I wouldn't consider my understanding of vocabulary as normal I understand lots of things, and I don't understand lots of other things. I was pointing out that most casual readers trying to find "truth" probably won't understand things like that, and it would just cause confusion more than anything.
I'll take that risk thanks.
That's not right. It explicitly mentions 144,000 people who have not defiled themselves with women. Regardless of whether you take it literally or not it means the same thing.
This doesn't make any sense; the literal and figurative meaning cannot be the same. Remember that your argument was that this passage is discriminatory of women, and your claim is that this passage says that only male virgins can get to heaven (women can't). For this argument to be valid, you must prove that this is what the text actually says. The problems are:
* This passage says nothing about anyone going to heaven
* This passage does not say that women don't go to heaven
* This passage does not say that women are defiling
* This passage does not say that women are impure
Now you are quoting from a completely different book, original quote in the article was from 1st Peter.
I'm talking about this quotation you used to support your claim that women are subjected to their husbands without qualification.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Bible, Ephesians 5:22-24)
So where's the evidence for your claim that 'this passage could be interpreted to mean that if you are a woman married to a psychopathic, violent husband, you must submit to him, obey his commands, allow him to abuse and beat you regularly, at the same time as you try to change his ways by means of the example of your long-suffering obedience, purity, and piety'?
However, the point of the article you are quoting is to demonstrate the differences in punishments, which you nicely led to. What I previously quoted was along the lines of: "Women obey your husbands no matter whether or not he is a psychopath, not doing so will lead to death by stoning", but for the men "You must love your wife as if she is your right arm", no consequences or punishments are explicitly mentioned for not doing so.
What you wrote was completely wrong. You claim that what you quoted
was along the lines of 'Women obey your husbands no matter whether or not he is a psychopath, not doing so will lead to death by stoning', but none of the texts you quoted said anything like this.
Check out the KJV version verse 10-12:
Why? Why would I use an out of date translation for one thing, and why quote the KJV when it doesn't change the facts to which I've already referred?
She's dressed like a harlot, she is "without" (poor) and she waits on the corner for a man while her husband is out, probably in order to be able to provide. That looks to me like a prostitute, not just an adulteress... maybe a married prostitute, or a woman who was captured from another tribe.
A few points:
* 'without' does not mean 'poor'; it means she's outside
(you're being confused by the archaic KJV language)
* 'dressed like
a harlot' does not mean 'is a harlot'; on the contrary, the simile proves she isn't a harlot
* She has a husband; she's not a harlot, she's an adulteress.
Genesis 3:12 "She did it", and then Eve blamed it on the snake.
So what? Your original claim was this.
So Adam and Eve are in the modern-day garden of Eden and Adam says "I didn't commit any crime because Eve gave me the fruit and I ate it, she is a deceptive devil woman" - same thing.
You haven't provided any evidence that ths is what the Bible says. Adam didn't say 'I didn't commit any crime', and he didn't say 'she is a deceptive devil woman'. You're just making things up.
Some Christian denominations take the Bible as the literal Word of God, even parables. They say that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write it the way it was written, therefore God wrote it.
So what? I'm not interested in what they think it means, I'm interested in you justifying why you claim that's what it was intended to mean.
It has been used by Christians who claim to be from one of the "Born Again" denominations of their ownership of women. For the record, I think that the Bible is one of the most inaccurately interpreted historical books ever printed and was likely copied from earlier books. See this article
on the Resurrection for instance.
The idea behind mentioning it is to show that the Bible is open to interpretation (whether or not it be a correct interpretation). If I was to have the same argument with a Baptist, Pentecostal, Brethren, Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist I would very likely get very different and plausible answers to the same question. By far the lamest answer that I have had is "I'm not interested in what [others] think it means".
You are avoiding the issue. The reason why I told you I am not interested in what others think is that I asked you
for proof of your
claims. Instead of providing proof of your
claims concerning what the text means
, you simply said 'Well these other people think X, Y and Z'. So what? That doesn't provide any proof of your
claims concerning what the text means
Your page does not say 'Here are some interpretations of what the Bible says', your page explicitly claims:
* 'women may be discriminated against in Christianity and denied an opportunity to get into heaven'
* 'there are some examples of discrimination in the Bible'
* 'Both Christianity and Islam seem to exclude women from heaven'
* 'So women are impure, who aside from defiling men; by implication do not get to go to heaven. This was the opinion of the Christian saints'
* 'There are other texts in the Torah, Bible and Quaran which preach discrimination against women, degradation and subjugation of women, and even violence against women'
* 'In other words, the texts of these "holy books" systematically ensure a second-class status for one half of the world population - women'
* 'Jews, Christians, and Muslims all berate women for causing humanity to be driven out of paradise'
* 'The fault of this first and original sin rests heavily upon the shoulders of a woman'
* 'Indeed, many passages in the Torah and the Bible teach us that women are not only inferior, but also must obey men'
* 'For example, this passage could be interpreted to mean that if you are a woman married to a psychopathic, violent husband, you must submit to him, obey his commands, allow him to abuse and beat you regularly, at the same time as you try to change his ways by means of the example of your long-suffering obedience, purity, and piety'
* 'This is but one extreme example of the many, many instances of discrimination against women in the Bible'
* 'It seems that women are the ones who bring down men and lead them to sinning and subsequently Hell'
* 'According to the Bible, this is one-way, the woman led the man to sin in this example'
* 'Women are considered by this verse as sinful, and many other verses in the Bible also tell us that women are also unclean, such as this example'
* 'In other words, humans are doomed to die because they are born out of unclean women'
* 'As if this were not enough, killing infants and ripping open pregnant women during wars is also encouraged'
These are not lists of other people's beliefs about what the Bible means, they are your
beliefs and claims about what the Bible means. I have already demonstrated that these claims are false, and when I ask you for proof that your claims are accurate, directing me to what others say on the subject is simply avoiding the issue.
I would like to create a link to this forum post at the bottom of the one you quoted with your permission since I like to publish both sides of the story without bias.
You're free to create such a link, but what you really want to do (if you want to 'publish both sides of the story without bias', is correct the glaring errors in your page.