1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

The Bible And Me

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Jane Blond, Nov 23, 2013.

  1. #1 Jane Blond, Nov 23, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2013
    I have a very ambivalent feeling to the Bible. I on the one hand find clever thoughts in it again and again; on the other hand the violence contained in it repels me. Primarily if "God" ordered the violence. As the destruction of whole peoples or people which believe something else. Or, as in the case of Lot; for the rape this one offers his own daughters.
    By the way rape:
    Did you know that a man who raped a virgin had to marry his victim? Everything is in the OT.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29

    Genesis 19:8
    (Lot and his daughters)

    My question:

    Why allowed God violence against women? Why did women had not a chance to look herself for a husband?

    BTW: Deuteronomy talks about RAPE, not about sexual immorality.
  2. You mean, why Lot offered his daughters?
    Look at how you phrase your question.

    It show being subjective: not objective…. Just an honest observation…
    I can be wrong: if am wrong with my observation, kindly say so : )
  3. #3 Jane Blond, Nov 23, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2013
    The story of Sodom teaches us many things; provided it is true. On the one hand, that there were "cruel behaviour" in this town, that an antisocial and immoral behaviour was normal. Lot was the good one in the town. And he offered his daughters to the mob for raping.
    Because the right to hospitality was sacred in the middle east at that time. Because everything had to subordinate himself to it. Lot gave the mob his daughters because women were the possession of the man. He could with them whatever he wanted.
    Some Christians by the way like to use this chapter to stir up hatred against homosexuality. This town, however, was not homosexual. What was really the sin of Sodom? We let an old prophet come to word anyway:

    Ezekiel 16:48-49

  4. It is about two areas. Once the case Sodom and on the other hand the case coercive marriage after a rape.
    In my childhood I always studied; that God is like a loving father; that he worries around his children. In the two cases it looks for me, however, as if it is about power (power of men over women).
    Perhaps I am mistaken but up till now I have not found any better explanation.

    You cannot only read the Bible subjectively or objectively. The experiences of one's own always play a role in this; as well the state of knowledge someone had.
    I try always to get it as objectively as possible to be. I do not always succeed. But always once in a while!
  5. Here is my answer to a PN from a member:

    There are many verses in the Bible which literally causes me stomach ache. Since I count on the German Bible translations with my criticism (translations from Luther and others); it is difficult for me to find corresponding good translations in American Bibles. Where I would best of all like here three of the things, to yell out with pain:

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
    Click to expand...

    If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
    (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
    Click to expand...

    It is clear that God doesn't give a sh** about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

    Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will
    make your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your
    neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this
    deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the
    sun looking down.'
    Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan
    answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.
    But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you
    must surely die
    ." (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
    Click to expand...​
    A good friend of mine said to these verses:

    God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!
    Click to expand...​
    I have used only the verses which concern rape. These are, words of prophets of God and I get more and more clear, which bad lot women had at that time.
    And this way of thinking (women are less worth than men) is to be found in today's churches.
  6. IMO:
    First case is Lot: his personality, his belief
    You seem to a good explanation. It is Lot’s own personal judgement on how he act.

    Second case: the OT laws.
    Moses has divine authority to create laws.
    Similar as to now, Government have divine authority to create laws….

    Case in point:
    Divorce in OT laws: is it a law from God or is it a law of Moses?
  7. Or is it the law of men made for men?
  8. Yes, can be...
  9. To begin, let's note that Lot offering his daughters in Genesis 19:8 isn't regarded as moral. It is worth keeping in mind that just because the Bible talks about someone doing something, it does not thereby endorse what they have done. It is merely reporting the fact, and it is for the careful reader to see what comes of that action.

    A good example of this is polygamy -- many people mistakenly assume that since many of the Old Testament patriarchs seem to have multiple wives, and the Bible does not explicitly condemn their action, it must be OK. But if you look into the further history of these men (for example, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.), you see that, sooner or later, tragedy results from these polygamous unions, either directly or indirectly.
    Brother_Mike_V likes this.
  10. A difference consists in it; whether one enters a polygamous marriage "voluntarily"; or you are raped; and you force to marry the rapist.
    The behavior of Lot was in agreement with their traditions then. Traditions which were usual in all patriarchal cultures of the Middle East.
    However the way of thinking can be found in the churches today certainly, too (women are less worthy then men). It is, I, the fear of the men of the women, think so. Because there were religions before the patriarchal religions in the Middle East in which women were admired (as goddesses).ASHERAH is an example of it. She by the way was worshipped next to God YAHWEH in the temple for a long time.
  11. We should establish that the tradition of men doesn't grant that it is permitted by God. In fact, it many times conflicts with Him.

    Women aren't less worthy. Granted, it's true for instance, that women cannot be ordained as priests, but this was is a position held biblically and throughout the centuries with constant discussion. The early church Fathers rejected women's ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Nonetheless, Christianity (namely Catholicism) was regarded as a women's religion because 1) it offered the dignity to women as they deserved, 2) it was the first institution to appoint women as head of certain groups, 3) there is a legion of female saints (both young and old), and 4) there are only 30-something doctors of the Church to date, and women are included.

    This is why Catholicism was seen as a women's religion.

    It's fair to ask why religion isn't gender neutral, but it shouldn't be automatically concluded as sexism or elitism without careful thought and research.
  12. Well...yeah. Men wrote those stories, didn't they? Not only that, they were written in a very different time and place than we live in today.

    That's why I think it's vital to separate the cultural aspects of scripture from the spiritual. IMO, believing that the cultures of the times the scriptures were written played absolutely no role in their creation is very, very naive.
  13. This is not correct! In the early Christian Church; the researches of many Bible scientists said this; women were also priests, even a female apostle is mentioned. That one of a deacon was the last office for women in the RCC. It was taken away from the women in the 6th century as said by the Roman Catholic theologian Norbert Greinacher.
    We assume, however, in your favor, at that time, God really would havenot allowed women to be ordained as priests. Does this mean that, today, this must be so, too?

    There are the so-called "Church Fathers" in the RCC; still characterizing the theology up to today's time in the RCC. And can be found in weakened form also in Protestant churches. Here reconciles quotations what was said in the RCC and other churches about women:

    Source: http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/

    A clear line can be recognized from former times to this day: Women shall not have power in churches. And some men are more afraid that women have had power. At all events this is my conviction and opinion.
  14. This is it what I wanted to make clear. To really understand the Bible, the historical background (the time then) must be taken into account. Something which, at that time, may absolutely have had make sense; it necessarily cannot have it today.
  15. #15 LysanderShapiro, Nov 25, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
    U mad? :p I kid, I kid. But anyhow...
    A Deaconess is a seperate office of a catechist for women. Generally now, pursuing a life as a catechist can be done by someone of either sex, so there is no need for a specific Deaconess in the Church. As for female Deacons in the strictest form, the Church has not had such a person.

    Regarding a female apostle, if you are speaking of Junia, some Christians think it could be a female--possibly Andronicus' wife. More believed the translation was Junias. Moreover, the RSV-CE says this:

    Nonetheless, there are other women's names mentioned in this area of scripture, commentators believe the message is not that these are apostles, but these are members of the local Church, and what is significant is that Paul knew so many of them by name even though he had not visited there.

    To begin, you're using ad hominems in response. With all due respect, it just doesn't fly. But for argument's sake, I will grant you that not only are these statements consistent with the conversation, but in context (for argument's sake mind you). If I grant you that, this 1) doesn't remove the notion that the Catholic Church was indeed regarded as a women's religion because of the dignity it provided toward women; from restoring equality when it comes to adultery, the sanctity of the marital bond (in fact, it was the first to express that men can't just get up and leave their wives), 2) it was the first organization to welcome women in leadership roles, 3) it's celebration of women saints and even doctors of the Church (which you seemed to have scoffed at, but especially St. Therese of Lisieux is just as celebrated as St. Thomas Aquinas).
    Are we to expect the Holy Spirit to censor every word? Are we to expect even the most noble of saints to be infallible and immaculate? I'm not sure how much of this is legitimate and how much of it is false, but even if I were to grant that these are legitimate and in context, is it prudent to throw out all valid statements made outside of this subject because they've made invalid statements about others? That would be a logical fallacy.

    But in response to this, I recommend reading Woman in Christian Tradition by George Tavard. My wife read it and enjoyed it. I dug around and found one chapter that especially stays consistent with the subject at hand. Read it here.

    To make a statement like "A clear line can be recognized from former times to this day: Women shall not have power in churches. And some men are more afraid that women have had power." is not only irresponsible, but it's even blatantly flawed. Vocation into the priesthood (from priests to bishops to popes) isn't a role of power and should never have been treated as so (even when it wrongfully was in some cases). It is a role of service to God and His creation--from humans of all creeds, races, genders, ages, etc...to animals, to the environment, and even to science. The role of the pope is not one of power. He is merely Christ's vicar--that's all.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not falling for this bait again. This was one of my concerns prior to my conversion and after all of the research, discussions with clergy and friars and sisters (I spoke with two very sweet women from the Little Sisters of the Poor near where I live--they had much to say about the misconception of women being "out of power.")

    Although if your gripe is with the Catholic Church, I'm sure you'll find a friend with some of the folks here. Most here are welcoming, but I'm no stranger to anti-Catholic bigotry.
  16. You have really little knowledge about this topic.
    Deacons were both male and female in the early Church which by the way so never there was (as an institution). Read once the articles of the Roman Catholic theologian Norbert Greinacher. This was quite clear in the Byzantine Church.
    To this Wikipedia:
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess#Early_Christian_Period

    Interesting is also what I found there about what Paul said:

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess#Pauline_text

    So it gets clear, that women were diacons, who also had leading functions.
    I have looked at your profile. So you are converted for the Catholicism. And you think the RCC would be the early Church. The church which has founded by God. Church historical is your belief not to hold. Then the RCC has nothing to do with the early Church. But to explain this to you, my English by far does not suffice. Why and I do not know American/English sources sufficiently, around to explain to you, this is not correct alone from the church historical view.
  17. It's alright--your English is fairly good :)

    Many here do not agree with me regarding the Catholic Church as being the early church, but this is the position I hold. We've had many discussions about it here, regarding Christ handing the keys to Peter, why He called him "Petros" vs. "Petra," who Constantine was and who Constantine was not, who St. Ignatius of Antioch was and how he was the first to use the words "The Catholic Church" in 110 AD, etc.

    But back to the case for women as deacons; your sources align with my positions. The term deacon was extended in meaning catechist -- there are many women catechists even today...in fact, there are probably just as many women catechists as men, between laity, Sisters, and Nuns. However, when deacon is to describe an elder of the Church (and this is not the call for all denominations, but it is for the CC), this is a position reserved only for men outside of being a catechist as has been the instructions for centuries.

    These subjects can become much more complicated and often require speaking to experts in order to better understand--not just searching online as the Internet can provide false info, too. I recommend contacting your local diocese if you want to confirm that you're right and I'm wrong.

    I'm not telling you all of this to try and change your mind--I have no doubt you are convinced of your position, but I do think I owe my position some defense. I can't claim to know everything about everything, but I'm not afraid to speak up in the defense of the things I do know.

    Again, don't worry about your English--I think you're doing quite well there ;)
  18. #18 KingJ, Nov 25, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
    I am just trying to put myself in your shoes here. I must be honest I am battling to see your motivation / heart behind the questions.

    My thoughts are... You are 58 (wise). You seem to know scripture well. So why is it that you are only asking these questions now? You know the arguments against God so well and not the counter arguments?

    No offence, I know I asked you to post here, but yours is now the third running thread on ''God is bad''.

    If you don't mind, would you mind giving me a defense for God. Pretend you are his advocate and you have no choice but to defend Him. What would you say? You see we do need to take judging God seriously as you and the others on the other threads seem to forget that Jesus is busy defending us before God 1 John 2:1-11. Would you like it if Jesus judged us unfairly?
  19. #19 KingJ, Nov 25, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
    Must I take ''Did you know that a man who raped a virgin had to marry his victim? Everything is in the OT / on the other hand the violence contained in it repels me. Primarily if "God" ordered the violence'' as an attack on the OT / God (John 1:1) and your final consensus on the matter? You judge God as bad because He ordered violence?

    Have you not read Jonah 4:2? He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.
  20. You clearly read Gen 19:8, but how did you miss the verses after it? When reading the whole section you will notice...

    1. Lot offered His daughters.
    2. Lot offered his daughters after they specifically asked for the angels. An argument can hence be made that Lot did not offer his daughters but was being sarcastic.
    The angels pulled Lot back inside and made those outside blind. The angels hence, stopped and protected Lot and his family.

Share This Page