Why is the Christian God so misogynistic?

[DaKidFromNoWhere]

Not religious at all but a lot of our Grandparents followed that shyt and stuck it out till death.
Now look at the black family structure today.
Just saying...

 

[Charlie Hustle]

women should walk behind the man tho

Very common in places I’ve been to in the Middle East (Kuwait, Dubai)

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Deuteronomy 22
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Sorry, this is what happens when you take little pieces of the text out-of-context. That actually means that she was consenting to be violated, ie. 'seduced', by NOT screaming for help. If you read the preceding verses, this becomes clear.....

Deuteronomy 22: 23-29
​

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,​

24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. of silver.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,
27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed there was no one to rescue her.

Now that we have the full context, we can look at the verses you cited with a clearer understanding of the intent of the author....
​

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.​

Notice that 'and they are discovered' pertains to BOTH the man and the woman as they are BOTH guilty and rather than killing them both, they are to be married which is what they wanted to do in the first place otherwise, she'd have yelled for help and he'd have been killed for rape. The translation I'm using is the NIV although the KJV does a better job in this particular instance. Especially vv. 25.

I already debated this topic with an atheist and he had to resort to throwing a temper tantrum when I pointed out that his reasoning was absurd. The logical beatdown starts here:

Israeli Academic: Raping Palestinian Women Would Deter Future Attacks

Start from post #61 and keep reading.

​

 

[KENNY DA COOKER]

And the lord our God sayeth.....because the world fell into sin because of thy son simple ways ..I AM hard as a rock on these harlots thouest every single day -The Book of Ruth Chap 6 verse 9

 

[Hoodoo Child]

If we wanna keep it funky, the real "God" has no gender..But let Christianity tell it

 

[levitate]

Sorry, this is what happens when you take little pieces of the text out-of-context. That actually means that she was consenting to be violated, ie. 'seduced', by NOT screaming for help. If you read the preceding verses, this becomes clear.....

Deuteronomy 22: 23-29
​

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,​

24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. of silver.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,
27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed there was no one to rescue her.

Now that we have the full context, we can look at the verses you cited with a clearer understanding of the intent of the author....
​

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.​

Notice that 'and they are discovered' pertains to BOTH the man and the woman as they are BOTH guilty and rather than killing them both, they are to be married which is what they wanted to do in the first place otherwise, she'd have yelled for help and he'd have been killed for rape. The translation I'm using is the NIV although the KJV does a better job in this particular instance. Especially vv. 25.

I already debated this topic with an atheist and he had to resort to throwing a temper tantrum when I pointed out that his reasoning was absurd. The logical beatdown starts here:

Israeli Academic: Raping Palestinian Women Would Deter Future Attacks

Start from post #61 and keep reading.

​

Let's play with your interpretation for a minute...

Even if it meant rape in a statutory manner why should a young girl be forced to marry a rapist?

If your 11 year old daughter were statutorily raped by a man would you want her to be forced to marry him?



#Sickshyt

 

[YaThreadFloppedB!]

God not misogynistic you're just a simp. What's your nationality btw?


Edit - I'd noticed you didn't respond that's because you know if you're not apart of the 12 tribes your going into slavery (DAT RIIIIITE!).

@levitate why you skipped over my goblin’s response to you?

 

[levitate]

God not misogynistic you're just a simp. What's your nationality btw?


Edit - I'd noticed you didn't respond that's because you know if you're not apart of the 12 tribes your going into slavery (DAT RIIIIITE!).

Yeah I'm a proud member of #TeamSimp.

And I'm black American.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Let's play with your interpretation for a minute...

Even if it meant rape in a statutory manner why should a young girl be forced to marry a rapist?

She's not being forced to marry a rapist. That's another anachronistic reading into the text known as 'eisegesis'. The man is forced to marry the woman and pay her dowry (bride price) since he did an 'end run' around her father and consummated a marriage without his consent, but with HER full assent. If the 'seduction' were against her will, he would be killed as she would scream when THEY were discovered in the act.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

If we wanna keep it funky, the real "God" has no gender..But let Christianity tell it

It ain't Christianity. but Judaism from which it sprang. Traditionally, the 'deity' they worshiped was identified using male nouns, in the same fashion in which we ascribe female characteristics today to automobiles/ships/etc., but 'spiritual' beings have no material bodies and cannot be said to have a 'sex' as they can't procreate. This fact is brought to bear in Genesis 6 in the curious case of the Nephilim, 'fallen angels' who had to discard their spiritual bodies (habitation) and take on material bodies in order to procreate with the 'daughters of men'.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

My old man gets mad every time I mention that the Bible has been edited hundreds of times over the course of time. I even read somewhere that certain Text/scriptures were taken out of the Bible way back when

It would have been impossible for the text to have been edited to such an extent that it's original authors would not recognize it. There are/were just too many copies of it floating around the Ancient World for that to even happen. There's nothing wrong with editing as terms fall into disuse and/or out of use altogether and new terms replace them. Language is fluid. There were no texts taken out of the corpus. Some were omitted as they didn't qualify for inclusion. This is especially pertinent for the texts of the NT as the original disciples and their immediate contemporaries were still alive when it was completed and would be the first to object to inaccurate or incorrect portrayals of what they witnessed and were taught first-hand.
​

 

[ozzy]

man people need to know the difference between man made Bible and the original Bible

 

[Bobby Lashleys eyebrows]

Cause he was rewritten by dirty old cacs

Correction.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

man people need to know the difference between man made Bible and the original Bible

There is no difference. The problem is that people think that 'G-d' actually wrote the Bible, but that has never been the actual Christian belief of the transmission of the text. It's a strawman. Christians (and Jews) believe the text was 'inspired' by 'G-d' and written by man who was guided by the 'Holy Spirit'.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

If God existed he wouldn't have been authoring bronze age books at a time when the majority of ppl were illiterate

he would have at least waited til the internet era where all his sh1t could be documented and verified

Oh, you mean 'G-d' would have been much more successful telling people what was really going on in this day and age where people believe the earth is flat, we never put men on the Moon, aliens built the pyramids in Egypt, planes never hit the WTC towers, etc., just because they're more literate now?

​