Ask Miranda a theological question!

[miranda2]

Since the other thread is getting long, I thought I'd start another in case anyone was still interested. (Am I mad??....) Won't be offended if no-one posts!!

Jesus said that the laws were summed up into just two - love God with all your heart,mind and soul and love your neighbour as yourself. Also, if you look at many of the old testament laws in the context of the time they were written, many of them offered protection to vulnerable members of that society. If you continue to read the passage you quoted from exodus, hmb, you will see that God sets out certain guidelines which would safeguard vulnerable women.

True they do, but wouldn't it have been more far seeing of an omnipotent God to ban the sale of daughters all together? And if not, why not? And why should my husband be the household expert on religious matters simply because he is a man? And why should I defer to him. Is my soul somehow second rate to his? And am I damned because I must (by biblical teaching) follow him, and he is an atheist?

And if the OT was 'of it's time' how can it also be the word of God? Has God changed his mind? Or is it rather that the bible was (even if divinely inspired) written down by people, who are just as capable of error as you or me? I have no problem with seeing the divine in the bible, but not in the fundamentalist way.

The slave/servant relationship is not what we imagine it today. Slaves were members of the family and well looked after, so a poor family might let a daughter go to another family for a better life. We might be getting bogged down in one passage, but in this verse in exodus God lays down how well they should be looked after. Also God knows what he's doing and there is only so much thinking outside the box members of a particular society can do and so he speaks to the time.

The New Testament passage you mention would only apply if your husband was a believer. It comes from one of Paul's letters and so was written to members of the christian churches. Again it has to be set in context of the time. This doesn't mean that things aren't relevant to today.

But if an all powerful God tells you to do something, you do it, right? So if he says don't have slaves you don't. So God decided not to do this because he thought that people couldn't think outside the box??? An all powerful God?

And if the OT is the word of God how is it that in Genesis chaper 1 God makes light in verse 3, and in verse 5 He calls the light Day and the darkness night, and this was the evening and morning of the first day. But it isn't until verse 16, on day 4 that he makes the sun and the moon. So how did he have a day before that?

Isn't it just more than a little possible that this isn't infact the word of God, but the words of men trying to undertand creation? I don't get how someone can say that the Bible is the word of God, who lets it get packed full of contradications, for example somewhere in the Bible hares are descibed as animals that chew the cud, they don't . How it is the word of God, but of it's time? I don't get it.

Message withdrawn

And if the man is a 'bad' Christian? She still has to defer to him? And why does she have to promise to defer to him? If she is capable of deciding to follow Christ, I would assume that she has the moral capacity to make other, lesser choices. But no, Paul seems to maintain that she is lesser because she is female. All that 'better to marry than burn' stuff strikes me as misogyny dressed up as the word of God. I'm not trying to be offensive, this is an area I have always had a major problem with. The teaching of Christ promote equality, but Pauline doctrine sucks IMHO.

There is no way I would be submissive to my husband.
Sorry but agree with hmb.

doormat, I think you mean karma - it's a Hindu/Buddhist concept:

I like the idea too - justice being done at some point even if people seem to get away with terrible things now.

I also find the bit in Genesis where God make childbirth painful a bit hard to take

Genesis 3
16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

So if we have pain relief does that mean that we are going agains God's wishes? And let's remember that the church argued this when anaesthtics were first intoduced.

Message withdrawn

Thankyou Janh, I never knew what belief it was but just something I feel is right for me. You described it so perfrectly for me.Now that I know what it is I will have a look and read about it.Thanx again.

Message withdrawn

I was thinking of the passage where Christ heals the woman of her loss of blood, and his treatment of Magdalene and Martha. He treats them as he does the disciples.

My big trouble is that many of the greatest misogynies are practiced with the great cover all, 'it is in the Bible and the bible is the word of God, QED, PDQ, ETC' But to my mind the Bible is chock full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies. If it is the unexpurgated word of God then it makes sense to follow it word for word, burning of adulteries, selling of daughters, not mixing of flax and wool in your clothes, subjugation of women and all. But if it is the word of God why does it contradict itself? And we all pick and chose the bits we follow. Do we still expect people not to plant different seeds in the same field? And to my mind the NT supersedes the OT argument is a bit of a cop out, since it 'needs' (for want of a better word) the prophecies of the OT to prove that Christ is Emanuel. I just don't see how you can have it both ways.

I was thinking of the passage where Christ heals the woman of her loss of blood, and his treatment of Magdalene and Martha. He treats them as he does the disciples.

My big trouble is that many of the greatest misogynies are practiced with the great cover all, 'it is in the Bible and the bible is the word of God, QED, PDQ, ETC' But to my mind the Bible is chock full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies. If it is the unexpurgated word of God then it makes sense to follow it word for word, burning of adulteries, selling of daughters, not mixing of flax and wool in your clothes, subjugation of women and all. But if it is the word of God why does it contradict itself? And we all pick and chose the bits we follow. Do we still expect people not to plant different seeds in the same field? And to my mind the NT supersedes the OT argument is a bit of a cop out, since it 'needs' (for want of a better word) the prophecies of the OT to prove that Christ is Emanuel. I just don't see how you can have it both ways.

And sorry, but i find the thought of all women being cursed for the sins of Eve at best crazy, and at worst offensive.

My goodness its going to take poor Miranda all evening to go through this lot!

Fun though!

I love a good discussion

Message withdrawn

Ah but Rhubarb, to me giving 'god' the credit for the world seems to me quite the most improbably explanation I can imagine. It honestly does. Particularly as, if he created all the good things, he also created all the bad things. So as an all-powerful God he seems, frankly, a bit rubbish at making worlds. There are so many more plausible reasons IMO. I really think God should, if he wants to play fair, show himself a bit more. And if he's not fair, well that's awfully petty of him, isn't it?

As for pain in childbirth for all women, that's just plain cruel and vindictive. Who on earth could call a nasty, spiteful God 'good' or 'loving'? Of course the real reason childbirth is so particularly painful and tricky for humans is that evolution has progressively narrowed our pelvis and enlarged our heads. Have you seen the pelvis of early woman? It's like a shallow bowl, while heads were around half the size.

I also heartily agree with whoever said that how can the OT be 'of its time' if it is the word of a God who exists beyond time.

The thing is, not only do I not believe in God, I would be so upset if there was one, because he is so awful and terrible. I would far rather simply cease to exist than spend all eternity in his heaven.

Love the threads. Still trying to get my head round the pain of childbirth being deliberate??? What a spoilt childish thing this god is. As aloha stated, childbith is painful for humans because of evolution and us now being upright. If god wanted us to procreate, he wouldn't have made it painful, it's illogical. And why, when the world is overpopulated, is it ok to alleviate the pain of childbirth with drugs - all back to front really. Plus, not all women find the pain unbearable, so not exactly a useful deterent.

'these threads'

Hope that you sleep well bloss.

But the points that I have made about the inconsistancies in the Bible still stand. How could God create day and night 3 days before he made the sun and moon. How can hares be caragoriesed as animals that chew the cud (I can assure you that they don't), numerous lists of decendents contradict each other in different chapters of the OT, and lets not forget that all time number one contradiction between Levititcus and Numbers regarding the marrage of widowed sister in laws that caused the formation of the Church of England. There are lots of contradictions in the Bible.

And people do pick and choose. Do you keep quiet in church for instance? Do you dare to plat your hair, or wear ornaments? If so you are going against the teachings of Paul. If not you are picking what you chose to follow. And good for you , I would say, but them I don't say that the Bible is the received word of God so at least I am consistant (if possibly damned )

And I do think that there is a level of misogeny that runs through Pauls teachings. That the woman must be quiet and learn from her husband. Even if he knows nothing? So her understanding of the will of God must always be subject to the will of another human being, who is suject to all the errors that humans have.

Oh, Bloss the verse that allows a male slave to be relieced from servitude after 7 years does not hold for the daughter sold, as the verse says, Exodus 21 Verse 7? 'And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid servant, she shall not go out as the menservants do' the second verse saying, 'and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing'. So the bible states that the man is free after 7 years but not the woman.

And Timothy 1 chapter 2 V 11-15 (sorry to go on by I am finding this a nice stimulation while looking after the kids)

'11 Let a woman learn in silence with all subjugation.
12 For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

So women mustn't teach because of Eve. And Adam didn't transgress? But in Genesis God punishes Adam as well as Eve. So this is another contradiction. Or if you prefer, the first chapters of Genesis are a fable for the 'primitive nomadic tribes' that you mentioned. And if this is a fable, where is Paul's authority for saying that women shouldn't teach? Is there any or is he showing a prejudice against women?