Why didn’t Jesus stand up for women’s equal rights?

[Rose]

Throughout the Gospels it is written that Jesus speaks out against the way religious leaders were interpreting many of the Old Testament laws that were given to the Jews by their god Yahweh, so why didn’t he also speak out against the inequality of women that was also written in the law? For example when the Jews sought to stone the woman caught in adultery they were carrying out the law given to Moses by Yahweh; instead of rebuking those who were carrying out the law, Jesus should have condemned the law itself and rebuked his father who gave it. Jesus could have said: this woman is of equal value to a man, so why is not the man here also to be stoned? If Jesus would have set a precedent by speaking up and declaring that women are of equal value to men and deserve equal human rights, he could have changed the course of history with respect to women. Never in all of his words did Jesus ever rescind one law with respect to women, nor did he ever condemn one atrocity against women commanded by Yahweh whom he called his father. Under the Law of Moses a man could condemn a woman to a death by stoning if she could not prove her virginity upon marriage, was any such law written for men…of course not…did Jesus ever mention that? No.

For all the magnificent words spoken by Jesus about his love for humanity, he failed miserably when it came to promoting equal human rights for women. Because of his negligence in regards to women’s rights, the apostle Paul also refused to speak up for equality of women, and instead reaffirmed the secondary position of women being in subjugation to men and considered property…this in turn has led to the continued discrimination against women in the Christian church up until today. Just imagine what could have been accomplished by a few positive words on the equality of women spoken by Jesus? It wouldn’t have taken two thousand years for women to gain equal rights, with no thanks given to the authors of the Bible. Not only was the status of women as property upheld by Jesus, but also the legitimacy of slavery was endorsed by him which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the god Jesus called his father did not believe in human equality.


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Throughout the Gospels it is written that Jesus speaks out against the way religious leaders were interpreting many of the Old Testament laws that were given to the Jews by their god Yahweh, so why didn’t he also speak out against the inequality of women that was also written in the law? For example when the Jews sought to stone the woman caught in adultery they were carrying out the law given to Moses by Yahweh; instead of rebuking those who were carrying out the law, Jesus should have condemned the law itself and rebuked his father who gave it. Jesus could have said: this woman is of equal value to a man, so why is not the man here also to be stoned? If Jesus would have set a precedent by speaking up and declaring that women are of equal value to men and deserve equal human rights, he could have changed the course of history with respect to women. Never in all of his words did Jesus ever rescind one law with respect to women, nor did he ever condemn one atrocity against women commanded by Yahweh whom he called his father. Under the Law of Moses a man could condemn a woman to a death by stoning if she could not prove her virginity upon marriage, was any such law written for men…of course not…did Jesus ever mention that? No.

For all the magnificent words spoken by Jesus about his love for humanity, he failed miserably when it came to promoting equal human rights for women. Because of his negligence in regards to women’s rights, the apostle Paul also refused to speak up for equality of women, and instead reaffirmed the secondary position of women being in subjugation to men and considered property…this in turn has led to the continued discrimination against women in the Christian church up until today. Just imagine what could have been accomplished by a few positive words on the equality of women spoken by Jesus? It wouldn’t have taken two thousand years for women to gain equal rights, with no thanks given to the authors of the Bible. Not only was the status of women as property upheld by Jesus, but also the legitimacy of slavery was endorsed by him which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the god Jesus called his father did not believe in human equality.


Rose
The failure of Christ or the Apostles to say a word about the full equality of women only confirms the sexism that saturates the book from beginning to end. It is this inextricable sexism that makes the Bible fundamentally unbelievable. It is simply impossible that Ultimate Reality (God) is male, or that "he" is properly represented as a male with a male son. This doesn't mean the Bible is without value. It only means that it cannot be what fundamentalists think it is, i.e. the "reveals Word of God." It is something else ... I don't know exactly what yet.

[weeder]

Rose...
I think Jesus did all those things, as he interacted with women in a way the religious Jews would not. As far as I can tell he treated them as equals, he loved them and acknowledged them in a way unsurpassed in that generation of change.:) By his actions towards them he was speaking of reform......that God created Man male and female. Same body same breathe of life.

[David M]

Throughout the Gospels it is written that Jesus speaks out against the way religious leaders were interpreting many of the Old Testament laws that were given to the Jews by their god Yahweh, so why didn’t he also speak out against the inequality of women that was also written in the law? For example when the Jews sought to stone the woman caught in adultery they were carrying out the law given to Moses by Yahweh; instead of rebuking those who were carrying out the law, Jesus should have condemned the law itself and rebuked his father who gave it. Jesus could have said: this woman is of equal value to a man, so why is not the man here also to be stoned?

Good morning Rose

In answer to your question, I quote the following verse:

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
We might examine the problem of the woman caught in adultery and ask if she was married? If she was not married, it might make a difference. It might not be that the man having sex with this woman caught was having sex with another man's wife; if this were the case, then both the man and the woman would be stoned to death.

Proverbs 6:32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
In this quotation we might assume that the woman is unmarried. It is a foolish thing for the man to do, but it would not been have sex with another man's wife. It does not say much for the woman causing the husband to be unfaithful to his wife.

Now if the woman caught in adultery and was unmarried, it must mean that the man was married and must have been known for the people to know of his marital status. It is therefore the error of the scribes and Pharisees if they did take the man and stone. You must not blame God or Jesus for men's failings. So, was the woman married or not? and if not, was she committing fornication and making the man commit adultery? Perhaps Jesus knew that the woman was unmarried, in which case , it was a lesser crime committed by the man and so the scribes and Pharisees let him off.

The situation we are dealing with here is that in the eyes of the Pharisees, the woman had committed adultery and they wanted to stone her and whilst I have also raised some questions, we must remember that the scribes and Pharisees were out to trap Jesus. (John 8:5) but what sayest thou? (6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. How do you think they were out to trap Jesus whereby they might accuse him? Accuse him of what? I see a similarity with you accusing Jesus not not supporting women's rights. Maybe under the law, the woman was guilty, but Jesus saved the woman's life. How just was that? The advice Jesus gave to her was; "sin no more". and it is a pity that advice is not also taken by you instead of falsely accusing God when all of the problems to do with respect of women's rights are man-made.

Jesus gets to the heart of the matter which the law could never do. The problem with written laws is that people begin to question the law. What does the law mean exactly? This is when people start to proverbially dot the I(s) and cross the T(s) to determine every possibility and then the law becomes cumbersome and a burden which is how the scribes and the Pharisees had made it, much like our own laws with all the sub-clauses.

Jesus gets to the heart of the matter and as with many things, he strikes at a person's motives. Sin is sin and though I said the woman's sin of fornication might be a lesser crime than adultery, the penalty of sin is the same for us all and we are guilty of committing crimes the moment we begin to think them in our minds; Jesus said; "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart". How does the law deal with "looking" or premeditate? Who can judge what is in people's hearts and can know what their true motives are? Man does not know.

If we compare everything we do to the two great commandments which summed up "all the law and the prophets", then it is apparent that there is not a person alive who can say they have not broken one or other of those two commandments. As it is said; (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Now unless you are totally ignorant (blind) to what God requires, then as it was also said by Jesus (john 9:41); If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. Therefore none of us have an excuse when we stand before Jesus on the day of judgment and say that we did not know.

Why did Jesus not judge this woman and why did he not judge against all those things you say he kept quiet about and so you accuse Jesus of complicity? Jesus gave this command;( Matt 71) Judge not, that ye be not judged. (22) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
When Jesus said; "let him that is without sin cast the first stone" he is incorporating the above statement. What right has a sinner to judge another sinner? This is why when it comes to judgment of another person and their suitability to be the kingdom of God, that is not a judgment man can make and as we are told, God has left judgment to His Son (in the day of judgment).

Jesus could have judged and no-one could accuse Jesus of having sinned (though I can imagine Richard saying -"prove it"). The perfectness of Jesus was necessary, otherwise the sacrifice of himself would not have been acceptable to God. An animal sacrificed to cover sins and make atonement had to be perfect. It was to be without any blemishes. Jesus came to fulfill the law and not abolish it and Jesus had to be perfect if his life was to be given as a perfect sacrifice to take away sin and abolish the old law.

Here is another reason why Jesus did not judge every situation; he simply had not been told by his Heavenly Father.
(John 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
As an aside to your question; this verse tells me that Jesus could not have been equal with God or was God. Jesus was totally dependent on God.

We can discuss the law that was given to Moses, but in these days we are not beholden to that law; we are beholden to the two great commandments and they should be written in our hearts. I can understand you concern with women's rights in the Bible and in the OT they do get a bad wrap, but it is caused by man and not because of God. Examine the hearts of those men and see it at there heart was the the two great commandments which should be the motivating factor. Examine the actions of every person in the Bible and see whether their motives were in-keeping with the two great commandments. I expect when you do, you will find that it is man who should get the blame and not God.

Those who commit to Jesus and become one with him, there is no distinction in a spiritual sense. (Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. This is not to say that those who are one with Christ do not conform to a hierarchy in that God is the head of Christ and Christ is head of the church. Just because there is a hierarchy does not mean to say that there is inequality between those who are in Christ. In any organization there is a management structure and the roles of management are defined, but on a personal level everyone should have the same respect for each other and each should have the same human rights.

All the best,

David

[David M]

This doesn't mean the Bible is without value. It only means that it cannot be what fundamentalists think it is, i.e. the "reveals Word of God." It is something else ... I don't know exactly what yet.
Good morning Richard

I am interested to know what specific values you see the Bible as having.

The Bible contains revealed words of God and also contains simple explanations to why we are here and how we came to exist and what is the purpose to life. It tells us what our future can be.

Some call the Bible the 'Reference Manual to life'. It tells us how we should live and what to do and not do especially if we want to know how to have a peaceful and happy life.

The reason the world is in the mess it is and suffers the problems it does, is because of man's unfaithfulness and disobedience and hate towards God.




I noticed this in your signature; "by willfully holding to false opinions". Would saying; "by willfully holding to opinions based on known false evidence" be a better way of putting it?

All the best

David

[David M]

Good morning Rose

Jesus as we know did not give the answers people expected. His answers were far more profound and showing more wisdom than the people asking the questions.

How do you think Jesus should have answered Martha?
Luke 10
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Would Jesus have been right to respond to Martha's request and bid Mary to go and help Martha? Do you object to Martha left to do the cooking? Was cooking accepted as the woman's role in the family. I have not record of men doing the cooking in those days, so I can be enlightened on the subject. Jesus during his ministry was acting in a serving capacity; Jesus saw nothing wrong in serving. Slaves as you might call could in fact be paid servants. Whatever our role in this life is we are told to be content. Nothing in this life compares to what life will be like in the kingdom in which you would have no reason to complain about women's rights.

That aside, what Jesus is saying is that Mary was doing a better thing than cooking (at that time). At the time of Lazarus's resurrection, from what Martha said, we know Martha believed in the resurrection that would take place at a future time. Would Mary have known about the resurrection and the kingdom of God had she not listened to Jesus? What we learn form this story involving Martha and Mary is that We must get our priorities right. Our priority should be; (Matt 6:33) seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;

If everyone did that we would have not problems in the world and we would not be discussing women's rights. All problems are man-made and man is part of the problem; not God.

All the best

David

[duxrow]

:sos: Hey Rose, David,
The Mary/Martha account is certainly thought provoking. Why didn't Mary go with Martha to meet Jesus?
I'm confident a normal author would have furnished some kind of answer, but the Great Ghostwriter of Scripture has left it for us to ponder varius reasons or scenarios.

Didn't Jesus love BOTH of them, and Lazarus as well? Maybe that's the solution -- we're all different... :yo:

[Rose]

Rose...
I think Jesus did all those things, as he interacted with women in a way the religious Jews would not. As far as I can tell he treated them as equals, he loved them and acknowledged them in a way unsurpassed in that generation of change.:) By his actions towards them he was speaking of reform......that God created Man male and female. Same body same breathe of life.

Hi Weeder,

In answering you I will also answer David on what the main point of my post was. Jesus had every opportunity to speak out and condemn the Old Testament Law which treated women as property. It matters not that Jesus as an individual treated women with equality, what matters is that he neglected to correct the extreme male bias contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus spoke of making a new covenant with the house of Israel, and Judah, yet women's equal rights was not part of that new covenant. Instead, Paul and the other New Testament writers reinforced the status of women as being under the subjugation of men.

Telling women that they have an equal place "in" Christ does nothing to help them in this life. Men who already by nature are more aggressive and domineering are encouraged to exert ruler-ship over women under the teachings of Paul and the other apostles who looked to Christ for their inspiration. All Jesus would have had to do is speak five little words "women are equal to men" and the course of history would have been changed, but he chose not to because he was a man who was influence by the male dominated culture of his time.

All the best,
Rose

[Rose]

Good morning Richard

I am interested to know what specific values you see the Bible as having.

The Bible contains revealed words of God and also contains simple explanations to why we are here and how we came to exist and what is the purpose to life. It tells us what our future can be.

Some call the Bible the 'Reference Manual to life'. It tells us how we should live and what to do and not do especially if we want to know how to have a peaceful and happy life.

The reason the world is in the mess it is and suffers the problems it does, is because of man's unfaithfulness and disobedience and hate towards God.




I noticed this in your signature; "by willfully holding to false opinions". Would saying; "by willfully holding to opinions based on known false evidence" be a better way of putting it?

All the best

David

Hi David,

I have a question. Is there anything contained in the Bible, as far as life's instructions go that cannot be found in other texts that were written before the Bible? Doesn't the "Golden Rule" pretty much cover everything we need to know about how to treat others?

Rose

[Rose]

Good morning Rose

Jesus as we know did not give the answers people expected. His answers were far more profound and showing more wisdom than the people asking the questions.

How do you think Jesus should have answered Martha?
Luke 10
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Would Jesus have been right to respond to Martha's request and bid Mary to go and help Martha? Do you object to Martha left to do the cooking? Was cooking accepted as the woman's role in the family. I have not record of men doing the cooking in those days, so I can be enlightened on the subject. Jesus during his ministry was acting in a serving capacity; Jesus saw nothing wrong in serving. Slaves as you might call could in fact be paid servants. Whatever our role in this life is we are told to be content. Nothing in this life compares to what life will be like in the kingdom in which you would have no reason to complain about women's rights.

That aside, what Jesus is saying is that Mary was doing a better thing than cooking (at that time). At the time of Lazarus's resurrection, from what Martha said, we know Martha believed in the resurrection that would take place at a future time. Would Mary have known about the resurrection and the kingdom of God had she not listened to Jesus? What we learn form this story involving Martha and Mary is that We must get our priorities right. Our priority should be; (Matt 6:33) seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;

If everyone did that we would have not problems in the world and we would not be discussing women's rights. All problems are man-made and man is part of the problem; not God.

All the best

David

Hi David,

Seeking God's kingdom and righteousness has nothing to do with the reason I am discussing women's rights. The reason women's rights is a relevant issue is because of the lack of them in the Bible. A truly righteous god would never deny equality to women solely based on gender, which is exactly what Yahweh does.

Take care,
Rose

[David M]

Hi David,

Seeking God's kingdom and righteousness has nothing to do with the reason I am discussing women's rights. The reason women's rights is a relevant issue is because of the lack of them in the Bible. A truly righteous god would never deny equality to women solely based on gender, which is exactly what Yahweh does.

Take care,
Rose

Good morning Rose

I see you have picked up on the one point and not answered any of the questions. If you believe that God exists, but not the God (as you understand) of the Bible, would you not want to be righteous in the sight of the god you can believe in?

If woman had been created first and man second, then maybe we would be having the same discussion dealing with men's rights. The fact is, there is an order and a hierarchy as in any business. Business is not a perfect example; as we know that there is a lot of discrimination in business, but this is of men's making and has nothing to do with God. However, using this imperfect example the same can go for men as women. We might have the same capability to be the managing director of a company, but there can only be one managing director and the people at the bottom (men as well as women) can feel that they would like to have their turn at the top, but that cannot happen. Hence those who come to believe in God are taught to be content with their lot.

I do not find the discrimination you claim about God. God judges people but is not discriminating between gender and God is not partial. There is an order and we have to accept the fact that God made male first. The ritual of purification for a woman giving birth to a male and a female and the difference in the ritual for a male is not grounds for saying God is discriminating about the persons born, whether they are male of female. They have their complimentary roles to play in the service of God, which you seem to be opposed to. There are many women in the church that accept their different roles, and do not see God as discriminating against them or denying them their rights. Men and women have equal rights and there is much evidence of this.

In the law given to Moses, women are of equal value as men. I do not see that women are treated as inferior or have a lower value. Here are two examples;

Even amongst God's chosen people, men were sold as slaves, so men are not elevated above women.
(Deut 15:12) And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee,

Women could take the Nazarite vow, the same as men.
(Numbers 6:2) When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

The text goes on talking in the male sense, but it is evident that both female and male are included. Maybe you object to women not having beards for the text goes on to say; All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head; this includes a man's beard. For a woman her hair is " her crowning glory". That is why it is expected that a woman who comes into the presence of God during a formal service covers her head.
Women (in general) are the fairer sex they are seen as beautiful and men are not. Is God discriminating against men in respect to beauty?

The Bible reveals the good and the bad about the people chosen because they were descendants of Abraham, and God shows their warts and all. How the men treated women, does show bias in favor of men, but that is not what I see is according to God's will, and that is why I shall keep saying; "blame men and not God". The world is biased against women and in some quarters (like the quarter you are in) that is changing, and it is by your efforts and those who support you that women's rights are being restored.

The Bible shows us the way the world is and teaches the faithful to avoid it. God does not approve of worldly ways and so God does not approve of discrimination and denial of women's rights. I am not denying that the Bible shows some abuse of women's rights, but attributing the cause to God is not correct.

On a spiritual level, God wants faithful men AND WOMEN to separate themselves from the world. The world and its ways are enmity with God. Whether we are male or female, if we are faithful, we are expected to separate ourselves from the world. I fear that a lot of Christendom has not separated itself from the world. In a spiritual sense, male and female are the same and God looks at the core of a person's being and not whether they are male or female. Those who associate themselves with Christ are one in him and that was no different to those who separated themselves to be associated with God before Jesus came along.

The faithful to God do not belong to the masses in this world. It is a fact and that is why Jesus said; "For many are called, but few are chosen".
Percentage wise. it would not surprise me to find more women accepted into God's kingdom than men. Women have to be faithful to God and believe in Him and it is not different for men. To believe and be faithful is all that is required and it makes no difference whether a person is male of female. Reject this fact if you want, but it is your right, as a woman, to do so.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard

I am interested to know what specific values you see the Bible as having.

The Bible contains revealed words of God and also contains simple explanations to why we are here and how we came to exist and what is the purpose to life. It tells us what our future can be.

Some call the Bible the 'Reference Manual to life'. It tells us how we should live and what to do and not do especially if we want to know how to have a peaceful and happy life.

The reason the world is in the mess it is and suffers the problems it does, is because of man's unfaithfulness and disobedience and hate towards God.

Hey there David,

I'm planning on starting a thread on the topic of the "Value of the Bible" as time permits. It is a very rich book and has played a central role in the history of Western civilization and even the world. It's primary value seems to be that it contains some very clear expressions of the essence of morality being LOVE and the GOLDEN RULE (contrary to laws and ordinances which have nothing to do with true morality). And it paints an extraordinary picture of alienation and reconciliation. And it is filled with poetry and beauty beyond compare. The odd thing being that the beauty is mixed with a fair measure of irrational, cruel, and insane crap). It's so very human - who could fail to love it?

It could be a kind of "revelation" from the divine mind but it certainly is nothing like what Christians want to think it is. It's more like Shakespeare in that it contains the heights of inspired visions of ultimate values like love and goodness even as it reveals the depths of darkness and unredeemed hatred and irrationality. It's very strange that it presents God as both good and evil, loving and hateful (if we retain the normal meanings of words). I can't agree that it "contains revealed words of God" because there is no evidence that the kind of God described in it's pages exists and there is much evidence that he does not. And worse, there is no even a consistent version of God presented in the pages of the Bible. The simplistic interpretation put forth by Christianity is, to me, obviously false.

It most certainly is not a "reference manual to life." The instructions are too garbled for anything like that. Christians have never been able to agree what the instructions even say! And it certainly does not tell anyone "how to have a peaceful and happy life."

It is an unfortunate fact that contrary to your assertion, most of the problems in this world are caused by people who think they love and are obeying God. Witness 9/11, the Crusades, and all the evil done in history in the name of religion.

So, all the standard answers that Christians would give about the Bible seem childishly simplistic and totally wrong to me. But still, the Bible has tremendous value as a "mystical" book that also is a record of the metaphysical interpretations and speculations of our ancestors, and as such it gives tremendous insight into Archetypal Psychology. Sometimes it seems like a "magic mirror" that reveals the heart of the reader.

And where do you get the idea that anyone has any "hate" for God? That seems absurd to me. I don't have any hate towards God at all. Would you say I "hate Allah" because I reject Islam? Of course not.

Cheers!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I see you have picked up on the one point and not answered any of the questions. If you believe that God exists, but not the God (as you understand) of the Bible, would you not want to be righteous in the sight of the god you can believe in?

The true God - whatever that word refers to - would not be hung up on artificial "righteousness" based on laws and ordinances. True righteousness is based on Love and the Golden Rule. Do that and you need not worry about anything else. That's the primary problem with the Bible - it teaches a false kind of righteousness.

[David M]

Hey there David,
And where do you get the idea that anyone has any "hate" for God? That seems absurd to me. I don't have any hate towards God at all. Would you say I "hate Allah" because I reject Islam? Of course not.

Hello Richard
God knows that there are people that hate him. I came across the following verse while looking something up; Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
In the context of the verse, those who practice idolatry cannot love God. Maybe they hate complying with His instructions.

God sees that He has enemies and enemies do not generally love one another.

Deut 32: 41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

All the best,

David

[David M]

Hi David,

I have a question. Is there anything contained in the Bible, as far as life's instructions go that cannot be found in other texts that were written before the Bible? Doesn't the "Golden Rule" pretty much cover everything we need to know about how to treat others?

Rose

Hello Rose
Maybe there is but I need to be shown what other early writings contain say the Golden Rule. The earliest I can find this in the scriptures is the following verse.

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

I will ask you Rose what other writings containing the Golden Rule predates the Book of Leviticus?

All the best

David

[David M]

The true God - whatever that word refers to - would not be hung up on artificial "righteousness" based on laws and ordinances. True righteousness is based on Love and the Golden Rule. Do that and you need not worry about anything else. That's the primary problem with the Bible - it teaches a false kind of righteousness.
Hello Richard

I admit that as I have come to the conclusion God exists, it is my choice to accept God's instructions. I know because of what God promises that despite my failing to live perfectly to God's instructions, God is merciful to the those who are contrite and repent and strive to to do His will and those who do will be rewarded. Until the day of resurrection comes, I cannot confirm that belief. No-one can prove what is to come but God has given us the assurance in that He has raised Jesus from the dead. I know you will say "prove it" and that you do not accept the evidence of the Bible and there is not much record in secular history to support that Jesus was the person as described in the Bible.

Seeing as I accept the Bible's explanation that holy men of God were inspired to write down God's word, the reason we do not have much recorded in secular history might be due to the fact that God did not have the need to preserve the writings of men. You do not see the miracle that the Bible is as I do, and for this reason, it is not a surprise that the writings of men have not survived as the Bible has survived. God wants us to have faith in His word and so God has not caused secular writings to be preserved, just enough to support the fact that Jesus lived.

I do not call righteousness according to God's requirements artificial. I see Rose has mentioned the Golden Rule in another post and I have replied to say that the first occurrence of this is in Leviticus 19: 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

As you know Jesus said the same thing and he summed up all the law in the two great commandments which to me is the more complete Golden Rule. Since keeping the Golden Rule is righteousness in God's sight, then this confirms what you define as "true righteousness" which contradicts your opening statement about being "artificial". We should be in agreement on this if we regard anyone who keeps the complete Golden Rule as summed up in the two great commandments as righteous.

All the best

David

[CWH]

Throughout the Gospels it is written that Jesus speaks out against the way religious leaders were interpreting many of the Old Testament laws that were given to the Jews by their god Yahweh, so why didn’t he also speak out against the inequality of women that was also written in the law? For example when the Jews sought to stone the woman caught in adultery they were carrying out the law given to Moses by Yahweh; instead of rebuking those who were carrying out the law, Jesus should have condemned the law itself and rebuked his father who gave it. Jesus could have said: this woman is of equal value to a man, so why is not the man here also to be stoned? If Jesus would have set a precedent by speaking up and declaring that women are of equal value to men and deserve equal human rights, he could have changed the course of history with respect to women. Never in all of his words did Jesus ever rescind one law with respect to women, nor did he ever condemn one atrocity against women commanded by Yahweh whom he called his father. Under the Law of Moses a man could condemn a woman to a death by stoning if she could not prove her virginity upon marriage, was any such law written for men…of course not…did Jesus ever mention that? No.

For all the magnificent words spoken by Jesus about his love for humanity, he failed miserably when it came to promoting equal human rights for women. Because of his negligence in regards to women’s rights, the apostle Paul also refused to speak up for equality of women, and instead reaffirmed the secondary position of women being in subjugation to men and considered property…this in turn has led to the continued discrimination against women in the Christian church up until today. Just imagine what could have been accomplished by a few positive words on the equality of women spoken by Jesus? It wouldn’t have taken two thousand years for women to gain equal rights, with no thanks given to the authors of the Bible. Not only was the status of women as property upheld by Jesus, but also the legitimacy of slavery was endorsed by him which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the god Jesus called his father did not believe in human equality.


Rose
This is one of the stupiest post I have ever heard. Do you know what is the implication if God is very strict with adultery? 70% of all Americans will be klilled!...from statistics 70% American men and women have committed adultery at least once in their life! God is merciful in the sense that He did not carry out the commandment of do not commit adultery strictly or hardly anyone will be alive today but he continue to tolerate it hoping one day we will learn from our folly. Adultery will only results in the collapse of family value and the sanctity of marriage and this will lead to distrust among couples and problem kids. If everybody commits adultery then what is the point of marriage? Where then is the love for God and the love of thy neighbor as thyself?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091028080022AACuyjv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

Is equal human rights for males and females always good? I don't think so. To me it doesn't matter if there is male or female dominance or inequlaity as long as all must work towards common good for society. There are more important things at hand rather than to fight for male and female inequality, why not fight against smoking, drug dependence, alcoholism, abortion which have killed millions around the world? why not fight for stricter gun control which have caused hundreds of innocent lives? why not fight relentlessly against evil, wickedness and greed that have caused countless suffering to all people? why not fight against poverty and wars and viloence? why not fight against irresponsible drivers that caused accident death and injury to millions of people yearly? Why not spent fortunes eradicating diseases, cancers, AIDS around the world? Why not strive to allow all to enter the kingdom of heaven?

God Bless. :pray:

[Rose]

Hello Rose
Maybe there is but I need to be shown what other early writings contain say the Golden Rule. The earliest I can find this in the scriptures is the following verse.

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

I will ask you Rose what other writings containing the Golden Rule predates the Book of Leviticus?

All the best

David

The writings of Confucius don't necessarily predate the book of Leviticus, but he lived in an entirely different culture than the Hebrews with no contact with them, and his writings contain the Golden Rule. Besides that the verse in Leviticus was only addressed to the Hebrews themselves, and as you might have noticed the Hebrews never treated their foreign neighbors as themselves.


Lev.19:17-18 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.



Take care,
Rose

[CWH]

The writings of Confucius don't necessarily predate the book of Leviticus, but he lived in an entirely different culture than the Hebrews with no contact with them, and his writings contain the Golden Rule. Besides that the verse in Leviticus was only addressed to the Hebrews themselves, and as you might have noticed the Hebrews never treated their foreign neighbors as themselves.


Lev.19:17-18 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.



Take care,
Rose
You must know the meaning of love thy neighbor as thyself which is not equate to loving everybody. This is stated very clearly ibn my thread:

Love Thy Neighbor as Yourself
Just to find out fromthe floor their insight into thy neighbor. Who are our neighbors? What is your opinion? Is thy neighbor......
1. Everybody? If so, why is everybody our neighbor?...incuding your enemies?....
2. Those around us? Sounds more like it but how about those not around us? Are they also our neighbor?..... Are we supposed to love those around us only?
3. Those who interact with us directly or indirectly? Well ok, how about those who did not interact with us at all? Do we still love those who don't interact with us at all?
4. Those who need our help? How about those who do not need our help, are they our neighbor also?

What is the Bible's definition of thy neighbor?

Luke 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
26 'What is written in the Law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?'

27 He answered, '‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]'

28 'You have answered correctly,' Jesus replied. 'Do this and you will live.'

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'
30 In reply Jesus said: 'A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 'Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?'

37 The expert in the law replied, 'The one who had mercy on him.'
Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'

I think the answer is very clear, thy neighbor is the one who show us mercy or the one whom we show mercy to.

What is your opinion?

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2747-Love-Thy-Neighbor-as-Yourself

Even if you show mercy to your enemy or your enemy shows mercy to you, your enemy is your neighbor. Love thy neighbor means showing mercy to everyone.

May God Bless our neighbor.:pray:

[Rose]

Good morning Rose

I see you have picked up on the one point and not answered any of the questions. If you believe that God exists, but not the God (as you understand) of the Bible, would you not want to be righteous in the sight of the god you can believe in?

If woman had been created first and man second, then maybe we would be having the same discussion dealing with men's rights. The fact is, there is an order and a hierarchy as in any business. Business is not a perfect example; as we know that there is a lot of discrimination in business, but this is of men's making and has nothing to do with God. However, using this imperfect example the same can go for men as women. We might have the same capability to be the managing director of a company, but there can only be one managing director and the people at the bottom (men as well as women) can feel that they would like to have their turn at the top, but that cannot happen. Hence those who come to believe in God are taught to be content with their lot.

Hello David,

Equal rights has nothing to do with who was created first, and besides that the Bible is totally confused about the creation story anyway. First off, in Genesis 1, God creates male and female equally in his image, then the story get totally changed in Genesis 2, with God creating man from the dust and having Adam try to find a mate from all the animals who were already created, then deciding to create woman from the rib of the man. What a mixed up mess...:dizzy::dizzy:


I do not find the discrimination you claim about God. God judges people but is not discriminating between gender and God is not partial. There is an order and we have to accept the fact that God made male first. The ritual of purification for a woman giving birth to a male and a female and the difference in the ritual for a male is not grounds for saying God is discriminating about the persons born, whether they are male of female. They have their complimentary roles to play in the service of God, which you seem to be opposed to. There are many women in the church that accept their different roles, and do not see God as discriminating against them or denying them their rights. Men and women have equal rights and there is much evidence of this.

The Bible is full of discrimination against women! Women were considered property according to the law and they most certainly did not have equal human rights. The only reason you say God made the male first is because you choose to believe the order in Genesis 2 instead of Genesis 1...why is that? Probably because you are trying to justify your biblegod's discrimination against women. Just because women accept the roles that men have given them does not mean they are just or equal...it's time for women in the church to start speaking up for their equal rights and stop being pushed around by men who are following a male biased tribal war god.


In the law given to Moses, women are of equal value as men. I do not see that women are treated as inferior or have a lower value. Here are two examples;

Even amongst God's chosen people, men were sold as slaves, so men are not elevated above women.
(Deut 15:12) And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee,

Women could take the Nazarite vow, the same as men.
(Numbers 6:2) When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

The text goes on talking in the male sense, but it is evident that both female and male are included. Maybe you object to women not having beards for the text goes on to say; All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head; this includes a man's beard. For a woman her hair is " her crowning glory". That is why it is expected that a woman who comes into the presence of God during a formal service covers her head.
Women (in general) are the fairer sex they are seen as beautiful and men are not. Is God discriminating against men in respect to beauty?

What kind of equality is that? Men were sold as slaves just like women. As far a monetary value goes females were worth half the value of a man.


Lev.27:1-7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.


Women are beautiful and men are hansom, what does that have to do with equality?


The Bible reveals the good and the bad about the people chosen because they were descendants of Abraham, and God shows their warts and all. How the men treated women, does show bias in favor of men, but that is not what I see is according to God's will, and that is why I shall keep saying; "blame men and not God". The world is biased against women and in some quarters (like the quarter you are in) that is changing, and it is by your efforts and those who support you that women's rights are being restored.

The Bible shows us the way the world is and teaches the faithful to avoid it. God does not approve of worldly ways and so God does not approve of discrimination and denial of women's rights. I am not denying that the Bible shows some abuse of women's rights, but attributing the cause to God is not correct.


All the best,

David

The biblegod is the one who gave the laws that discriminate against women, but of course I believe that the biblegod was made up by men anyway, so you are right in saying that it is mans fault for denying women equal rights.

Take care,
Rose

[David M]

The writings of Confucius don't necessarily predate the book of Leviticus, but he lived in an entirely different culture than the Hebrews with no contact with them, and his writings contain the Golden Rule. Besides that the verse in Leviticus was only addressed to the Hebrews themselves, and as you might have noticed the Hebrews never treated their foreign neighbors as themselves.


Lev.19:17-18 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.



Take care,
Rose

Good morning Rose

If Leviticus predates Confucius, it must take the credit and who knows that Confucius did not get to hear about it rather than have the original thought.

On a one to one level we should treat everyone (who is our neighbor) as we would like to be treated. The question we must ask is; "who is our neighbor?" Answering this question is key to understanding justice and judgment that God poured out on the wicked. Not everyone is our neighbor; it is a mistake to say that everyone is.

We have the well know example of the story of the 'Good Samaritan' told by Jesus to answer this very question put to him. The conclusion of this was; "Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Who are neighbors? The one that shows mercy and the one that receives mercy. If we receive mercy we are taught to do the same and show mercy to those who deserve it.

Jesus extends the principle to include our personal enemies with the intent that in all that we do, we should aim for perfection, just as Jesus was perfect like his Heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

When we take the above on board this is why we must leave all judgment to God concerning those who are not our neighbors. The nations around Israel and the people in the promised land were not neighbors to Israel in the sense of the above. Neighbors are not defined above purely by their physical proximity.

It is clear from the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of God in the OT concerning God's enemies is that vengeance belongs to God. God will not show mercy to those who hate Him, those who commit idolatry and those who reject His commandments. It is not up to us (individually or collectively) as followers of Jesus and God to show any form of vengeance or retaliation and we should let God be the judge and executor. God can do this and God is fair because He has told us/man what the rules are. We disobey God at our peril and there are abundant warnings that those who reject God will perish whether that be by natural death or because God pours out His punishment on a nation.

The way the world operates should not be the way followers of Jesus operate. The world is enmity with God and that is why God is just for punishing those in the world. The world is full of idolatrous people and God through His word has made it abundantly clear that He hates those that practice idolatry and lead others astray.

The Apostle Paul understood these things and how the judgment of God is just; this is what we should understand.
Romans 1
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.


David

[Rose]

Good morning Rose

If Leviticus predates Confucius, it must take the credit and who knows that Confucius did not get to hear about it rather than have the original thought.

On a one to one level we should treat everyone (who is our neighbor) as we would like to be treated. The question we must ask is; "who is our neighbor?" Answering this question is key to understanding justice and judgment that God poured out on the wicked. Not everyone is our neighbor; it is a mistake to say that everyone is.

We have the well know example of the story of the 'Good Samaritan' told by Jesus to answer this very question put to him. The conclusion of this was; "Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Who are neighbors? The one that shows mercy and the one that receives mercy. If we receive mercy we are taught to do the same and show mercy to those who deserve it.

Jesus extends the principle to include our personal enemies with the intent that in all that we do, we should aim for perfection, just as Jesus was perfect like his Heavenly Father is perfect.

David

Hi David,

The story of the Good Samaritan is a perfect example of who the Jews prior to Jesus considered a neighbor to be, which was only their own race. Confucius lived over 500 years before Jesus and was teaching that very same message of treating others the way you wish to be treated regardless of race, so Christians should probably give the credit to Confucius.

Exclusivity was a key component of the Hebrew's religion prior to Paul who took it to the Gentiles, that is precisely why the Jews treated the man lying in the ditch the way they did in the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus himself said very little about taking the Good News to the Gentiles, he mostly spoke to his disciples concerning the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". It wasn't until many years latter that Paul began to share his revelation of Jesus with the Gentiles.


Rose

[David M]

Hi David,

The story of the Good Samaritan is a perfect example of who the Jews prior to Jesus considered a neighbor to be, which was only their own race. Confucius lived over 500 years before Jesus and was teaching that very same message of treating others the way you wish to be treated regardless of race, so Christians should probably give the credit to Confucius.

Exclusivity was a key component of the Hebrew's religion prior to Paul who took it to the Gentiles, that is precisely why the Jews treated the man lying in the ditch the way they did in the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus himself said very little about taking the Good News to the Gentiles, he mostly spoke to his disciples concerning the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". It wasn't until many years latter that Paul began to share his revelation of Jesus with the Gentiles.


Rose

Hello Rose
Why should Christians give the credit to Confucius when the Book of Leviticus was written before?
You cannot call the Samaritans neighbors of the Jews, their proximity and descendency from the Tribes of Israel did not make them friends of the Jews. I found the following comment from Wikipedia to back this up.
Both Jewish and Samaritan religious leaders taught that it was wrong to have any contact with the opposite group, and neither was to enter each other's territories or even to speak to one another. During the New Testament period, although the tensions went unrecognized by Roman authorities, Josephus reports numerous violent confrontations between Jews and Samaritans throughout the first half of the first century.
Exclusivity was not the name of the game. Anyone could become a proselyte Jew. Strangers were to be treated with respect and there was nothing to stop the stranger accepting the practices of the Israelites who should have set an example.
Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

What the religious leaders did after God had given them this law is a different matter and any digression from the law is of men's doing and not God.

Jesus remained in the land of Israel and spoke to the people he came across, which would have been mainly Jews but not exclusively. OK, so Paul traveled outside of Israel and took the gospel to the Gentiles, but what difference does that make to the principles we are talking about? There would be many traders/merchants and strangers passing through the land of Israel, so they had the opportunity to learn the customs of the Jews and enquire about the God of the Jews.

All the best,

David