These people don't want change they just want to have something to be upset about.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Look at it this way, we already know a lot of this is driven by liberal females (most of them white). It isn't much of a logic jump to say they probably all lothe themeslves. These pet causes give themselves something to fight for, which in turn quiets the voices of self-doubt in their heads and their hearts just a little bit. They all get to be their own personal Harry Potters and Hermione Grangers.
Ignore that if they put their YA fiction down for a minute and picked up a Bible they would find they have all the self-worth they need in Christ. They can find it in their church small groups. They can find it in being genuinely decent people in their home, families, and neighborhoods.
Man I was with you until you brought the Bible in as a book that gives women a sense of self-worth...
1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence".
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.
Your promoting a book that very clearly tells women their place is to be silent, subservient to men, and to marry their rapist.
The verse you're quoting wouldn't actually be considered rape by our standards. It's actually describing two young people fooling around behind their parents' backs who got caught in the act and how to deal with it.
This behavior was discouraged by the rules you quoted. Boys knew if they got caught having sex with an unmarried girl, they could never divorce her. Additionally, they were on the hook for 50 silver shekels, and would basically go into slavery to her parents until they earned those 50 silver shekels (or 7 years, whichever came first) if they couldn't cough up the money immediately. In other words, the punishment for irresponsibility was forced responsibility.
You skipped the verses immediately before the ones you quoted that explained the difference between this and other scenarios a virgin could find herself in.
A woman who was engaged and slept with another man before getting married was stoned to death (if it wasn't rape) and so was the man who slept with her.
If she was actually raped (by modern definition), only the rapist was put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
You DO realize that's a kindness right? Being married doesn't mean they have to have sex with the rapist, or even live with him. It means that the rapist, as bad as it is, has to financially support her for the rest of her life.
How is it kindness of it directly violates the woman's choices of bodily autonomy? Why doesn't the rape victim get a say? And how can that possibly be good?
A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Proverbs 31:10 NIV
What about this in your opinion is empowerment to women? I don't want to straw man you but it would seem this quote puts emphasis on a woman's duty as a wife and not as a human.
God designed woman not as an afterthought but as an integral part of His plan in creation. He created her in His love and with particular care. Her uniqueness is a reflection of God’s purposes and design for her.
That's a good claim, but what parts of the Bible state as such?
Do you understand how special you are? Adam hadn’t even imagined the woman, but God had her particularly in mind. In Genesis 2:18, the Lord said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (NIV).
A helper does not equate to equal. Especially when god specifical says male slaves are worth more than women and Paul clearly states women are subservient to men. As for several other characters on the stories.
In essence, Adam was fumbling around in the bush thinking up animals’ names (see verses 19–20), and God said, “This is not good. This man needs help.” So it was God who said that the man needed the woman.
If god is all knowing and knows the future how could he make the mistake in the first place. This logic doesn't follow with the Bibles description of god.
You are God’s very good idea and His unique creation. God’s mind thought of you, and God’s Spirit brought you into being. You are the result of His idea, and that makes you very valuable to Him.
I'm not arguing the validity of the Bible. I obviously don't believe. I'm asking for proof that the Bible empowers women from the words in the book.
God specifically placed the woman in the garden of Eden along with the man. In Genesis 3:8, we read that God walked in the garden in the cool of the day in order to meet with Adam and Eve.
So what?
There's plenty of other positive scriptures, just is just a couple. The Bible positively speaks of women!
I don't agree that anything you listed speaks to putting women as equal to men or in a position of empowerment.
This rant seems irrelevant to a 24/7 Trump Rally, especially since President Trump has repeatedly elevated the Bible as a source of wisdom and human dignity. You are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, however it seems like a debate for another time and place, wouldn't you agree? We're on the same team here.
The manufacturers have tried to market black dolls. They don't sell well so they end up being discontinued. The reason? Black children preferred the white dolls.
Which is obviously due to systemic racism or something. There was a study on it done by Drs. Mamie and Kenneth Clark. I remembered watching a 20/20 or 60 minutes segment on it forever ago. After looking into it a bit more just now, there's no way I'd voice any sort of opinion on it publicly.
SJW liberals: Black dolls don't exist. Therefore oppression, force the manufacturers to make Black dolls.
Anyone with a brain: There is an underserved market I can tap and make money in.
These people don't want change they just want to have something to be upset about.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Look at it this way, we already know a lot of this is driven by liberal females (most of them white). It isn't much of a logic jump to say they probably all lothe themeslves. These pet causes give themselves something to fight for, which in turn quiets the voices of self-doubt in their heads and their hearts just a little bit. They all get to be their own personal Harry Potters and Hermione Grangers.
Ignore that if they put their YA fiction down for a minute and picked up a Bible they would find they have all the self-worth they need in Christ. They can find it in their church small groups. They can find it in being genuinely decent people in their home, families, and neighborhoods.
Man I was with you until you brought the Bible in as a book that gives women a sense of self-worth...
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence".
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.
Your promoting a book that very clearly tells women their place is to be silent, subservient to men, and to marry their rapist.
No thanks.
In fact, your interpretation is off.
The verse you're quoting wouldn't actually be considered rape by our standards. It's actually describing two young people fooling around behind their parents' backs who got caught in the act and how to deal with it.
This behavior was discouraged by the rules you quoted. Boys knew if they got caught having sex with an unmarried girl, they could never divorce her. Additionally, they were on the hook for 50 silver shekels, and would basically go into slavery to her parents until they earned those 50 silver shekels (or 7 years, whichever came first) if they couldn't cough up the money immediately. In other words, the punishment for irresponsibility was forced responsibility.
You skipped the verses immediately before the ones you quoted that explained the difference between this and other scenarios a virgin could find herself in.
A woman who was engaged and slept with another man before getting married was stoned to death (if it wasn't rape) and so was the man who slept with her.
If she was actually raped (by modern definition), only the rapist was put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
You DO realize that's a kindness right? Being married doesn't mean they have to have sex with the rapist, or even live with him. It means that the rapist, as bad as it is, has to financially support her for the rest of her life.
How is it kindness of it directly violates the woman's choices of bodily autonomy? Why doesn't the rape victim get a say? And how can that possibly be good?
What about this in your opinion is empowerment to women? I don't want to straw man you but it would seem this quote puts emphasis on a woman's duty as a wife and not as a human.
That's a good claim, but what parts of the Bible state as such?
A helper does not equate to equal. Especially when god specifical says male slaves are worth more than women and Paul clearly states women are subservient to men. As for several other characters on the stories.
If god is all knowing and knows the future how could he make the mistake in the first place. This logic doesn't follow with the Bibles description of god.
I'm not arguing the validity of the Bible. I obviously don't believe. I'm asking for proof that the Bible empowers women from the words in the book.
So what?
I don't agree that anything you listed speaks to putting women as equal to men or in a position of empowerment.
This rant seems irrelevant to a 24/7 Trump Rally, especially since President Trump has repeatedly elevated the Bible as a source of wisdom and human dignity. You are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, however it seems like a debate for another time and place, wouldn't you agree? We're on the same team here.
Sure but I'm not the one that brought the Bible into the discussion. So why not say that to the person who did?
Not that I expect that you're interested in the truth anyways; I suspect that you're interested solely in self-righteous snobbery.
If you have the truth you can present it.
The manufacturers have tried to market black dolls. They don't sell well so they end up being discontinued. The reason? Black children preferred the white dolls.
Which is obviously due to systemic racism or something. There was a study on it done by Drs. Mamie and Kenneth Clark. I remembered watching a 20/20 or 60 minutes segment on it forever ago. After looking into it a bit more just now, there's no way I'd voice any sort of opinion on it publicly.
Yeah, they put a test put for kids: one white doll, one black doll and most of the kids, black and white, chose the white doll.
Naw, they don't need black dolls - they already have their own babbies to neglect.
black dolls don't sell as well. that's beginning, middle, and end of why they're less available