1. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8591
    18 May '13 13:213 edits
    The verse in Genesis stating that man was made in the image of God makes it clear that by "man" - male and female is intended.

    Genesis 1:27 - "And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them."

    You're not talking to the Instructor now. You're reading my response.

    I have already spoken to your 50 shekels / 30 shekels complaint. Most likely the military service of the male was valued higher.

    Tell me why bigamy or polygamy is not instructed in the law of Moses ?

    Why does Leviticus 18:18 forbid a man to take his wife's sister also as a wife ?

    "Do not take your wife's sister [literally, 'a woman to her sister'] as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." (NIV)

    We know some Old Testament figures had more than one wife. But you cannot prove God commanded it but rather made some provision for it as He would for contacting leprosy or fleeing an avenging enemy.

    By the way, the literal words "a woman to her sister" and its counterpart "a man to his brother," are used twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and never do they refer to a literal sister or brother. Rather, they are idioms for "on in addition to another." So the passage is not concerning INCEST. It refers to a wife in addition to a wife already possessed.

    If women in God's law are inferior as in the many cultures in ancient Near East where polygamy was law, why does God rule against it in Leviticus 18:18 ?
  2. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    18 May '13 13:40
    Originally posted by sonship
    The verse in Genesis stating that man was made in the image of God makes it clear that by "man" - male and female is intended.

    Genesis 1:27 - [b]"And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them."


    You're not talking to the Instructor now. You're reading my response.

    I have already s ...[text shortened]... ast where polygamy was law, why does God rule against it in Leviticus 18:18 ?[/b]
    Lol, I myself thought he was a she. Meaning sunhouse.
  3. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8591
    18 May '13 13:421 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    Lol, I myself thought he was a she. Meaning sunhouse.
    Whether Mr. sonhouse or Ms. sonhouse. This poster wants to claim the moral highground on women. To sonhouse God and the bible are to be condemned as Neanderthalic on the status of women.

    I'm going to examine sonhouse a bit on this accusation.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    18 May '13 14:54
    Originally posted by sonship
    Whether Mr. sonhouse or Ms. sonhouse. This poster wants to claim the moral highground on women. To sonhouse God and the bible are to be condemned as Neanderthalic on the status of women.

    I'm going to examine sonhouse a bit on this accusation.
    Did you actually READ Leviticus 27/4? The very first sentence goes 'AND THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES". RJ says I take things out of context but exactly how do I take that sentence out of context? That is your supposed lord telling MOSES exactly what this alleged god thinks men and women are worth. Rationalizing it out to warrior status is all well and good but that is a HUMAN trait, your thinking alone in that matter. The words are extremely clear, women are worth 30 sheks and men 50.

    I am not so much concerned with the idea of women being on a lower plane than men so much as those words SCREAMING manmade. It is just SO convenient that words supposedly from your lord would just HAPPEN to put men on a higher plane than women when it is MEN who are in the upper ranks of ALL religions on Earth today. OF COURSE men would like to be considered to be superior in all ways than women and the idea back then was to keep women barefoot and pregnant and the baby better be a male or else said chattel woman could be killed and another take her place. That is how women were treated back in those days.

    It galls me that women are lower ranked than men and it is clear it is just a joking matter you all you assshole men out there, and I am btw not a woman, I just hate to see injustice going on century after century where men can point to Leviticus and go 'SEE, its right here in the bible, you bitches are worthless so get back in bed'.

    Of course all you religious propagandists are so brainwashed so deeply that doesn't amount to a hill of beans especially since you are all men who just poo poo the whole thing off.

    When your bible says THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES, just exactly what do think we are supposed to think as to the source of that statement. It happens in almost every verse in Leviticus.

    Then there are the verses that proscribe certain foods when that is not a religious issue at all but Jews, muslims and some christians treat it as if it were a religious edict. It is not a religious issue, it is a health issue. Back in the day you could get some nasty diseases from eating food not prepared or grown correctly. So why didn't your supposed lord say, hey, don't frigging grow your animals in their own poop for god's sake, keep them clean. You see, there are these little animals so small they can't be seen but they can contaminate your food source so boil the hell out of pork and don't raise them in their own poop.

    Why don't you see a verse like THAT in your much vaunted bible? Why isn't there real help there instead of making food a religious object? Granted, its all well and good to bless the food you eat and all that but to tell you exact foods you can eat without telling you why also SCREAMS manmade.

    If a god actually said those things it would have said instead, boil your frigging pork very well if you don't want to get parasites inside your body. No, it does not say that, it just says, don't eat pork and milk together or some such rot.

    So why didn't your lord say, hey guys, try heating your milk up to just below boiling point for a few minutes so it is safe to drink?

    And I'll TELL you why: Because the whole edifice was MADE UP BY MEN who at that time would not have known about tiny parasites and bacteria and viruses. Hell, we have enough trouble with E coli 3000 years later with all our modern technology, we STILL get in trouble sometimes.

    But back then the only answer, BECAUSE it came from men, 'we don't have a clue why people are getting sick but we know it is coming from eating pork' HEY, I have an idea, lets make up a verse in the bible that comes from the lord where HE says don't eat pork. Yeah, that'l do it, the poor slobs will think it comes from the lord and we can save lives.

    Makes PERFECT sense to me. Another case of man made religious edicts supposedly coming from a god.

    A god would know ALL about parasites, bacteria, plagues and so forth but is there ANYTHING in the bible about that? NO because no god wrote ANYTHING like that to actually educate the poor slobs 3000 years ago.
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35525
    18 May '13 15:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It is just SO convenient that words supposedly from your lord would just HAPPEN to put men on a higher plane than women when it is MEN who are in the upper ranks of ALL religions on Earth today.
    Go tell that to Katharine Jefferts Schori, the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion. I'm sure she'll have a hearty chuckle.
  6. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93434
    18 May '13 15:49
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Go tell that to Katharine Jefferts Schori, the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion. I'm sure she'll have a hearty chuckle.
    it took until 2006 to get a female primate, im not so sure thats something to shout about.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    18 May '13 15:513 edits
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    it took until 2006 to get a female primate, im not so sure thats something to shout about.
    So now we know a monkey can do that job, ehπŸ™‚ It doesn't even take a great ape, just a female primateπŸ™‚

    Suzianne, you know that is a joke, right?

    It only took 2000 years, eh. So how long do you think before the same think happens to Baptists or Catholics? My guess is not in THIS millennium.

    What part of that nasty verse do you not understand, Leviticus 27/4, where the very first words are 'THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES', women are worth crap, etc. But just a few verses later, all is better? This supposedly from YOUR LORD. My bitch is not so much women being under men, it is foisting that statement off as coming from a god.

    Can you actually see a real god giving higher value to people with one set of genitalia as being superior to those with the other ones?

    Just exactly what kind of god would decide that? A female chicken is not worth the same as a rooster? In that context, doesn't it seem just a bit weird on the face of it? Doesn't it instead speak of men just making up bullshyte and codifying it in a supposedly god inspired verse to put it now in stone where men are JUST CONVENIENTLY on the top of the heap? Doesn't that strike you as JUST A BIT STRANGE? Regardless of the argument of whether a male is superior to a female or vice versa? That is not my argument that I am grousing over the injustice done to females although that is one of my agenda's, the main issue is pawning off such statements as if it actually came from a god. Use Occam's razor here, look at the simplest possibility, which is, it SUITS MEN VERY WELL TO BE THOUGHT OF AS ON TOP IN ALL THINGS AND ESPECIALLY IN RELIGION.
  8. Dublin Ireland
    Joined
    31 Oct '12
    Moves
    14235
    18 May '13 16:391 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So now we know a monkey can do that job, ehπŸ™‚ It doesn't even take a great ape, just a female primateπŸ™‚

    Suzianne, you know that is a joke, right?

    It only took 2000 years, eh. So how long do you think before the same think happens to Baptists or Catholics? My guess is not in THIS millennium.

    What part of that nasty verse do you not understand, Levit SUITS MEN VERY WELL TO BE THOUGHT OF AS ON TOP IN ALL THINGS AND ESPECIALLY IN RELIGION.
    And the Lord says, I'm worth 50 Sheks,
    so get out your pen, start writing them checks.
    When it come to the females I'm worth 20 more.
    And don't forget to tip the guy guarding the door.

    I may be a slave, a farmer, a warrior too.
    But guess what I'm worth 20 more Sheks than you.
    So I'm tellin' you woman, you better get out of my face.
    Get back in that kitchen and know your place.

    The Almighty father has a great value on me.
    It sure is a shame, you're not the same don't you see?
    I could trade you in for a goat or some rice,
    you're on sale now woman at a discount price!!!!!!!!!


    πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8591
    18 May '13 16:502 edits
    Did you actually READ Leviticus 27/4? The very first sentence goes 'AND THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES". RJ says I take things out of context but exactly how do I take that sentence out of context?


    But you're talking to me, sonship now.

    Dedicate some attention solely to me and don't get your rebuttals confused.

    Why no divine oracle for a man to secure for himself more than one wife like collecting say, well, butteflies, for example ?


    That is your supposed lord telling MOSES exactly what this alleged god thinks men and women are worth. Rationalizing it out to warrior status is all well and good but that is a HUMAN trait, your thinking alone in that matter. The words are extremely clear, women are worth 30 sheks and men 50.


    Answer me on Lev. 18:18 first. How come no polygamy. Plenty of the surrounding cultures practiced it.

    You think the Hittites and the Phoenicians had the moral highground on Israel under the law given on Mt. Sinai ? You'd rather be a woman under the code of Hammurabi than under the law of Moses ?

    Some of the laws of pagan nations practiced this. If the HUSBAND commit adultery, do you know WHO was punished ? Not the husband but his WIFE !!

    Oh yea! The wife could be GANG RAPED as punishment for her husband finding the need to go commit adultery. That would keep the women in line, they must have thought.

    I think I'd rather be a married women under the Levitical laws to that any day.

    Are you married sonhouse ? Just out of curiosity. Married?
    Got a girlfriend then ?

    How many girlfriends in the last 30 some years have you had ?
    I've been happily involved in a Christian marriage for about 36 years.
    Our partnership is strongly based on spirituality derived from the Holy Bible.

    Been married for awhile sonhouse ?
    How many girlfriends have you broken up with in that last 30 years ?
    None ?? Or Some ?

    You have the moral highground here supposedly and REALLY respect women unlike us Bible believers. Right ?



    I am not so much concerned with the idea of women being on a lower plane than men so much as those words SCREAMING manmade.


    SCREAMING ... you say ?

    I have yet to hear a man scream this - "You have heard that it was said, " You shall not commit adultery."

    But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Jesus - Matt. 5:28)


    This shows Old Testament self control called for around women and even more self control around them in the New Testament.

    Consider the multi billion dollar pornography industry. You think we moderns have the moral high ground on the Bible as related to women ?

    Seems to me that the Son of God is calling for self control down in the innermost motive and inclination of the attitude of the disciples. I can't make it without the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Men screaming sonhouse ? I don't hear men screaming about male self control like this too much.

    You have many posts on this Forum. If we searched through them would we find no posts rather exploitive towards women sonhouse ? You've made thousands of wisecracks over the years here. Among them could we find none exploitive of women ?

    Maybe some of us should go through your voluminous posts and see if your without offenses in this regard.


    It is just SO convenient that words supposedly from your lord would just HAPPEN to put men on a higher plane than women when it is MEN who are in the upper ranks of ALL religions on Earth today.


    I wrote before that the men discples recorded to their shame that the resurrected Christ FIRST appeared to the WOMEN disciples. A very potentially embarrassing admition. Women's testimony in that time was not accounted in court cases.

    How embarrassing to the male disciples. Maybe it is the truth. Self incriminating information in history argues for truthfulness. Why didn't the men spin the account so as to have THEM be the first witnesses to Christ rising from the dead and THEN the cowardly women hiding behind the men ?

    Nope. The sorrowful men were clear. Clear enough to remain in bed. And the WOMEN at the grace site were the first to witness the single most important event in history as they saw it - the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

    How come God honored the WOMEN to be the first witnesses of His Son's resurrection ?


    OF COURSE men would like to be considered to be superior in all ways than women and the idea back then was to keep women barefoot and pregnant and the baby better be a male or else said chattel woman could be killed and another take her place. That is how women were treated back in those days.


    You're arguing like a drunkard. You cannot impose all your observed prejudices into the Bible - guilt by association somehow.

    Look, I do not deny patriarchical society at that time. But we'll soberly consider more facts of the Bible.


    It galls me that women are lower ranked than men and it is clear it is just a joking matter you all you assshole men out there, and I am btw not a woman,


    How many girlfriends have you broken up with in the last 30 years sonhouse ?

    How many females from your whole life would not have a look of delight on their faces standing over you at your deathbed ?
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    18 May '13 17:06
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So now we know a monkey can do that job, ehπŸ™‚ It doesn't even take a great ape, just a female primateπŸ™‚

    Suzianne, you know that is a joke, right?

    It only took 2000 years, eh. So how long do you think before the same think happens to Baptists or Catholics? My guess is not in THIS millennium.

    What part of that nasty verse do you not understand, Levit ...[text shortened]... SUITS MEN VERY WELL TO BE THOUGHT OF AS ON TOP IN ALL THINGS AND ESPECIALLY IN RELIGION.
    When I said taken out of context, I did not mean that this was not something God told Moses. What I meant is that you refuse to see the purpose of this section of scripture and take it out of context from that purpose, and then assign your own purpose to it as a strawman, so you can condemn what God has said, similar to how Satan did with Eve in the Garden of Eden. With your great knowledge of scripture, you must be aware of how Satan deceived Eve into believing God had lied, for you are using a similar method to infer that God would not have said such a thing.

    I explained the pupose of this section to you at least once and maybe twice before, but you have refused to even consider it. I believe my explanation went in one ear and out the outher. I feel safe in saying that you can not repeat that explantion today. You do not want to hear it, because you have already made up your mind to reject God's word as just words from evil men. Yet you readily accept words coming from the evil mind of man when he presents you with the theory of Evil-lution, which has never been able to explain how the sexes began. However, the Holy Bible has explained the origin of the sexes in very simple terms as a creative act of God by creating mankind male and female and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply.

    The Instructor
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    18 May '13 17:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    When I said taken out of context, I did not mean that this was not something God told Moses. What I meant is that you refuse to see the purpose of this section of scripture and take it out of context from that purpose, and then assign your own purpose to it as a strawman, so you can condemn what God has said, similar to how Satan did with Eve in the Garden ...[text shortened]... ting mankind male and female and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply.

    The Instructor
    What you really mean is you are changing the meaning to suit your agenda. There is no changing the meaning of 'THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES that women are worth less, etc. then a few verses later they throw a bone to women. It doesn't work like you think, either your god has a gender bias or it doesn't. And that is not even my main argument, bias against women. The main argument is a god would NEVER say women are worth less than men. Like a god would say female chickens are worth less than Roosters? Or a male horse is worth more than a female horse or a male bear is worth more than a female bear? THAT is my argument, not that the also reprehensible treatment of women, which is another issue entirely.

    It is my position that no sane god would declare such nonsense. Such a god would be an escapee from a god insane asylum. Show me where your god is sane. It is just as likely if it exists at all, it is just capricious, vindictive and really needing billions of sycophants giving it all the ego massaging it wants, forever in this case since it is in fact an insane god. The problem for me is why didn't your god's caretakers come around and undo the tremendous damage your insane god has done over the centuries.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    18 May '13 19:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What you really mean is you are changing the meaning to suit your agenda. There is no changing the meaning of 'THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES that women are worth less, etc. then a few verses later they throw a bone to women. It doesn't work like you think, either your god has a gender bias or it doesn't. And that is not even my main argument, bias against women. ...[text shortened]... ers come around and undo the tremendous damage your insane god has done over the centuries.
    Just as I thought. My explanation of the purpose went in one ear and out the other without any delay to consider it.

    The Instuctor
  13. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    18 May '13 19:341 edit
    http://guzik.biblecommenter.com/commentaries/0327.htm

    http://bible.org/seriespage/value-vow-leviticus-27

    http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=3&c=27

    http://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=tqOXUeT6NaScjALhgIGoCQ&q=the+meaning+of+leviticus+27&oq=the+meaning+of+leviticus+27&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0i22i30l3.3393.60400.0.62367.28.25.0.3.3.1.716.4423.12j1j7j2j2j0j1.25.0...0.0...1c.1.14.mobile-gws-hp.Lq-lBnnFt74

    I think sonhouse is missing the point here are some good explanation of the chapter.

    Saved by Grace
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    18 May '13 21:171 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    http://guzik.biblecommenter.com/commentaries/0327.htm

    http://bible.org/seriespage/value-vow-leviticus-27

    http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=3&c=27

    http://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=tqOXUeT6NaScjALhgIGoCQ&q=the+meaning+of+leviticus+27&oq=the+meaning+of+leviticus+27&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0i22i30l3.3393.60400.0.62367.28.2 ...[text shortened]... k sonhouse is missing the point here are some good explanation of the chapter.

    Saved by Grace
    I think the underlying lesson that God was teaching the children of israel are summed in the following presented by the commentator in your second link:
    http://bible.org/seriespage/value-vow-leviticus-27

    “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised” (Deut. 23:21-23).

    “Again, you have heard that the ancients were, told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King” (Matt. 5:33-35).

    Matters were even worse, for later in Matthew we find that there were certain oaths which were thought not to be binding, while only very technically worded oaths were binding: “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated’” (Matt. 23:16). And so we see that a legalistic view of vows meant that very few vows were actually kept, or even intended to be kept. This was far from the intent of the Law.

    Jesus broadened the requirement of truthfulness to every affirmation, to every commitment which men might make: “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’” (Matt. 5:37). In other words, the Law called upon men to be truthful in every statement, in every affirmation, not just with regard to oaths or vows. Thus, we can say that every commitment, every promise is as good as a vow, and should be spoken with all due consideration, with truthfulness, and then should be kept.

    I believe that it is for this reason that the New Testament hardly speaks of vows, but says a great deal about our affirmations and commitments.

    In Mark 7:9-13 our Lord condemned the Pharisees and the scribes for the misuse of the vow, which used the “corban” to avoid their responsibilities. Thus, by dedicating their goods to God, they avoided meeting their obligations to the parents. This would have been an especially tempting evil for the priests, for the vowed gifts were both appraised by the priests and used by them. When a priest vowed something to God as a “corban” gift, he got the use of that gift, yet it was technically his, so he could not give of it to his parents.

    James warned of presuming on the future and of putting off the good which could be done today until later. We cannot be presumptuous of what the future will hold, nor dare we delay in meeting the needs of others today when we have the means to do so (James 4:13-17).

    In the final chapter of his epistle, James concludes, “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment” (Jas. 5:12).

    The teaching of the Old Testament is thus carried through in the New, with added emphasis that every commitment must be carried through, just as the vow should be.

    This is not merely an Old Testament phenomenon. In the New Testament Book of Acts we find Ananias and Sapphira trying to reduce their gift, while at the same time representing their offering as the total sum of the proceeds of the sale of their property (Acts 5:1ff.)
  15. old pueblo
    Joined
    03 Apr '11
    Moves
    12696
    18 May '13 23:15
    Originally posted by sonship
    The verse in Genesis stating that man was made in the image of God makes it clear that by "man" - male and female is intended.

    Genesis 1:27 - [b]"And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them."


    You're not talking to the Instructor now. You're reading my response.

    I have already s ...[text shortened]... ast where polygamy was law, why does God rule against it in Leviticus 18:18 ?[/b]
    My theory: Unless women are so repressed culturally that they have no options at all (which is common in polygamous cultures), a man with two rival wives can too soon leave behind two widows. If a husband came home and presented me with wife number two and told me God told him to marry her, I'd send him directly to the deity and find out if that's what He really said. Up close and personal.
Back to Top