Islamic Wife beating

[NBVegita]

I was referring to Bak,

 

You make a sound argument simply based on the fact that none of any sources I can find anywhere show heterosexual vs homosexual adoptions.

 

But then in contrast I would say that it is better to stay with your birth parents, based on your theory, thus making it better for the child to be in a natural heterosexual environment.

[Bak]

Artificial Insemination

[LearJett+]

speaking of Islamic wife beating....

 

 

just kidding. i'd be interested to see statistics on how often children who have homosexual parents are homosexual.

[Bak]

from one of nbv's christian sources:

 

The Tasker-Golombok study also revealed that the percentage of the young women raised by lesbians who later went on to self-identify as lesbians was nearly eight times the rate of the general population (11% versus 1.4%).

[SeVeR]

good for them

[Bak]

what the !@#$%^&* does that mean

[SeVeR]

To say otherwise would mean that you don't think it's right to be gay. I obviously think it's fine to be gay (and that's what i meant by my post). People can choose how they want to live. You disagree?

[Bak]

0nUI3TUdFCkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk

[WongKonPow]

I don't agree with any of the things that guy said in that video. Religious or otherwise, men have no right to beat their wives in any way. Mind you, he could still just be a radical. Though he does mention that it says that in the qua ran(sp? I have no clue how to spell it, lol), I would have to see a direct quote from it to still think that it actually says to beat your wife.

[Bak]

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm

 

i know it's a christian site, but at least the passage is probably accurate.

[SeVeR]

The Qu'ran refers to good women as not deserving beatings. It refers to disloyal, rebellious, disobedient women as deserving of a beating. Thus it comes down (as always) to the interpretation of the Qu'ran, and like the Bible, the door is left open for people to interpret God's word in the worst ways imaginable (by thinking their wife is disobedient).

 

As already explained earlier, the Bible has the same sexist sentiment, but probably to a lesser degree. Nevertheless, disobedient women were stoned in the Bible.

 

I don't trust anything on Christian websites. Issues like abortion, homosexuality, and islamic wife-beating are discussions that cause considerable divide. If these topics are discussed on a Christian site then you already know what their conclusions will be. Thus there is no point in paying them a visit, as they have undoubtedly started with a conclusion and undertaken a selective sampling of the evidence to fit that conclusion.

[WongKonPow]

haha, no sever, they are never disobedient, just saying that they are disobedient makes it sound like they just refused to cook dinner. In the bible the women are usually pros!@#$%^&*utes, or women who have had affairs with other men. And stoning was something in the Old testament that had more to do with Hebrew culture, and has nothing to do with Christianity. This is shown when Jesus defends Mary from being stoned by a bunch of pharisees.

 

and you also chose to make another generalization, just because some 'christian' websites are bigotive swill, doesn't mean that they all are.

Edited December 17, 2007 by WongKonPow

[SeVeR]

Of course not all Christian websites are choc-full of deceptive, presumptious, bigotted, hate-mongering filth.... just all the ones i've visitted are.

 

One god-awful example (pardon ther pun) is Answer's In Genesis, which even goes so far as to use scientific language to fool the reader into believing the Bible is backed up by evidence, and evolution is impossible.

 

I've already described how Christianity is a great temptation, now we can get onto the deceit and lies. The bearer of light would be so proud - (there's a Christian conundrum for which you'll need a Bible and a translation).

 

Anyway.

they are never disobedient, just saying that they are disobedient makes it sound like they just refused to cook dinner.

Disobedience is decided upon differently by every man. Thus if the Qu'ran says: "As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them." ... Then some will use any excuse to call their wives disobedient in order to beat them, while others will not.

 

In the same way, if the Bible says: "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." ... Then some Christians may use this as an excuse to treat their wives like slaves.

 

Or this: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" ... As being equivalent to the Islamic system of dress for women.

 

Or this: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." ... As being an excuse to keep women from having any kind of successful career (because that would involve authority).

 

Or this: "And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart snares and nets, her hands bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." ... As reason to think all women are deceitful, evil, tempters of men.

 

Or this: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God" ... and this "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." ... as even more reason to enslave the woman to the man.

 

It comes down to interpretation in every case. We know that our culture once interpreted the Bible in much the same way Islam interprets the Quran now. The standards of intepretation are entirely cultural, and if our cultures had swapped holy books 2000 years ago, the results would probably be the same.

[ThunderJam]

Of course not all Christian websites are choc-full of deceptive, presumptious, bigotted, hate-mongering filth.... just all the ones i've visitted are.

 

One god-awful example (pardon ther pun) is Answer's In Genesis, which even goes so far as to use scientific language to fool the reader into believing the Bible is backed up by evidence, and evolution is impossible.

Im finding you to be coming off a bid absurd. Isn't us trying to back up Christianity, to give facts proving Jesus did what the Bible says, to give evidence that anything we believe happened... isn't that what your always asking us? So a site trying to answer that... is condemned by you? If no Christian site at all is to be tolerated, then no site affiliated with any other religion should be, and then all the religious people of the world wouldn't accept your websites either. If you're not willing to consider anything, this is not a debate.

 

As to that video, the guy says some wives simply won't cooperate any other way unless beaten. They why the !@#$%^&* did the man marry her? I mean c'mon. Even if she disobeys him, he shouldn't be allowed to beat her. I see two options as a reaction to chronic disobedience: a Legal path, and a physical personal path. Either they go to therapy, get someone to help them, file a divorce, etc... or they try the man tries to handle it at home, which will usually turn to something like a beating. Sayign that beating as a last result to disobedience is acceptable is basically saying beating a wife would be better then going about it legally. If going about it legally is better, then beating should be illegal.

 

In the same way, if the Bible says: "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." ... Then some Christians may use this as an excuse to treat their wives like slaves.

 

Or this: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" ... As being equivalent to the Islamic system of dress for women.

 

Or this: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." ... As being an excuse to keep women from having any kind of successful career (because that would involve authority).

 

Or this: "And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart snares and nets, her hands bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." ... As reason to think all women are deceitful, evil, tempters of men.

 

Or this: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God" ... and this "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." ... as even more reason to enslave the woman to the man.

 

It comes down to interpretation in every case. We know that our culture once interpreted the Bible in much the same way Islam interprets the Quran now. The standards of intepretation are entirely cultural, and if our cultures had swapped holy books 2000 years ago, the results would probably be the same.

None of these say to beat the wife, whereas the quaran quotes bak showed, and the guy in that video refers to literally say "beat them" or "scourge" them on multiple occasions. Implying that a man is in charge in the bible's case is a long jump from instructing men to beat their wives. And we've gone over this before, the context of these verses you are quoting.

 

The excessive jewelry and such was speaking out against certain clothing trends in pros!@#$%^&*utes of the time.

 

The one about a woman with snares as nets is referring to a prositute, many verses similar to that occur in Proverbs in which the author in old age is warning younger men against the dangers of pros!@#$%^&*utes. You commenting that it implies all women are deceitful is completely ridiculous. If you knew what it was talking about, you'd realize how absurd it would be for someone to infer all women frmo that.

 

It comes down to interpretation in every case. We know that our culture once interpreted the Bible in much the same way Islam interprets the Quran now. The standards of intepretation are entirely cultural, and if our cultures had swapped holy books 2000 years ago, the results would probably be the same.

IT really doesn't come down to interpretation, you just want it to. Those quaran verses verbatim say to beat or scourge a woman. These do not. And like someone else said, many of these come down to old Jewish customs. Yes they are in the bible, primarily the old testament, but consider the purpose of the old testament in the bible. The old testament establishes the need for Jesus. It shows sins, it shows prophecies, and the history of the jewish people. Then comes Christ, who is what the Old testament is leading up to. Christ shows mercy to women on several occasions. He corrected many the leaders of the synagogue for falsely interpretting things and turning it to their own advantages. Because an old jewish law is in the old testament, does that mean it applies to Christians now? In many states in the US there are random laws frmo bygone days that were never abolished. Stuff like in WAshington state it is illegal to pretend your parents are rich. Who enforces that? It probly leads back to days when voting was a privilege based on your wealth. Should people living their now not be allowed to do that? This is the same as christian women having to live by rules that applied to time-and-culture specific rules of the jews.

Edited December 18, 2007 by ThunderJam

[SeVeR]

Those quaran verses verbatim say to beat or scourge a woman.

They do? Wow, i must have read it wrong. You see, i thought it said to only beat women if they are rebellious and give you reason to fear them. Thus:

IT really doesn't come down to interpretation, you just want it to.

Is a load of crap, as the man has to interpret the Quran's definition of rebellious as applying to his wife in order to beat her.

 

Im finding you to be coming off a bid absurd. Isn't us trying to back up Christianity, to give facts proving Jesus did what the Bible says, to give evidence that anything we believe happened... isn't that what your always asking us? So a site trying to answer that... is condemned by you?

A site that applies the scientific method to Biblical theories would never receive my condemnation. A site that uses scientific language to fool the reader into believing his pre-conceived ideas of Christianity are true in a scientific context, will always receive my full condemnation. That is what Answers In Genesis is. It's outright deceit, where people too stupid to understand science beyond high-school level can become convinced that science supports their Christian ideas.

 

I guess we all have hope, and my hope is for an educated world. Christian websites tend to destroy that hope.

 

None of these say to beat the wife, whereas the quaran quotes bak showed, and the guy in that video refers to literally say "beat them" or "scourge" them on multiple occasions. Implying that a man is in charge in the bible's case is a long jump from instructing men to beat their wives. And we've gone over this before, the context of these verses you are quoting.

You're right, the Bible quotes don't say to beat rebellious women. Did i say they do? The Bible quotes merely allow any man to believe women are inferior and need to be "ruled over" - this is basically slavery. If you want to go a step further, one might theorise that with slavery comes the beating of slaves to enforce obedience. How else do you enforce your "rule" over your inferiors.

 

The reason Christians aren't beating their wives is because of the culture we live in. Thus the Christian tendency is to interpret those passages with the most liberal of at!@#$%^&*udes. Islamic countries are a few hundred years behind us, we need to give them time. You know those rape stories where the victim is punished too? Well i just heard that the Saudi King has pardoned the victim of a recent case; things are already changing.

 

passing off the Old Testament as "Jewish" is a little desperate. It's in the Bible, it's in the Christian holy book. If you don't want it !@#$%^&*ociated with your religion then have it removed. While it remains in the Bible, it is still a source of great influence over all Christians; and that's hard to deny.

[Bak]

. You know those rape stories where the victim is punished too? Well i just heard that the Saudi King has pardoned the victim of a recent case; things are already changing.

 

perhaps this is something for another topic, but giving a pardon rather than changing the law seems like a way to appease the West without really changing your ways. He wouldn't have given a pardon if the West wasn't so offended, and I doubt he'll do that in every case (this has happened more than once).

[ThunderJam]

Those quaran verses verbatim say to beat or scourge a woman.

They do? Wow, i must have read it wrong. You see, i thought it said to only beat women if they are rebellious and give you reason to fear them. Thus:

IT really doesn't come down to interpretation, you just want it to.

Is a load of crap, as the man has to interpret the Quran's definition of rebellious as applying to his wife in order to beat her.

Well, yes they say do it when a condition is true, but my point was that they actually say TO BEAT the wife, where as the Bible verses don't, and you can only say "well... we could intrepret this bible verse to mean.. that its justified to beat them." But they never actually say to do so.

 

None of these say to beat the wife, whereas the quaran quotes bak showed, and the guy in that video refers to literally say "beat them" or "scourge" them on multiple occasions. Implying that a man is in charge in the bible's case is a long jump from instructing men to beat their wives. And we've gone over this before, the context of these verses you are quoting.

You're right, the Bible quotes don't say to beat rebellious women. Did i say they do? The Bible quotes merely allow any man to believe women are inferior and need to be "ruled over" - this is basically slavery. If you want to go a step further, one might theorise that with slavery comes the beating of slaves to enforce obedience. How else do you enforce your "rule" over your inferiors.

So are we in agreement that Christianity is a step ahead of Islam in beating wives? Sure someone somewhere will always interpret something (in this case the bible for beating), but having to interpret that compared to being told to do it are two different things. One instructs you to do so, and one doesn't. How you interpret it is a matter of human judgement and fallacy, not of any fallacy in the text.

 

passing off the Old Testament as "Jewish" is a little desperate. It's in the Bible, it's in the Christian holy book. If you don't want it !@#$%^&*ociated with your religion then have it removed. While it remains in the Bible, it is still a source of great influence over all Christians; and that's hard to deny.

If we had it removed wouldn't you be complaining about a non-original text, being altered, being slanted to fit the views of the readers?

 

Consider these other things in the old testament that do not hold true to current-day Christians:

- In Leviticus it lays down the laws of jewish kosher, refraining from eating the fat and meat of certain animals.

- In Leviticus it lays the laws of being unclean during a woman's period.

- In Leviticus it states how people with specific skin infections should be shunned from society.

- There were laws for sacrifices that basically said to god, you've given us life even tho we sin, so im giving back to you. Usually a sacrifice was one's choicest livestock and they had to be made on a regular basis.

 

-Also in the book of Numbers, and over half of 1st Chronicles, we are given pages of family lineages that are meaningless to us, yet it isn't taken out.

 

Obviously there are plenty of things in the Old Testament that are not relevant to Christianity today. The doctrine of Christianity is almost solely defined in the New Testament, laid out in the the first 4 books, and then enforced by letters by influential figures such as Paul after Jesus' time. The purpose of the Old testament is for history sake. Why was Jesus needed? How did he change things from what they were before? What was said about the need of a Messiah before he came? Etc. Back to my example of faking your parents being rich in washington state. Obviously there was a reason for this (as i stated probably due to only being able to vote if you are of certain wealth status). Now that that specific indicator of voting elligibility isn't used, it doesn't mean the thought behind the Law is void. The thought is that who has a say in the government should be limited. There are rules now that define that, age laws, citizenship, absentee (is that what it's called?) voting for people who are overseas, etc. Obviously the old law doesn't directly apply, but the idea behind it is still taken into note. This is the case with "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array". Why can it not be for familial guidlines laid in the Bible, since roles in the workplace and other factors have changed the roles of the sexes at home?

 

Now if you are still with me at this point, and can somewhat understand why it would be logical to say all the husband-wife dynamics in the Bible aren't 100% word-for-word translatable to today, you may also think "Well that applies to islam too, and their text saying to beat their wives may not apply to today either." Yea I would agree, but as we've been seeing, at least a decent amount of the muslims ARE still interpretting it as applicable to today. Whether or not it is, I can't knowledgably argue since I do not know the in's and out's of the quaran like I do the Bible.

Edited December 19, 2007 by ThunderJam

[WongKonPow]

sever, you always disregard other aspects. The verses in the bible directly following the ones telling women to be submissive say that men MUST treat women with respect and honor them as children of God. It doesn't say, "You can show them respect if you want." It is a command, not a suggestion.

 

 

Ephesians 5

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

 

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church

 

those are only two of many verses in the bible telling men to love and respect their wives.

 

Colossians 3

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

 

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

 

I think beating would count as being 'harsh'

Edited December 20, 2007 by WongKonPow

[2pac]

does this topic really matter? in islamic nations its okay for a man to beat his wife so deal with it, american ppl think its wrong because they dont ever think of doing it, its cultural differences man, no need for a 7 page topic on this !@#$%^&* dude, its not that !@#$%^&*ing serious...

[SeVeR]

TJ:

Back to my example of faking your parents being rich in washington state. Obviously there was a reason for this (as i stated probably due to only being able to vote if you are of certain wealth status). Now that that specific indicator of voting elligibility isn't used, it doesn't mean the thought behind the Law is void. The thought is that who has a say in the government should be limited. There are rules now that define that, age laws, citizenship, absentee (is that what it's called?) voting for people who are overseas, etc. Obviously the old law doesn't directly apply, but the idea behind it is still taken into note.

Thankyou, you've made my point for me. The differences in the way we follow these "old laws" are purely cultural. These old laws are present in both books, just one culture takes them more literally due to a less developed (but still highly original and fascinating) culture.

 

If we had [The Old Testament] removed wouldn't you be complaining about a non-original text, being altered, being slanted to fit the views of the readers?

The new testament would still be original to the same extent it is today. However, i would mention that the "words of God" are only as consistent as the society we live in. The fact that you mention pieces of the Bible that are not as relevent or literal today as they were 2000 years ago shows that the Bible was written by men who were not advised by God. They were instead influenced by their culture. The Old Testament doesn't need to be removed for me to point this out, you've already told me how much of the Old Testament isn't relevent or literal.

 

Now if you are still with me at this point, and can somewhat understand why it would be logical to say all the husband-wife dynamics in the Bible aren't 100% word-for-word translatable to today, you may also think "Well that applies to islam too, and their text saying to beat their wives may not apply to today either." Yea I would agree, but as we've been seeing, at least a decent amount of the muslims ARE still interpretting it as applicable to today. Whether or not it is, I can't knowledgably argue since I do not know the in's and out's of the quaran like I do the Bible.

Well no, it doesn't apply to Islam because their culture is still at least 200 years behind ours. A larger majority of males will interpret the sexist statements in the Qu'ran more literally because the culture they live in accepts those statements more readily. The Christian culture accepted the Bible more literally centuries ago too.

 

Well, yes they say do it when a condition is true, but my point was that they actually say TO BEAT the wife, where as the Bible verses don't, and you can only say "well... we could intrepret this bible verse to mean.. that its justified to beat them." But they never actually say to do so.

You're right, the Qu'ran goes a bit further than the Bible. Nevertheless, the point is how many Muslims use the Qu'ran to justify beating their wives, compared to how many Christians use the Bible to justify treating their wives like slaves. The cultural differences are obviously the determinant factor in how liberally and literally the Muslims or Christians follow their holy book.

[WongKonPow]

2pac, if you think that women being beaten is fine in any country then you need to be punched in the face.

[ThunderJam]

The new testament would still be original to the same extent it is today. However, i would mention that the "words of God" are only as consistent as the society we live in. The fact that you mention pieces of the Bible that are not as relevent or literal today as they were 2000 years ago shows that the Bible was written by men who were not advised by God. They were instead influenced by their culture. The Old Testament doesn't need to be removed for me to point this out, you've already told me how much of the Old Testament isn't relevent or literal.

Just because something is not perfectly applicable throughout all of time can it not be inspired by God? As this applies to laws, cultures progress and need different things limited. Then pros!@#$%^&*ution was obviously a problem, now a problem might be gun control. Say a religion was to be formed now, and verses were written speaking against guns. The point is limiting violence, and promoting peace. In 200 years if guns no longer existed, would it prove that the verses weren't inspired by God? I don't think so (Altho this example is totally against what I beleive, since I don't think theres another God besides mine that would lay down laws today, but this is for argument's sake).

 

Now if you are still with me at this point, and can somewhat understand why it would be logical to say all the husband-wife dynamics in the Bible aren't 100% word-for-word translatable to today, you may also think "Well that applies to islam too, and their text saying to beat their wives may not apply to today either." Yea I would agree, but as we've been seeing, at least a decent amount of the muslims ARE still interpretting it as applicable to today. Whether or not it is, I can't knowledgably argue since I do not know the in's and out's of the quaran like I do the Bible.

Well no, it doesn't apply to Islam because their culture is still at least 200 years behind ours. A larger majority of males will interpret the sexist statements in the Qu'ran more literally because the culture they live in accepts those statements more readily. The Christian culture accepted the Bible more literally centuries ago too.

Nah im with you on this one, I was just thinking ahead and seeing an argument that one of you might present to me. Although I don't think the differences are PURELY cultural, as the old laws do say different things, but I would say culture plays a large role in it. Also, saying that their way of interpretting is only temporary, and it will change over time (like you are saying christians did) I don't think makes the present actions any more acceptable. Would you agree on that?

 

Well, yes they say do it when a condition is true, but my point was that they actually say TO BEAT the wife, where as the Bible verses don't, and you can only say "well... we could intrepret this bible verse to mean.. that its justified to beat them." But they never actually say to do so.

You're right, the Qu'ran goes a bit further than the Bible. Nevertheless, the point is how many Muslims use the Qu'ran to justify beating their wives, compared to how many Christians use the Bible to justify treating their wives like slaves. The cultural differences are obviously the determinant factor in how liberally and literally the Muslims or Christians follow their holy book.

Yea ok. My main point was that the only factor is not "how the book is interpretted" because theres also a factor of "what the book says." If book A literally says someting of score 7 (on a 1-10 scale of "badness", 10 being awful) then its interpretation may allow believers to commit things scoring from 5-9. If Book B literally says something of a score of 4, then the followers, by interpretation, may commit acts scored from 2-6. Thats all I was trying to point out. Even with interpretation varying in each culture, theres still is worse becuz their baseline says to beat the wives, while the Christian baseline is just promoting the husband as the authority figure. Edited December 21, 2007 by ThunderJam

[2pac]

Wong i didnt say its ok with it, im saying it is typical in the eastern countries, there in proverty, you really think they give a !@#$%^&* about life?

[SeVeR]

Just because something is not perfectly applicable throughout all of time can it not be inspired by God? As this applies to laws, cultures progress and need different things limited. Then pros!@#$%^&*ution was obviously a problem, now a problem might be gun control. Say a religion was to be formed now, and verses were written speaking against guns. The point is limiting violence, and promoting peace. In 200 years if guns no longer existed, would it prove that the verses weren't inspired by God? I don't think so (Altho this example is totally against what I beleive, since I don't think theres another God besides mine that would lay down laws today, but this is for argument's sake).

Sure, anti-violence may be as relevent today as it was back then. If you want to believe that's down to God and not people then so be it. However, the argument here is about the Bible's statements that say the man should "rule over" the woman. This is clearly an out-dated cultural thing. Do you think God is sexist?

 

Also, saying that their way of interpretting is only temporary, and it will change over time (like you are saying christians did) I don't think makes the present actions any more acceptable. Would you agree on that?

I agree, it doesn't make any present actions acceptable. It does make Christianity as blameful as Islam though. Only now, when Christianity has been pushed out of power, have we seen the flourishing of ideals like equality, the banning of slavery and human rights; there are no more crusaders or conquistadors, and no more executions for herecy and witch-craft. On the African continent we are seeing all these things beginning in the same way they did in Europe, with Africans divided between Islam and Christianity, and both sides torturing their own as unbelievers and witches.

 

If Christianity was still as prevalent in the West as Islam is in the Middle East, then history is our teacher for what the result would be.

 

Even with interpretation varying in each culture, theres still is worse becuz their baseline says to beat the wives, while the Christian baseline is just promoting the husband as the authority figure.

Yes Islam is slightly worse, and the differences are doubled by our liberal culture and their conservative one (relatively speaking). Edited December 22, 2007 by SeVeR

[ThunderJam]

Just because something is not perfectly applicable throughout all of time can it not be inspired by God? As this applies to laws, cultures progress and need different things limited. Then pros!@#$%^&*ution was obviously a problem, now a problem might be gun control. Say a religion was to be formed now, and verses were written speaking against guns. The point is limiting violence, and promoting peace. In 200 years if guns no longer existed, would it prove that the verses weren't inspired by God? I don't think so (Altho this example is totally against what I beleive, since I don't think theres another God besides mine that would lay down laws today, but this is for argument's sake).

Sure, anti-violence may be as relevent today as it was back then. If you want to believe that's down to God and not people then so be it. However, the argument here is about the Bible's statements that say the man should "rule over" the woman. This is clearly an out-dated cultural thing. Do you think God is sexist?

I think you missed my point. Yes that thought is outdated, but your post that I was referring to basically said that if its outdated, that means that the scripture must not be inspired by God. My argument was does everything God say have to be applicable in the same way throughout time? Why can't it be inspired by God just because it was guidlines for a specific culture at a specific period of time?

 

Heres the quote of you I was referring to:

The fact that you mention pieces of the Bible that are not as relevent or literal today as they were 2000 years ago shows that the Bible was written by men who were not advised by God. They were instead influenced by their culture.

Edited December 29, 2007 by ThunderJam