Showing posts with label Women's Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women's Issues. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

7 Shocking Bible Verses You Probably Won't Hear In Church

The is a link to an article from Buzzfeed that attempts to take seven Biblical verses and assert that Christians are ashamed of them. The assumption seems to be that after 2000 years, no one has ever thought seriously about these verses and what they mean until now! 



 7 Shocking Bible Verses You Probably Won't Hear In Church



I think the article shows what happens when reading comprehension fails.  To be fair, one cannot simply read the Bible and understand everything that is being communicated without looking at history at the time and an attitude of fairly allowing the text to speak. As a contrast checkout Dr James White's response to this article.



Saturday, August 10, 2013

High Five of the Day - Stand to Reason | Unstringing the Violinist

Greg Koukl wrote a very good response to the following argument supporting Abortion. 

But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
The argument is designed to give people the dilemma of agreeing that in a particular circumstance it is okay to end the life of a person and that it's no different than when it comes to abortion. It's a clever argument designed to make you scratch your head and at first blush agree to it. However with a little bit of thought it is plain to see that the violinist metaphor fails on several levels. Follow the link to see Greg Koukl's answer.

Stand to Reason | Unstringing the Violinist

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Sarah Slamen, Texas Woman, Dragged Out Of Senate Amid Fiery Testimony Against Abortion Bill

I really disliked the scene in the following video. Sarah Slamen was expressing her right to free speech in the Texas Senate and was yet forcibly removed from the Senate floor. I disagree with her on Abortion but she had the right to say what she did. She, as do we all, have the right to judge our government. This is America after all.

Follow the link to see the video.
Sarah Slamen, Texas Woman, Dragged Out Of Senate Amid Fiery Testimony Against Abortion Bill

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity

I wonder why Harry McCall even bothers to make arguments using the Biblical text because he never bothers to get the text correct. Who edits the Debunking Christianity anyway? Why does he think that Paul's writing is misogynistic? Is that what the text really saying? Can he substantiate his conclusions? Nope.

The first mark for Paul against women is that THEY ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken from Adam (who alone is created in the image of God). In 1 Corinthians 11: 7b – 9 Paul states this fact: “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”


That does not mean that women are less than men or that women are not created in the image of  God. Paul would have agreed with Genesis 1:26-28

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:26-28

God created men and women in God's image. Genesis 2 gives the details  of how God did it. Paul is not contradicting scripture. Paul is, instead, discussing the roles of men and women  not ontology.  McCall did not show how Paul's words elevates men over women.  Let's look at  what Paul wrote that shows how this works out even clearer (I wonder why McCall does not quote the whole passage?)..

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 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.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Think about what the order of roles that is being stated.Woman submits to man. Christ submits to God. Paul believed that Jesus is God therefore Jesus is not inferior to God. 

11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. - Titus 2:11-14

Therefore, extending the parallel that Paul is using, women are not inferior to men. And what about verse 13? Paul was not explaining that women were inferior in any way.

Secondly for Paul, when in a worship service all women MUST keep their faces veiled so the glory of God will be revealed in the men in attendance of whom God created alone in his image: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” (1 Corinthians 11: 5 - 6)

Verse 13 kills McCall's whole argument.

Simply put, all women must keep their ungodly faces covered with a veil if their hair has been cut short (shaved) or – if they don’t have a veil – then let them use their long hair to cover their faces. For if there are angles in the worship service, these angles would be shocked to see any woman worshipping with their face uncovered taking away the glory of God found only in men: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11: 10)

So why did Paul say "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16)? Simple: McCall is wrong.


For Paul, all men must keep their hair short as to display the glory of God: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” (1 Corinthians 11: 7) and “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11: 14)

More importantly, in Paul’s view all women are the deceivers descended directly from Eve who alone listened to the serpent then mislead Adam: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” (1Timothy 2: 14)

The Bible does not lay the blame of sin on Eve, But Adam. Eve was deceived. She was innocent. Adam had the responsibility and the failure. 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— - Romans 5:12

This being the case, Paul demands: “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14: 34 - 35)

This cannot mean that women are not supposed to ever teach or preach in the Church. I've written more about at this link and you should also read here.

And

“Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (I Tim. 2: 11 – 14)

Thus all women have two strikes against them over and above Original Sin, and these two curses have been pasted to ALL women just as Adam and Eve’s collective disobedience has been pasted down on all humanity:

Um what curses?  

A. Women ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken out of Adam making them forever inferior to men thus requiring them to cover their faces while in the worship assembly.

Already shown that this is not true. 

B. Women are weak and gullible in that only the woman was tricked by the serpent, who in turn deceived the man. Thus for Paul, all women are simple minded and gullible and should NEVER be given the chance to mislead men again.

The woman were gullible while the man outright rebelled against God. He knew better,. I admit that many people look at this point the way that McCall presents it, but that is not what the Bible says.

In the so called Lord’s Prayer, Jesus made an emphatic statement: “γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς” (with γενηθήτω in the aorist imperative) that God’s will (θέλημα) must be done in Heaven as upon earth.

Yes. And just what is God's will that will be on Heaven as it is on earth?

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 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. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29

Now when we put this statement in with Paul’s theology of women, sadly women bear a huge curse above men that can NEVER be forgiven either here on earth or in Heaven!

Um no. Not even close. It's only through Christ that we - male and female - are free. This isn't the point women are less than man. Just the contrary and McCall has failed to demonstrate that the Bible says women are inferior to men.

Harry McCall 

Please Pray for Harry McCall



Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Answering Muslims: Muslim Clerics Condemn Law That Would Protect Women from Domestic Violence and Marital Rape

One of the reasons I like David Wood's blog posts is that he doesn't just say that the Quran and Hadiths say things, he actually quotes the sources and gives the references! In this case he first gives the references:

The Qur'an allows men to beat women into submission:
Qur'an 4:34--Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
It also declares that women are the sexual property of their husbands:
Qur'an 2:223--Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

David Wood gives the references before he posts the news article. In this case that a law in Lebanon that would have simply protected women from domestic violence was opposed by Muslim clergy.

Dar al-Fatwa also slammed as "heresy" a clause in the bill that criminalises marital rape, accusing those behind the draft law of "inventing new types of crimes."

"This will have a negative impact on Muslim children... who will see their mother threatening their father with prison, in defiance of patriarchal authority, which will in turn undermine the moral authority" of fathers, it said.

If your wife say, "Not Tonight." or "No" then a husband has no right to force her. It's sick to think otherwise. A husband's authority does not allow him to abuse his wife. We do not have that right.

Answering Muslims: Muslim Clerics Condemn Law That Would Protect Women from Domestic Violence and Marital Rape
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, March 25, 2011

'Dilbert' Creator Scott Adams Compares Women Asking for Equal Pay to Children Demanding Candy - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I think Comics Alliance is a great site! Its not just about comics and movies - it is socially relevant and responsible. Take this post. Laura Hudson writes a great opinion post about the truly idiotic thoughts expressed by Scott Adams that equate the social injustices of women with those men "suffer" from and then proceeds to basically tell women to suck it up since there is nothing we can do about it. I truly suggest reading her whole article but here is the quote from Scott Adams that touched this off.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles. -Scott Adams

Ladies and gentlemen, it truly is a strange world.

'Dilbert' Creator Scott Adams Compares Women Asking for Equal Pay to Children Demanding Candy - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Answering Muslims: U.K. Muslim Cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed Declares That Rape Is Not Possible in Marriage

I agree with David Wood. It doesn't make sense to argue that women are equal to men but must provide sex to their husbands no matter how they feel or think. If a husband and wife are "one flesh" than raping your wife is akin to suicide. It makes no sense.

Answering Muslims: U.K. Muslim Cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed Declares That Rape Is Not Possible in Marriage
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Confident Christianity: Women in Islam Documentary Video

Benazir Bhutto, photographed at Chandini Resta...Image via Wikipedia
On Mary Jo Sharp's ministry's blog there is a trailer for a new documentary about Muslim women. I want to see this because I have questions about what it mean to women to be Muslim. I mean for men Islam offers a lot of promises but what is it that attracts women? I believe that this documentary may begin to answer that question.

Confident Christianity: Women in Islam Documentary Video



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]