Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe so. That and the other Mystery schools who saw the serpent as the bringer of life. That these is world wide regardless of the continent. Quite a coincidence eh?

Remember Moses using a serpent in Egypt. His serpent headed staff led the way. It is the icon of the Jewish priestly class.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-le ... ult-002393

Regards
DL

Post #4. Still waiting.

You remind me of a flat earther I argued with on Facebook who kept posting "where is the curve?", " where is the curve?", over and over again.

Ah, we’re ALMOST getting somewhere. I was hoping more for NT, like maybe the Gospels.

Proverbs is a wisdom book. It’s all generalities is the problem. It’s not intended to be read as absolute truth or law.

I’m more of a Bible literalist. So if something is stated to be a proverb, I take it literally to mean it’s a proverb. What’s funny is that’s the one place in the Bible that comes close to express contradictions. It can be paradoxical, but paradox and contradiction aren’t the same. Speaking in riddles has been common in many cultures and religions, not strictly the Hebraic ones.

Anyway...

It’s not exactly a “wish list.” More a short list of things amazing women do. In other words, what is so terrible about a woman who encourages and supports her husband? What’s wrong with a woman who takes great care of her kids? The overall tone of this section is more a celebration of women, not a list of demands.

It’s hardly misogynistic, more or less depending on how subjectively you define misogyny. Praising a woman for all that she does isn’t much of a commentary on equality. Remember, women during this time were chattel property in some places. Putting her on the proverbial pedestal and singing her praises is an interesting contrast to genuinely misogynistic views that were likely prevalent in the ancient world.

Good stuff.

I’d still like to see something a bit more exclusive to Christianity, though like I said before I love the whole thing.

lol. I don’t understand flat-earthers. And then there’s the Young Earth/Old Earth debate. I stay out of those.

I just mean if you really think the Bible says this or Christians believe that, one would reasonably assume there was some actual basis for the belief.

So if I’m to refute some attack on Christian faith, I need that person to back up what he says. It’s not my job to comb through the entire Bible to support what YOU want the text to say.

No I don't think any part of the Bible says that the earth is flat. I was referring to the way you repetitively ask the same question over and over and expect a response.

As for GnosticBishop,I don't quite know what he means either. The closest I can think off would be Matthew 19:9, in which Jesus specifies the only circumstances he thinks a man can divorce his wife. Jesus didn't name the circumstances in which in which a woman can divorce her husband. Perhaps GnosticBiship interpreted that omission to mean a woman can never initiate a divorce.

I don't know whether or not Jesus thought it was ok to for a woman to leave her husband if he committed the same act mentioned in Matthew 19:9.

Forgive them. They know not what they do.

Regards
DL

Is, --- he shall rule over you, --- not maintaining women as chattel and slaves?

Is that not misogyny regardless of on how subjectively you define misogyny?

Regards
DL

I read this as Jesus saying that there is no divorce allowed at all and that was the original orthodox view.
I see that as immoral and anti-love as it forces women to stay in abusive or loveless marriages.

That is quite cruel in my view.

Matthew 19:3-8King James Version (KJV)

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Regards
DL

If you’re referring to the passage from Genesis, it’s not a commandment. It’s commentary on how men and women will relate to each other from that point forward. It’s a prophecy. Good one, Adam and Eve, you just kicked off the war between the sexes. Male/female inequality was never meant to be the status quo. And because of that, yes, women were bought, sold, and divorced at will. It’s a consequence of man introducing sin into creation.

????

Resorting to lies or inaccuracies is not really the best way to discuss issues.

The first sin was in heaven. Not on earth.

That is why Satan was cast out. Right?

Was her rebellion not a sin?


"It's commentary on how men and women will relate to each other from that point forward."

I agree, and it shows why Christians are misogynous as they feel that men should be master and women should be ruled over from that point forward.

Regards
DL

That "Satan being cast of Heaven" story that you're so obsessed with (you've posted about it before) is not even in the Bible. Its a folks tradition that grew up like a vine alongside the tree trunk of the Bible. But its a not a Bible story. And I doubt that anyone has ever tried to place that event

Second: the original sin was..."The Original Sin". Adam and Eve eating the fruit. That's why the act of eating the fruit is called "the Original Sin",for that reason , and because all other sins followed from that first transgression according to the Bible.

Do you think all of mankind was condemned for eating a fruit????

What was the fruit if not knowledge and wisdom, and would you do as A & E did or would you stay as bright as a brick the way A & E are shown to have been, with their mental eyes closed?

As to passing up Original sin to our children. What do these quotes tell you?


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Regards
DL

Evidence, please. Where did Jesus teach this?

Evidence, please. That Jesus existed?

Regards
DL

You have a fondness for quoting out-of-context.

Vs. 9 puts the blame for divorce squarely on men and forbids MEN from seeking a divorce. Nothing out of the whole passage explicitly forbids women from seeking divorce, but that possibly has more to do with the secular laws of the time. The only relief from marriage is infidelity, which Jesus points out, and being caught in adultery was punishable by death. Oh, and THAT law applied to both men AND women, btw.

What’s interesting is how they actually applied the law in practice. Divorce laws and laws pertaining to adultery gave couples a means by which to protect themselves and seek justice. The decision to implement them, to file charges so to speak, was left to the individual who had been wronged. If a man loved his unfaithful wife, he had the right to take her back and legitimize any children born outside their marriage.

What Jesus is saying is the law allows divorce because men are, to use a modern term, @$$#0les. I don’t want to get too deep in an Old Testament discussion because that’s too tangential, but I could reference the specific laws the Pharisees are talking about here. The main problem the Pharisees have is not that they seek divorce but rather how they abuse those laws and, consequently, women. If you go back and read up on those laws, you’ll notice they go to great lengths to protect women. The point I want to make here is that Hebraic laws and Christian ethics as they were codified in the Bible never marginalized women. What Hebrews and nominal Christians did in ACTUAL PRACTICE is different. You can disagree with me here, and that’s fine if you do, but I would question whether someone cherry-picking the Bible for some personal ideological agenda really is a Christian.

If being a Christian is defined as “doing what other Christians do,” then I’m not really a Christian. If it means accepting Christ and trying my best to follow Him, then count me in. I don’t believe that a lot of people who claim to be Christians really are. They are nominally Christians, “in name only.”

Getting back to the topic of divorce, though...

Jesus follows this up by saying that any other reason for divorce before engaging in another relationship means that the man is committing adultery because he belongs only to the one he pledges himself to in marriage the first time. Adultery makes the relationship forfeit.

And if you read the rest of the passage (vs. 10-11), you’ll know the disciples correctly observed that a man is just better off not getting married at all. Jesus agrees and points out that is difficult for a lot of people to understand and accept. In vs. 12 Jesus explains a little more that not all men are able to marry, and some prefer being uncommitted to focus on God’s work.

One other minor detail is the Pharisees were asking specifically about divorce laws’ application for men. Women weren’t the subject of the discussion. It has to do with their laws from the OT. I wonder if the answer would have been different had they asked about the right of women to divorce their husbands. Ancient law would have rendered such an argument irrelevant. Jesus taught the importance of law and order, for His followers to not be troublemakers. Secular divorce laws today regarding women have no scriptural basis in the strictest sense but rather applies divorce procedures equally between men and women. The ancient Hebrew laws were given to the HEBREWS, not the entire world. So in a society in which women are treated equally with men under the law, Christian ethics applied to secular divorce laws would have to extend the same principle to women: If he cheats, dump him.

Bear in mind this idea is not itself a law, neither in the Bible nor in western society. All it does is give men and women the OPTION of divorce after infidelity. If my wife cheats on my, I’m not REQUIRED to divorce her.

Finally, the prohibition of divorce for just any old thing being unfair towards women carries the hidden assumption that all Christian and pre-Christian relationships were inherently cruel towards women. Men are to love and protect their wives and be willing to die for them. If you apply Jesus’ teachings on human relations to the marriage relationship, why would anyone cheat? Why would anyone mistreat their spouse? So if no one is cheating or abusing their partner, what is the point of even having divorce laws in the first place? There IS no point except God knows men DO have a tendency to mistreat women. Divorce laws are not for people who hurt someone else. They are there to restore justice to those who’ve been harmed in a marriage through a partner’s infidelity.

If total devotion to your partner is a problem for you, just don’t get married. This is not difficult!