Women need to shut up and sit down

From Kahil Gibran's The Prophet on marriage:

You were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.

You shall be together when white wings of death scatter your days.

Aye, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.

But let there be spaces in your togetherness,

And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.

Love one another but make not a bond of love:

Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.

Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.

Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,

Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.

For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.

And stand together, yet not too near together:

For the pillars of the temple stand apart,

And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow.

Here's a love verse from the Song of Solomon;
"Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents. I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots. Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold. We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver.

While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof. A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi. Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes. Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our bed is green. The beams of our house are cedar, and our rafters of fir."

Beautiful!

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I personally enjoy a strong willed woman, that will not submit to me easily, but has a mind of her own, with her own opinions and strengths.

Oh, that will not submit to you easily but as long as she, at the end of the day, DOES submit ?!

I don't know about anyone else, but that jumps out at me more than anything else in your post.

hmmm....

Of course the bible is man made, what made you think it wasn't so?

You forgot the parts about how to kill disobedient women, and how to decimate an enemy tribe and then rape the woman and enslave the children..

well, not really, it's more like God was outlining the consequesnces of adam's and eve's actions...eating of the friut and gaining the knowledge of good and evil...
judgement....ya know, this is weak, this is strong, having lots of food is good, starving and having to walk ten mile to the other side of the garden isn't....hey, I know, let's plant the seeds we find in the fruit closer to home??

who knows, maybe the garden of eden was really just as crappy as earth is today, it's just that Adam and Eve were just too ignorant to know that until they gained the knowledge to be able to compare things and judge....

but, well, after they did gain it, pain was bad....and we tend to resist those bad things, and well, what happens if you try to resist the labor contractions?

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I personally enjoy a strong willed woman, that will not submit to me easily, but has a mind of her own, with her own opinions and strengths.

Oh, that will not submit to you easily but as long as she, at the end of the day, DOES submit ?!

I don't know about anyone else, but that jumps out at me more than anything else in your post.

hmmm....

At the end of the day if she submits to me in the bedroom, then yes I'm Guilty as charged. I know what I like. I do what comes naturally.

But as for being the father figure or the boss of a woman, I'm not into it. I'm not that insecure about my self, I don't have to control some one to make me happy, or because I fear their independence or free will, actually this is what I'm attracted too the most in women that and being able to hold a Interesting conversation.

I have heard of women, Strong women, with spirit, and free thinking women burned at the stake during the dark ages, just for being themselves, it seemed the church feared these type of women and had ways of shutting them up.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by LDragonFire]

reply to post by Alexander the o.k.


Please do enlighten me on just how any one of the verses I posted was taken out of context.

Please do show how this thread is a example of what you say??

made me laugh when i read this ill come with you i think

If I didn't know any better I'd furiously argue with you, but I know better.

I know that your stuck in your own sexist delusion.

No point in arguing.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by Alexander the o.k.

 

Please do enlighten me on just how any one of the verses I posted was taken out of context.

Please do show how this thread is a example of what you say??

Dude, you were given plenty of examples but obviously you were not paying attention.

Just another case of someone opening up the Bible and spouting off. I would advise you to get educated as to what the scriptures are actually saying and then come back.

I do believe that the man is the head of the household and should put his wife on a pedestal as the queen of his domain. I am a Christian who has learned respect and honor for women via that very book you ridicule. Funny how it is teaching us two different philosophies but then again I read it every day and still need clarification on occasion. How about you?

Equip.org

reply to post by jbondo

Originally posted by jbondo
Dude, you were given plenty of examples but obviously you were not paying attention.

Apparently

Just another case of someone opening up the Bible and spouting off. I would advise you to get educated as to what the scriptures are actually saying and then come back.

I was a Christian for about 14 years, I do much more than spout off. Ok I'm going to make it easy for you, Do tell me what this is saying:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 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 22:28-29

A raped woman must marry the rapist, is this what you would want for your daughter???

I do believe that the man is the head of the household and should put his wife on a pedestal as the queen of his domain. I am a Christian who has learned respect and honor for women via that very book you ridicule. Funny how it is teaching us two different philosophies but then again I read it every day and still need clarification on occasion. How about you?

So do I, and most of it makes perfect since to me, as ugly as it might be.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I was a Christian for about 14 years, I do much more than spout off. Ok I'm going to make it easy for you, Do tell me what this is saying:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 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 22:28-29

It should be noted that not all translations use the word Rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28 (New Life Version)
28 "If a man finds a girl who has never had a man and is not promised in marriage, and takes her and lies with her, and they are found,

Deuteronomy 22:28 (King James Version)
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Deuteronomy 22:28 (Contemporary English Version)

28Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,

Some translators don't feel the word rape is correct in this passage. They lean more toward seduction of a virgin.
More than likely this is referring to a case of pressured seduction and/or fornication. If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.

The Mosaic code had a provision allowing a man to divorce his wife for certain reasons. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19; 24:1; Matthew 19:7, 8) But what we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication.

A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.

The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites.










[edit on 11-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Sparky63]

Here are some more examples of the same verse Deut:22:28

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

It should also be noted that in vs 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely "chazaq."

If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vs 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word " chazaq"; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident.
In Vs 28 a different word is used: " shakab. It has a different meaning.
The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vs. 28-29.



[edit on 11-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Sparky63]

regarding "Shakab" used in Deut 22:28

King James Stongs Dictionary gives this info:

shakab
shaw-kab'
a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose):--X at all, cast down, ((lover-))lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

www.sacrednamebible.com...

The contradictions abound, I would venture to guess if the bible had a recipe for chicken noodle soup, in the end you would end up with meatloaf or pot roast.

The bible says just what you want it to say, people it seems will go to no length, in regards to there religious beliefs. When you post different interpretations, witch will you believe? all of them[impossible] or just the ones that fit your view. The words that were written, it seems are open for interpretations, and this is called God's word??

I was accused of taking scripture out of context. I'm now accusing you that this book is inaccurate, that time has twisted and distorted any true meaning it once had, see post above for clarification.

How accurate can this book be? 95%, 90% since it was originally written.

God of the bible is a God of love and goodness, yet the Old testament proves otherwise, this book is sexist, I use this very book as evidence.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by LDragonFire]

I disagree. The real meaning is there, but it takes diligent personal research to ferret it out. You have to examine the context, the meaning of the actual words used, and the way they are used in other passages.

If a person is already of the mindset that the Bible is full of contradictions, that is is merely the word on a bunch of different men....ect, what motivation is there to do deep research? It is much easier to simply discount it and make flippant statements about it and deride anyone who believes in it....not that any of the tolerant open minded people here would do so......

Of course I am guilty of discounting claims made by people like John Lear.....and the 911 conspiracy believers.....I guess it is just human nature.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
The contradictions abound, I would venture to guess if the bible had a recipe for chicken noodle soup,

Actually the Hebrew word for chicken and the Greek word for soup if broken down to their root definitions can be construed to mean.....Just kidding. LOL
you do have a point there my friend.

reply to post by LDragonFire


don't leave out the new testament, it's also very sexist. to the point where it explicitly states that man is the glory of god, but women are made for men and are only the glory of man

Originally posted by Sparky63
I disagree. The real meaning is there, but it takes diligent personal research to ferret it out. You have to examine the context, the meaning of the actual words used, and the way they are used in other passages.

If a person is already of the mindset that the Bible is full of contradictions, that is is merely the word on a bunch of different men....ect, what motivation is there to do deep research? It is much easier to simply discount it and make flippant statements about it and deride anyone who believes in it....not that any of the tolerant open minded people here would do so......

Of course I am guilty of discounting claims made by people like John Lear.....and the 911 conspiracy believers.....I guess it is just human nature.

well, then, alot of the churches then are still haven't examined the context enough, because the bias is still in their doctrines...
there's some glaringly obvious ones....like the sect of mormons that have recently gotten into a legal bind for forcing underage girls into marriage...but look have the southern baptist's doctrine, the pentecostal, the catholic...ect...
they have watered down the original words, but none of them will dare remove women's position as being under man...

you take the words....."the head of the man is God, the head of the women is man"...and you draw a diagram that is symbolic of these words..
what do you get, because what I get is God, at the top, then a little under it, is man...with a line directly to God.. (there used to be a Priest, and a king, and maybe even a master if the man was a slave)...and then down below, is the women, her line would be going directly to the man..

therefore, it wouldn't be God women would be trusting to provide her with her necessities, it would be man. it wouldn't be God women would be looking to for guidance, it would be man. it wouldn't be God who would be protecting her, it would be man. heck, you read the bible, and you might even come to the conclusion that the women's salvation even depends on the man bowing to God.
there's kind of a conflict between Jesus's words...."My sheep know my voice and obey only me"....and "wives, obey your husband in all things." don't ya think?

I had a vision once of a bunch of women standing infront of a door, being blocked from entering it.....this is what is blocking them...
Man has chosen to use "God's words" to fullfill his desires and the modern day churches are stuck with the words....lest they "blasphemy the word of God" and prove that the Bible is indeed fallible after all. but it is very difficult for a person to have two masters with such over reaching authority as this. unless the two masters have one mind, and most men are not that tuned into the mind of God.
ao, well, what can I say, we are stuck here discussing this mainly because the churches are too stubborn, or chicken, to admit that their predecessors were in error and set the record straight...
they would rather have that door locked for those women instead!

so what can I say, my husband once did have a direct line to god, but he turned his back to be my master and without him realizing something else stood in place of his head.....and I will not blindly obey that!! and I will not go to a church that tells me God wants me to, or follow a christian doctrine that states such things.

Originally posted by dawnstar

well, then, alot of the churches then are still haven't examined the context enough, because the bias is still in their doctrines...
there's some glaringly obvious ones....like the sect of mormons that have recently gotten into a legal bind for forcing underage girls into marriage...but look have the southern baptist's doctrine, the pentecostal, the catholic...ect...
they have watered down the original words, but none of them will dare remove women's position as being under man...

I would agree that most religions that claim to be Christian fall into that catagory. I think that is why Jesus said, "

Matthew 7:21-23 (KJ) 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

and this

(Matthew 7:13-16) 13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. 15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them. . .