A Man's Property

[Rose]

It is very interesting to note how blind and unaware many people are to the fact that the Bible teaches that women be denied basic human rights that men are afforded. Even when it is brought to people’s attention they feel compelled to justify it, because they can’t imagine how a loving God could be so biased. But, then the question that must be asked of them is why try and justify something that the Bible clearly states?

Being born female at any point in history has always been an extreme disadvantage, but especially so during biblical times when the Hebrew god of the Bible declared woman to be created from and for man, endowing her with the status of 'Property'. This title was forever engraved in stone in the 10th Commandment given by Yahweh, where a man’s wife is numbered second among the possessions of ones neighbor that should not be coveted.


Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.




There is really only one question that needs to be answered concerning biblical equality…either the Bible is biased toward the male or it’s not! I think I have clearly shown in my numerous posts on the subject that the Bible does indeed give many human rights to men that it denies women.

Here are two points that invalidate the Bible as a moral guidebook:


Women were considered the property of the man
Owning humans as slaves was promoted and condoned



Rose

[Rose]

It is very interesting to note how blind and unaware many people are to the fact that the Bible teaches that women be denied basic human rights that men are afforded. Even when it is brought to people’s attention they feel compelled to justify it, because they can’t imagine how a loving God could be so biased. But, then the question that must be asked of them is why try and justify something that the Bible clearly states?

Being born female at any point in history has always been an extreme disadvantage, but especially so during biblical times when the Hebrew god of the Bible declared woman to be created from and for man, endowing her with the status of 'Property'. This title was forever engraved in stone in the 10th Commandment given by Yahweh, where a man’s wife is numbered second among the possessions of ones neighbor that should not be coveted.
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.




There is really only one question that needs to be answered concerning biblical equality…either the Bible is biased toward the male or it’s not! I think I have clearly shown in my numerous posts on the subject that the Bible does indeed give many human rights to men that it denies women.

Here are two points that invalidate the Bible as a moral guidebook:


Women were considered the property of the man
Owning humans as slaves was promoted and condoned



Rose

Another interesting point to note concerning male bias in the Ten Commandments, is the fact that the 10th Commandment lists a wife as something to not covet, but does not include a husband in the list. :confused: Just more food for thought :pop2:

Rose

[CWH]

Another interesting point to note concerning male bias in the Ten Commandments, is the fact that the 10th Commandment lists a wife as something to not covet, but does not include a husband in the list. :confused: Just more food for thought :pop2:

Rose

Then are you saying that the tenth commandment allows women to covet her neighbor's husband. RAM, watch out!:eek:

I think the last sentence in the tenth commandment "nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbor" clearly summarize not to covet any thing that belongs to his/her neighbor that obviously include husband and children.

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.


God's mercy amazes us. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Another interesting point to note concerning male bias in the Ten Commandments, is the fact that the 10th Commandment lists a wife as something to not covet, but does not include a husband in the list. :confused: Just more food for thought :pop2:
Then are you saying that the tenth commandment allows women to covet her neighbor's husband. RAM, watch out!:eek:

No, she is not saying that at all. She merely pointed out that the Tenth Commandment speaks to MEN and that it classes women amongst the things MEN own. Men are never classes along with other "property" owned by women. This is another example of male bias in the Bible.



I think the last sentence in the tenth commandment "nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbor" clearly summarize not to covet any thing that belongs to his/her neighbor that obviously include husband and children.

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.

That's fine, except men are never classed as a "thing" owned by a woman so you point fails.

[Meme]

that obviously include husband and children.



So, the traditional control of wives and property is criticized; but women 'obviousy' own children...and the government(the husband of feminists) owns us all.

...and that is superior to Christianity because....?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So, the traditional control of wives and property is criticized; but women 'obviousy' own children...and the government(the husband of feminists) owns us all.

...and that is superior to Christianity because....?
There is no criticism of the control of "property." The criticism is that the Bible classes women as "property" owned and controlled by men. That's called "sexism" and it is wrong. Women are human beings and should have all the rights of any man.

The idea that the government is the "husband of feminists" is totally sexists. It sounds like you think only men can be free and women must be "married" to either a man or the "government."

[David M]

Here are some thoughts on the matter.


Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (properties/assets), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (business partner or else it can be construed as adultery), nor his manservant (male employees), nor his maidservant (female employees), nor his ox (tools/assets), nor his ass (transport/assets), nor any thing (not covered by the categories already mentioned) that is thy neighbour's.


If we are so concerned that this tenth commandment only applies only to men with regard to coveting anything owned by a man's neighbour, then this commandment does not apply to women. Either the principle applies to both men and women and it is inferred that a wife must not covet the husband of her neighbor or else a woman can covet her neighbor's husband and she is not beholden to this commandment and only NINE COMMANDMENTS apply to women. I do not think God intended this to be the case.


The fifth commandment says; honour thy father and thy mother. Apart from the consequences of not doing so, the important point to note is that the mother (woman) is to be given equal respect the same as the father (man). A husband and wife are one in the flesh and so both are of equal value and status. Of course there is a heirarchy in an organisation with different roles and responsibilities just as God is the head of Christ, Christ is head of the ecclesia, and so the man has been made responsible for the household and is head of the household when it comes to giving instruction and taking responsibility.

When God's people no longer wanted God to rule over them and they wanted an earthly ruler to reign over them, they sought a king (a man). There was nothing to stop them asking for a queen. The Bible refers to a number of qeens sucg as the queen of Sheba who came to visit Solomon and the queen of the South. Since in those ancient days it was not impossible for a woman to be queen, this does not show discrimination or that women could not be put in prominent positions, although democracy as we have it today probably did not exist.

Since Diana of the Ephesians was held as a goddess, again this shows that in those days, it was possible for women to be held in high esteem. Therefore, it is not a case of discrimination against women that prevents them achieving positions of authority, though it does have something to do with the culture of the individual groups of people at the time, but the main problem is that there is a bias in terms of numbers just as there is a lack of women in government today. It is not that these government positions cannot be filled by women, women are lacking in numbers when it comes to competing for these positions. Women have as much opportunity these days to choose what profession/career they want to do, so why are not more women making politics their profession and getting into positions of government that will ensure women's right are not abused by a male dominated society?


David