus stated it and lived it, Paul had problems with it and most church people have problems with it.

It wasn't just Paul, but also Peter (or the author of Peter), as in 1 Peter 3 ("ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands"). In any case this is exactly what AA was referring to, i.e. the way people cherry-pick the parts of scripture they're going to accept and the parts of scripture they're going to ignore.

[bluethread]

The bible is the essence of morality (apparently) so why are we taking it upon ourselves not to follow explicit biblical instructions? Surely we are too small brained to know the mind of the amazing creator god so perhaps we shouldn't try to edit his message.

The sarcasm aside, your list is an example of editing the message of the Scriptures. Individual social rules outside the context of the society as a whole often appear absurd, especially to someone with a different philosophical base. As an example, not to derail the thread, there is the current dust up over Planned Parenthood. To those who favor abortion on demand prior to the abortion what is aborted is not considered human. However, for the sake of harvesting the cadaver, it is considered human. Those who find this acceptable practice have their own justification within their belief system. However, to me this appears loony. So, I am reluctant to just list social rules and cast aspersions out of context. Once I am made aware of the greater context then I might critique to principles of the belief system, but cherry picking individual social rules and making judgments based on how they would fit in my belief system seems a bit unreasonable to me.

[enviousintheeverafter]

The bible is the essence of morality (apparently) so why are we taking it upon ourselves not to follow explicit biblical instructions? Surely we are too small brained to know the mind of the amazing creator god so perhaps we shouldn't try to edit his message.

The sarcasm aside, your list is an example of editing the message of the Scriptures. Individual social rules outside the context of the society as a whole often appear absurd, especially to someone with a different philosophical base. As an example, not to derail the thread, there is the current dust up over Planned Parenthood. To those who favor abortion on demand prior to the abortion what is aborted is not considered human. However, for the sake of harvesting the cadaver, it is considered human. Those who find this acceptable practice have their own justification within their belief system. However, to me this appears loony. So, I am reluctant to just list social rules and cast aspersions out of context. Once I am made aware of the greater context then I might critique to principles of the belief system, but cherry picking individual social rules and making judgments based on how they would fit in my belief system seems a bit unreasonable to me.

The problem of course- and glaring disparity in your comparison here- is that in one case the "social rules" are given great authority, as part of a religious canon, and used to govern and sanction the behavior of thousands/millions/etc. of the members of a faith- often to the detriment of individuals, groups, or society as a whole (as we see with the Biblical passages concerning homosexuality, women, etc. and the persecution/oppression of those groups on the basis of those passages)- whereas no such special authority is accorded the "social rules" in the other case (and thus the consequences are of a different order).

[bluethread]

The problem of course- and glaring disparity in your comparison here- is that in one case the "social rules" are given great authority, as part of a religious canon, and used to govern and sanction the behavior of thousands/millions/etc. of the members of a faith- often to the detriment of individuals, groups, or society as a whole (as we see with the Biblical passages concerning homosexuality, women, etc. and the persecution/oppression of those groups on the basis of those passages)- whereas no such special authority is accorded the "social rules" in the other case (and thus the consequences are of a different order).

My point is not the perceived disparity in the gravity of the issues to each side, but that one needs to look at the issues in the context of the particular society. All societies have their enforcement mechanisms and means of gaining social acceptance of the underlying social principles. Of course, egalitarians will have real problems with differences in treatment based on sex. The point is are we arguing in favor of egalitarianism, or just taking that as a given and bashing other social philosophies because some of the specifics of other systems do not work well in an egalitarian society.

[enviousintheeverafter]

My point is not the perceived disparity in the gravity of the issues to each side, but that one needs to look at the issues in the context of the particular society.

Right, but clearly excusing lapses/inconsistencies/failures in moral reasoning and moral conduct on the basis of social context isn't especially consistent with the sort of divine or religious sanction accorded scripture (which tends to be rife with such shortcomings).

[Yahu]

Why don't we insist that they marry their rapist after paying their father the bride price?

Rape of a free woman always carried a death penalty for the rapist by the Law of Moses. It was ONLY consensual sex with a virgin without a betrothal that carried a fine to the father and a forced marriage.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with implementing those laws today. I have done plenty of rape counseling and would at least like to see castration as a penalty. A guy that goes around violating as many virgins as he can should also be castrated IMO. I have had to deal with 'date rape' victims as well.

No where does scripture approve of rape. There was even a standard of how to treat a woman captured during war.

The sexual laws were of a higher standard then those of their neighbor countries.