Bible following women how can you follow something that represses you?.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Wrong we invent things all the time and have eureka moments..all through imagination.

Now then let me make myself clear Iam not an atheist Iam an anti theist...but I accept that God begins where my imagination ends.
But what an imagination we have people have made up Gods since time began but no book nor scroll written by man can understand anything about God...only you can do it yourself.

First of all since you are talking about the Bible I am assuming that you're referring to Christianity. One of the primary tenets of Christian thought is that the Old Testament was simply a precursor to the New, and supposedly Jesus' teachings supersede those of the Old Testament, which is composed of Jewish, not Christian, books. And supposedly women were on equal footing with men in the early Christian church, and as such they are not repressed. That is my understanding of it anyway.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Imagine a 6th dimensional objects then? Can you? Still waiting? Never seen one huh? You can't because you never saw such a thing. You can try to use computer software but you will only be able to see a 3d cross section of it.

So, no you cannot imagine what you have never seen or heard or felt or tasted or smelled. You can only combine things that you have seen in nature like we do all the time. All inventions are taken/emulated/altered nature. You can always trace back inventions to the source. Always. We discover a lot though we rarely invent anything new that is absolute.

Think about it. Where did we come up with that concept of God then where is the source? Where can we observe this in nature?

My answer nowhere we were told how it is by God. That is my reasoning.

It's entirely up to you personally if you believe or not. Such is the gift of free will that us bestowed upon us at birth. My partner is an Atheist, and our different beliefs don't bother us.

The bible is only a part of what makes up true faith. As you yourself have presented, without actually believing in God, it's just a big confusing and seemingly full of anti-fun things book.

When you believe it's like a spiritual GPS. The words in there often mean different things at different times. They call the bible a living book for good reason.

If you are an Atheist, make peace with it and don't make downing religion your life goal, because in doing so you are just turning your Atheism into another form of religious fervor.

a reply to: markosity1973

Thank you that is nicely said.

a reply to: boymonkey74


Deuteronomy 22:28-29
King James Version (KJV)
"28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and laGenesis 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 To the woman he said,

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So a man can rape you and If found he has to pay the father silver and If the woman is not married or engaged she is forced into the marriage of her rapist."

Where does it enforce rape? I believe it is just talking about premarital sex....


Genesis 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
"16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Saying men rule over women."

Pair the verse above with Ephesians 5:21-24, and you'll see why God tells women to be submissive.

“Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

Marriage is meant to be a metaphor for the relationship between the Church and God. Women are meant to represent the Church. This is not demeaning or negative in anyway. If the man follows what he is supposed to follow then a women will always have free will, and be able to speak when she wants

"
(I Timothy 2:11-14)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Thats right it is all the women's fault and you better shut up about it.


I Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."


Better not speak in church woman...it is shameful."

www.gotquestions.org...


Revelation 14:3-4

“No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste…”

Men think you will be one of the ones saved during the apocalypse? only If you are a virgin...cos women are dirty and evil..pfft."

gracethrufaith.com...

Start at revelation 14. Not because women are dirty, but because one didnt keep Gods commandment on marriage, and I have no problem admitting that I definitely have not kept that commandment. So that means I will not be one of the 144,000 who learn that song.

You seem very angry with God. I do have a question for you though. If Christianity was true would you become a Christian?

a reply to: boymonkey74

Maybe church women are happier not being completely shameless harlots like a lot of "liberated" women. I mean galavanting about with reckless abandon is no more a sign of empowerment than being an uptight bible thumper. It shows a lack of self control and maturity, if anything.

Bible following women how can you follow something that represses you?

I keep in mind 1 Thessalonians 5:21 .... It's for 'prophecy' but it works very well with discerning 'holy writings' ... "But test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil".

If something is true, then it is good. If something is absurd and kills the spirit, then it is bad. If something brings people down instead of raising their spirit up ... then it's in the trash can.

Great topic, S/F, boymonkey.

Although many Christian members have explained their impressions and life-styles well, it is undeniable that there are MANY, MANY abused and oppressed women all over, in all cultures, and especially among Christian and Muslim women/girls.

I'm beginning to think that it's what one's spiritual mentor (pastor, preacher, priest, whatever) teaches their own 'flock' (via cherry-picking, of course), or what one's husband decides to likewise cherry-pick to excuse the abuse that makes all the difference.

Many of us had trauma responses to our religious indoctrinations, others do not. But, as others have said, it's the extremist fundamentalists that are the worst offenders. I won't go into how my marriage works, since we are not Christians by any means, but were both raised as such....

but I applaud ketsuko and WarmInIndy's views.

Then there are women like Fred Phelps's widow, and other nobodies that I have known personally who were wives of 'pastors' who beat them behind closed doors....or beat the kids. Some of those have become public knowledge, but MANY more happen in privacy and are kept secret like 'dirty laundry'. It's appalling that in the 21st century ANY woman feels she needs to 'submit' to her husband.

It breaks my heart. I used to work with abused women as a helper, and more than once visited them in shelters or provided them with therapeutic support. I think that those passages from whatever 'religious guide' need to be overruled, publicly and prominently, all over the world.

Women scare men. It's been that way forever....after all, they can't live without us....literally. But they can beat us up. Shameful.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Revelation 14:3-4

“No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste…”

Men think you will be one of the ones saved during the apocalypse? only If you are a virgin...cos women are dirty and evil..pfft.

According to Adela Yarbro Collins, this is a reference to 1 Enoch, that describes the Watchers as having defiled themselves with women, so John may have been making a comparison with what are essentially fallen angels.

(anyone who does not know who Adela Yarbro Collins is should find out and buy five of her books)

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

and supposedly Jesus' teachings supersede those of the Old Testament, which is composed of Jewish, not Christian, books. And supposedly women were on equal footing with men in the early Christian church, and as such they are not repressed.

This is correct...

then along comes Paul... and said non-repression is tossed right out the window

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: boymonkey74

Maybe church women are happier not being completely shameless harlots like a lot of "liberated" women. I mean galavanting about with reckless abandon

Call me crazy, call me wacky but I love those shameless harlots as much as their Christian sisters.

Isn't it in the Good Book some where...."Judge not lest ye be judged" .....and "let he without sin, cast the first stone"

It's that style of holier than thou, judgmental BS that drove me away from the Church. I don't miss it one bit.........

a reply to: boymonkey74

I Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

I Googled that bit, "women keep silence in the churches" and found a web page on that godswordtowomen.org... where it lists possible explanations, including "Third, are verses 34-35 a Corinthian slogan or rabbinic saying that Paul repeats for the purpose of rebuking?"
I think that may be what that section is, a quote of a rule that was apparently made by someone or other.

The point Paul was making is that if someone is really a prophet, then that spirit that the prophet prophesies with, is something that he has control over, rather than something that takes control of him, where he has to just keep talking and talking as long as it tells him to.

He is using a rhetorical technique, to argue his point, by making an analogy between (1.) a prophet and his prophetic spirit, with (2.) a married man in church with a wife who keeps making distracting noise in church continuously chattering.

If men can apply such restraint with their wives to comply with house rules of the congregation, then a real prophet can very well put his prophetic spirit under subjection to control, so someone else can talk.

It is pretty disgusting being in church when someone gets all full of himself, talking about really boring stuff that everyone learned as children, but they think they have this great talent for making it seem new and interesting.
You might wish his wife would grab him by the sleeve and get him to sit down.

a reply to: jmdewey60

IF prophets exist... I wonder how many female prophets have come and gone without speaking a word because of such rules...

Or are prophets only male?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: jmdewey60

IF prophets exist... I wonder how many female prophets have come and gone without speaking a word because of such rules...

Or are prophets only male?

The fundies will flame me for this,

But as a catholic, the biggest prophet in Christian history since the resurrection other than Lord Jesus himself is a woman; The Virgin Mary.

There are also a few notable women in the OT. The most obvious being the book of Ruth.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: jmdewey60

IF prophets exist... I wonder how many female prophets have come and gone without speaking a word because of such rules...

Or are prophets only male?

The Bible says "In those days will I pour out of my Spirit upon ALL flesh and your sons AND your daughters shall prophesy". Peter, of the 11 stood up and said "This is THAT which was spoken of by the prophet Joel", the previous verse just posted.

Phillip's daughters were prophets, Anna was a prophetess, Timothy's mother was a prophet, so by saying that women prophets are not allowable goes against what the Bible actually says. Deborah was a judge in Israel and prophesied that the battle would be won, by a woman, Jael, who nailed Sisera's head to the floor of the tent.

Hey, if we think the Bible is literal, then women are permitted to nail the enemy's head. Whew, good thing we don't do that anymore.

I knew a prophet that was a woman. But I was wondering Akra, since you met your girlfriend, did you not "suggest" to her that she should "submit" to your desire and give in to you? Then you repressed her by causing her to submit to you. That's the same thing, and there was a time in history where you two would have been considered to be married, good thing we now have legality about those things, but yes, up until the Victorian Era, the simple fact that you and she...means that you are married by nature. That's what they called it back then.

But yes, you kind of expected her to "submit", so she did. That kind of means that you are just a little bit guilty of repression.

a reply to: Akragon

Or are prophets only male?

Don't be ridiculous.
Those "such rules" were not invented by Paul.
And too bad people just don't get Paul, and by "get", I mean being able to follow along with his arguments.
When Paul wrote, rhetoric was a high art form and even a source of entertainment when they didn't have TV, so the common people in that time could understand him, but it seams to be a lost art with dumbed down education today.

Galatians 3:28

bye.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Actually no... IF you read the thread referring to the situation you're talking about... I did not say she should submit to my beliefs... In Fact I said specifically I would submit to hers... but that wouldn't change my beliefs

You can't change what you know...

Though I will say that each person holds to their beliefs until a greater truth conquers them... That being said, nothing she's said has made a lick of difference in my beliefs... I've made her question hers in the past, which in turn hurt her...

At this point I don't even attempt to make her realise anything about her beliefs... they are what they are no matter how much I disagree with them... Shes convinced of what shes been taught...

I just don't have it in me to hurt her when it comes to her religion anymore... its not worth it

I do have hope that she will come to some realizations one day... but I highly doubt it will happen...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Actually no... IF you read the thread referring to the situation you're talking about... I did not say she should submit to my beliefs... In Fact I said specifically I would submit to hers... but that wouldn't change my beliefs

You can't change what you know...

Though I will say that each person holds to their beliefs until a greater truth conquers them... That being said, nothing she's said has made a lick of difference in my beliefs... I've made her question hers in the past, which in turn hurt her...

At this point I don't even attempt to make her realise anything about her beliefs... they are what they are no matter how much I disagree with them... Shes convinced of what shes been taught...

I just don't have it in me to hurt her when it comes to her religion anymore... its not worth it

I do have hope that she will come to some realizations one day... but I highly doubt it will happen...

Akra, not your beliefs is what we are actually talking about. We are talking about the idea of women who believe in the Bible, why do they follow what "represses" them?

We are speaking in the context of marital relationships, which includes sex.

Are women expected to submit to the sexual desire of the man, simply because he expects it of her to do so? Is it mutual if the women must be talked into it? And if she must be talked into it, going against her own conscience, but gives in because the man makes her feel like she must to show that she loves him, and he is the one doing the suggestion, then it isn't actually mutual and her conscience is repressed, for his desire.

That is part of the question in the OP.

But how many women know what I am talking about, how you are the one who must give in to the man, even if you don't want to, but you just can't get it through his head that you would rather not, but he plays the "you don't love me" game.

Akra, women have been going through this a long time, I am just wondering if you realize this. This is a form of repression when a woman can't even share with him that she isn't ready or that she is having emotional issues and doesn't want to. This actually is one of the least communicated aspects in marriage, even among the most atheist, agnostic and religious marriages, partnerships, whatever.