DorianGreyed.

You can take this any way you want, What you wish to consider as part, what you do not. I will take is as a general statement, Does God advocate violence against Women in Scripture, No He does not.

Most of the laws were fulfilled by Jesus the day of Cross, He is likened to a Woman in the third picture. The Bear in Daniel is the day spoken as three pictures, seen as ribs in His mouth, One rib is made as a woman.

Jesus is seen not as the Groom, But as the Bride.

Isaiah 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Jesus seen married to God in Ezekiel 16:8, This is when dead in the Sepulchre. The Marriage of the Lamb. HIS WIFE or God’s wife the Lamb is wearing fine Linen, Just what Jesus has on. Then He plays the Harlot of loves everyone.

The day of the Cross seen as 1,000 years, 930 alive as Adam, Dead or desolate 70 as Jerusalem, So after the time Jesus had to be dead:

Isaiah 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.
18 And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the LORD: it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the LORD, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing.

Tyre is a prostitute, This is Her Hire, Committing fornication with all the Kingdoms on the Face of the Earth. Her Fornication is HOLINESS unto the lord, or Jesus loves everyone.

Want to try Babylon in Revelation? Did you know that under the law to go into or make a marriage with a Non-Jew is Whoredom under the law. Jesus is loving everyone. The day of the Cross as all the Sevens in Revelation, even the seven mountains the Whore sits on, Or loves everyone.

Is this where you see God advocation violence against women? Not understanding the Similitudes God uses to keep you from finding till you see with all your heart.

Psalms 87:4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there.
5 And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her.
6 The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Selah.

Rahab was a Harlot, Babylon seen as a Whore, Tyre seen as a Prostitute. God doubles twice to establish that Jesus likened to a Woman would love everyone, and to keep you so offended, You would not find it out without really searching, And then He shows you as He said He would to those who know Him.

And the Child born in Zion, Was the Son of David, Conceived outside wedlock, Died 7 days after Birth, went to God for 1,000 years, then was sent by God from Heaven, Offended? God intended you to be. That is why God uses the Word “Overcome.”

As far as not answering one statement you made. I don’t do too good at bowing down to Idols, Golden Egos. Where you demand the answer you want to hear. This is not a court room, You are not a judge, You chose not to answer if Christianity has saved millions of females, and want me to ignore the Mountain you skipped, and dig into your little mote.

I answer the questions as I see they are. Make all the demands you want. Maybe if you change that “site Administrator” to “Site Aide” you might crop a few tail feathers off the tail of that ego. One you seem to jump in with all the time.

There is a reason the Second commandment when right to not bowing down to images. Want to list just what you think your image is here, and how you have to be treated before you fire up the furnace?

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Dorian

You all flunked history, Where can women use those rights, Where will they be killed for trying. Take the Rights women have in mainly Christian Countries and have all the women in the world start to practice them today. The Blood Bath will cover most of the earth.

It is hard to conceive some of the answers that are being come up with. And you Dorian seem to be the one who is Stamping them with your seal of authority. Do you read those posts, or just assume they are right. For if you really believe things like Bik74's claim the Women killed all the infant Girls.

Who did you say John Adams was kissing up to? That is like answering a question, But not really telling the whole truth of the Matter.

Your facts and the Scriptures differ. I will take the Old Testament jots and tittles for a Basis of Truth, adding other truths that fit with them, Casting out New Testament scripture which does not.

Ken

This idea that, because women tend to have more rights in countries that had a broadly Christian history, it must be Christianity that granted those rights, is not necessarily so. It's nominally Christian nations that produce the most technologically advanced weapons - does that mean that Christianity is responsible for 'smart bombs'? The assumption is false.

Womens' rights are most advanced in richer nations - and riches have more to do with 'guns, germs and steel' than religion.

Womens' rights - to vote, to work, to have equal pay, to run for office, to have the same chances at education, to own property, not to be property, not to spend every year until menopause (or death) pregnant, to be regarded as intellectually equal to men, and so on - have come about recently, in the last two hundred years (often as religious influence waned). Christianity had two thousand years to grant such rights, but didn't get round to it. The idea of inalienable human rights comes from the enlightenment - which religions tended to oppose. The freedoms and safeties brought about by modern medicine can be traced to the same source, via the science of biology - the fundamentals of which a significant number of Christians still try to deny today.

'The term "Age of Enlightenment" can more narrowly refer to the intellectual movement of The Enlightenment, which advocated reason as the primary basis of authority. Developing in France, Britain and Germany, the Enlightenment influenced most of Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia. The era is marked by such political changes as governmental consolidation, nation-creation, greater rights for common people, and a decline in the influence of authoritarian institutions such as the nobility and Church.' wikipedia

Ken, I think either you are being intentionally obtuse or you really don't understand what you read. Either way, you waste my time.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken1Burton:

You all flunked history, Where can women use those rights, Where will they be killed for trying. Take the Rights women have in mainly Christian Countries and have all the women in the world start to practice them today. The Blood Bath will cover most of the earth.

It is hard to conceive some of the answers that are being come up with. And you Dorian seem to be the one who is Stamping them with your seal of authority. Do you read those posts, or just assume they are right. For if you really believe things like Bik74's claim the Women killed all the infant Girls.

Jealous ?
The brilliance never ends... Ken is not only misquoting the scriptures but now he is even misquoting the fellow members as well.

Tell me Ken is the holy spirit also helping you enterpret our phrases ?

In reality I did not answer you... i was very late. It was NNN that answered you. I just repeated that.


But atleast you took my advice now. You quoted 5 to 6 random verses and all this refers to the day of cross. Nice usual comeback.

But as a fellow member said... i repeat his quote 'I don't think that anyone was fooled by it'.

You not only are wasting time but valuable space as well.

NewNickName.

Christianity opens doors where people are not afraid to go in. Some have not been good places to enter according to others. But when the bottom line is a love for one another, often a tendency to allow more, or to turn the other cheek takes place.

Christian cultures allow and are not as restrictive on a persons abilities, and even imaginations to invent. Like it or not, a smart bomb is liable to land you a good, high paying job with the Government. Or making plates for the State.

Right now, Richer seems to have more to do with Oil. And a lot of them do not have the Women’s rights they want, Nor the wealth shared. But that is talking Cash, and Riches come in all forms. The people’s lives, Their education, Their caring one for another. Those forms seem to be almost always those countries where Christianity has been a major part of the heritage.

You are drifting away. Millions of females babies killed. Take those other 1800 years, Who really gave them value to let them live? So does the Bible really advocate violence against women or females? There is a whole picture that many of you do not want to see. But you do see it, Many do not want to say anything which might be applied as God is loving, and He loves all.

Those millions of lives allowed to live all bear witness against you. Now a lot of babies, Both male and female are back in danger of having no value, or right to live.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


Dorian, Then let’s not waste either’s time, We naturally conflict.

Ken

quote:

Dorian, Then let’s not waste either’s time, We naturally conflict.

Is this man asking to be band for this site?

Ken:

quote:

As far as not answering one statement you made. I don’t do too good at bowing down to Idols, Golden Egos. Where you demand the answer you want to hear. This is not a court room, You are not a judge, You chose not to answer if Christianity has saved millions of females, and want me to ignore the Mountain you skipped, and dig into your little mote.

I answer the questions as I see they are. Make all the demands you want. Maybe if you change that “site Administrator” to “Site Aide” you might crop a few tail feathers off the tail of that ego. One you seem to jump in with all the time.

There is a reason the Second commandment when right to not bowing down to images. Want to list just what you think your image is here, and how you have to be treated before you fire up the furnace?

I think disagreeing with someone's religious views is one thing, but being disrespectful of the person that owns the site, and pays the bills, to allow you to voice your opinions is another. I'm really surprised DG didn't edit your post.
It seems whenever a member of this forum disagrees with your beliefs, and you don't have a reasonable counter-argument, you seem to resort to attacking the intelligence of that person.
Back to my original links to the Old Testament. I provided you with several chapters that showed the bible advocates violence against women, and although you dodge the issues, the facts remain the same.
As for Christianity improving the lot of women, I have to agree with what NNN says..Christianity had 2000 years to make changes, and didn't.
I think, for the most part, religion, not just Christianity, keeps women subservient, uneducated and afraid.

quote:

Millions of females babies killed. Take those other 1800 years, Who really gave them value to let them live?

As you (inadvertently?) pointed out, it was the Koran that criticised the female infanticide that had been practiced in some parts of the Middle East. Christianity gained most influence in the Roman Empire under Constantine. The Romans didn't practice infanticide, so Christianity didn't save 'millions of female babies'.

What new freedoms to invent or innovate did Christianity bring to the Roman Empire? Peoples' lives had value, and people had education and cared for each other before Christianity arrived on the scene. Just about every religion or society has, or had, some form of the Golden Rule; Christianity didn't invent caring for others.

Rather than vague ideas about valuing lives, can you actually point to one specific, new thing Christianity did for women's rights or freedoms?

Bik74.

Your post listed the Women as the ones who were doing this, You put that in your post, You did not correct that point, So I assume (and doubt not) that it is what you want to say, or it would not have been pasted.

I did not see you mentioned that it was not only the women in that area of the world who were responsible for killing those females. I know the Quran showed it to them. I used it to show it was a practice in that part of the world. And that Allah mentioned it. Also showing Him judging the Innocent, A strange thing.

Kind of like judging Jesus, “For what Crime were you crucified.?” The answer is “all the sins of the world.”


God says He is a Jealous God, that could very well be rubbing off. But I noticed you often mention the Holy Spirit being with me. That looks a little like maybe you are Jealous?

It is not like there is not a real God, who is a Spirit, and who can help up out day by day. He knows what we do, our every thought, and you think there is no communication from Him to us?

A lot of the Scriptures show communications from God in one form or another. Why would you think it has all stopped? Allah spoke to Mohammad and had a heart attack or what? Naturally the Holy Spirit is alive and well. Maybe you ought to ask Allah to introduce you?
Ask Him if there are other options to help you. If He says “Ken”. Plug your ears and run.

I thought you knew, With Eternity, Time is endless, and as most in Physics will tell you, Space is endless also. Hard to waste things which are of unlimited supply.


Dance Girl. You jumped the mountain. Why were those millions of females girls not killed so a son could be raised up quicker. Or often so there would be no girl babies in the family at all? Did Jesus Christ give value to a lot of those little girls? And save a lot of them that have been abandoned? Even today as many countries shed their unwanted children?

Newnickname.

Does the Bible advocate violence against women?

Ken

quote:

Does the Bible advocate violence against women?

According to dancegirl's post, yes. Violence (in fact, death by stoning) was advocated against women for the crimes of not being a virgin when married, not yelling loudly enough if raped, and for belonging to a different tribe, among other things. How barbaric.

I guess you've given up defending your claim that 'Christianity has done more for protecting women and girl babies then any other factor on earth'.

Can't you be more specific than 'lives were valued' and 'millions were saved'? The Roman Empire (where Christianity first gained influence) didn't, as a rule, practice infanticide, and did value lives - so Christianity didn't save millions of lives there. It was Islam that stopped the practise of female infanticide practiced by some in the Middle East.

You say millions of female girls were not killed (because of Christianity); where and when on earth are you talking about? Where was this place, what people or culture was it, that would have killed female children in such numbers, if Christianity hadn't stopped it?

quote:

Originally posted by Ken1Burton:
Your post listed the Women as the ones who were doing this, You put that in your post, You did not correct that point, So I assume (and doubt not) that it is what you want to say, or it would not have been pasted.

I did not see you mentioned that it was not only the women in that area of the world who were responsible for killing those females. I know the Quran showed it to them. I used it to show it was a practice in that part of the world. And that Allah mentioned it. Also showing Him judging the Innocent, A strange thing.

Kind of like judging Jesus, “For what Crime were you crucified.?” The answer is “all the sins of the world.”

God says He is a Jealous God, that could very well be rubbing off. But I noticed you often mention the Holy Spirit being with me. That looks a little like maybe you are Jealous?

There we go, getting explanations and justifications by ken for all the above... is the usual that is Jesus dieing for the sins of mankind.
The female girl had done no crime nor sin and that would be the answer. Ofcourse you have already made your mind about the message of the chapter 81 in Quran. You honestly need help.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/081.qmt.html#081.009


And you proudly continue lieing about comments made by other fellow members. Do you think we are not going to recheck our posts again ?
You are getting more and more shameless with every new post. Should we again be giving credit to the holy spirit that is guiding you ?

The least you could have done was checked the quote NNN gave. But as usual what is in the scripture is not relevant for you. What ever comes in your mind, for you naturally that is also what is mentioned in the scripture .

ps: what you like to shut me up by showing where I or NNN said that it were only the women killing the babies ?. Like i said you are getting more and more shameless with every new post. But since you already think you would be in heaven... speaking the truth does not matter to you i guess.

quote:

Originally posted by bik74:
would you like to shut me up by showing where I or NNN said that it were only the women that were killing the babies !

just needed to correct my statement.

NewnickName,

I read up on the early Roman Empire, Pagan Empire and the slaughter of infants, mainly of females. Even up to Constantine, how Christianity fought the killing of infants. Christianity is the main factor which saved females in this world. I knew you had all failed History, I just did not know how badly you flunked.


Bik74
Hell was a place to be shut up, Thank Jesus, They are not shut up any more, the Object is to smarten up. You both posted the quote listing Islam as condemning women as killing the babies. I had not seen Nonickname’s post had it also. I do not go into Nonickname’s post that much.


The Quran did not accuse women of killing the female babies, It only listed Allah judging the slain infant for the cause. So when you posted it, placing the blame for the act on women, I took it as you going along with it how it was being listed as a Woman’s crime against the babies. And that is and was WRONG.

Ken

You read up on the early Roman Empire and the "Pagan Empire" and didn't notice that there were pagan holidays in December and another near the start of spring.

Saturnalia is the feast with which the Romans commemorated the dedication of the temple of the god Saturn, which was on 17 December. Over the years, it expanded to a whole week, to 23 December. I was eventually replaced by Sol Invictus ("the Unconquered Sun") or, more fully, Deus Sol Invictus ("the Unconquered Sun God") was the late Roman state sun god. (The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." Does the date sound familiar at all to you, Ken?) The cult was created by the emperor Aurelian in 274 and continued until the abolition of paganism under Theodosius I.

The spring holiday had an even more interesting name. From Wikipedia -
"The modern English term Easter developed from the Old English word Eastre, which itself developed prior to 899. The name refers to the goddess Eastre in Germanic paganism, who was celebrated at the Spring equinox, and has cognates in Old High German ōstarūn, plural, Easter (modern German language Ostern). The Old English term Eastre ultimately derives from ēast - meaning the direction of east. This indicates it originally referred to a goddess associated with dawn. Corresponding Indo-European traditions occur with the Roman goddess Aurora and the Greek goddess Eos.[4]

In England, the annual festive time in her honor was in the "Month of Easter" or Ēostur-monath, equivalent to April/Aprilis[5]. In his De temporum ratione the Bede, an 8th Century English Christian monk wrote in Latin:

"Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur, quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur et cui in illo festa celebrabant nomen habuit."

Which translates as:

"Eostur-month, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival."

Also from Wikipedia - 'According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, "In fact, the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration." '

Ken, it seems that you need to study a bit more history. You really don't know much about the times you pretend to be an expert in. I don't pretend to now a great deal about religion (But I do know enough about the Bible to know that dance girl certainly proved you wrong.), but history is another matter. Smoke and mirrors just won't cut it here.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken1Burton:
The Quran did not accuse women of killing the female babies, It only listed Allah judging the slain infant for the cause. So when you posted it, placing the blame for the act on women, I took it as you going along with it how it was being listed as a Woman’s crime against the babies. And that is and was WRONG.

Once again you are lieing not only about Quran but also about our post.

and considering you did not accept my challenge (for showing our comments), that further proves that you are lieing knowingly.

Does the holy spirit tell you that it is okay to lie and invent facts ? seems like it.

You one again you make claims about our post and yet to show our quotes. I or NNN made no such claims that women alone were blamed for killing babies. Your enterpretation about the Quranic and the Bible verses are wrong (no surprise) and deliberate.

I guess since you believe you are already in heaven, there is no limit to the hieght of shamelessness that you can cross.

And here you claimed that you do not go to into the NNN post much ! i guess sound reasoning is not your area.

People before you have lied about scriptures and facts and many people after you will do the same (for whatever reasons). Like David Koraish you and your kind are no one special and need serious help.

Actually, I should apologise; it seems the Romans did practice infanticide, not seeing newborns as having full human status.

'Until the fourth century, infanticide was neither illegal nor immoral. Complete parental control of the father over the life of his child was dictated by both early Greek and Roman laws. Patria potestas refers to the power of the Roman father to decide the fate of his child, even before birth. However, if a mother killed her child she would be punished by death.

Legal sanctions against infanticide were introduced in the fourth century as Christianity infused secular laws. The Roman emperor Constantine, a Christian convert, proclaimed the slaying of a child by the child's father to be a crime. Infanticide was punishable by the death penalty by the end of the fourth century. Around the same time, the Christian emperor Valentinian declared that it was illegal for parents to fail to provide for their offspring. Thus, by the Middle Ages, infanticide was no longer condoned by either church or state in Europe. However, as a result of hard times and a high illegitimacy rate, infanticide was the most common crime in Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century...

...A common Roman expression was, "Everyone raises a son, including a poor man, but even a rich man will abandon a daughter" (Milner 1998, p. 160). Unequal sex ratios have been reported throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance worldwide' www.deathreference.com

Christianity wasn't so effective in stopping infanticide, it seems, however. It continued in Europe up until the eighteenth century.

quote:

The Roman emperor Constantine, a Christian convert

Historians continue to disagree whether Constantine converted or continued to be a Sun worshipper.

You shall not kill your children for fear of want. We will provide for them and for you. To kill them is a grievous sin.
Surah 17 v 31

So why did infanticide decline in the eighteenth century?

This BBC site gives reasons for female infanticide (and the quote from the Koran above):

'Girl babies are often killed for financial reasons.

Earning power: Men are usually the main income-earners, either because they are more employable or earn higher wages for the same work, or because they are able to do more agricultural work in subsistence economies. Since male babies have a greater income potential, they are less likely to be killed.

Potential pensions: In many societies, parents depend on their children to look after them in old age. But in many of these cultures a girl leaves her parental family and joins her husband's family when she marries. The result is that parents with sons gain extra resources for their old age, when their sons marry, while parents with daughters lose their 'potential pensions' when they marry and move away. This gives parents a strong reason to prefer male children. Some parents (particularly poor ones) who can't afford to support a large family, will kill female babies. Girls are considered a drain on family resources during their childhood without bringing economic benefits later on.

Dowry: Some girl babies are killed so that the family doesn't have to pay a dowry when they get married. In Indian society it is tradition for the parents of the bride to give a dowry to the groom and his family. The dowry consists of large amounts of money and valuable goods. For families with several daughters this can be a serious financial burden.'

Did industrialisation mean that girls became potential wage earners, no longer an economic liability? Was it the development of effective contraception (although that was the nineteenth century, wasn't it?)?

In spite of the fact that it is a criminal offence there for doctors to inform parents of the sex of the unborn child or to be party to a foetus being aborted on the grounds of its gender, the sex ratio of live births in India is still heavily weighted to males. An undercover BBC reporter had not trouble at all in finding a doctor who would break the law, right down to causing a termination.

The culture stays but its means are modernised.

From Wikipedia:

'A letter from a Roman citizen to his wife, dating from 1 BC, demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:

"Know that I am still in Alexandria. [...] I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered [before I come home], if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it." – Naphtali Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule.[5].

In some periods of Roman history it was traditional in practice for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. Although infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in AD 374, offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted...


...Christianity rejected infanticide. The Didache said "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." So widely accepted was this teaching that Justin Martyr defended not abandoning children, "lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers":

"But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first,