Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Mosque at Ground Zero

Okay, I’ve done a little research on the “Christianity vs. Islam re: wife beating” question. I’m a little offended that this even needs to be addressed, but since apparently it does…

Let’s compare and contrast, shall we? Since I realize that human beings are imperfect, I'll stick with examing original texts, not the various ways they've been used or abused.

I found a fascinating site called Answering Islam . Their methodology:
The whole article is way too long to quote but I recommend clicking the link if you’re interested or want to argue.

First, we have a modern translation (2004) of Sura 4:34

So there it is, in black and white: “then hit them.” It’s not the first resort listed, but it’s definitely on the list of the righteous way to proceed. There are, of course, other translations, and I encourage you to click the link and check them out.

Also, the article’s author points out:
Secondary to the Koran is the Hadith, a collection of testimony *about* Mohammed from those who were there at the time. Kind of like the Gospels.

So, beat them but not with severity. Because, after all, "they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons."

There are also stories of wives in the original group coming to Aisha (Mohammed’s wife) with “green skin” (sounds like a bruise to me) and complaining about their husbands. Mohammed dismissed those complaints with “they are not the best of you”. Aisha also wrote that Mohammed struck her on occasion.
Well, I’m sure she had it coming. </sarcasm>
Again, I encourage you to check out the link , or just Google “sura beat wife” like I did.
In contrast, from the Bible (New Testament):
I don’t know about you, but to me “understanding” and “showing honor” does not imply any hitting or beating, with or without severity. But we can get more detailed than that.
I quoted the whole thing for context, but let me pull out a few phrases: “Husbands, love your wives”, “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” “Let each one of you love his wife as himself.” The example given is Christ and the church, with the wife being analogous to the church. What did Christ do for the church? “…gave himself up for her”. Husbands are explicitly told to follow Christ’s example. “In the same way husbands should love their wives.”

Of course, women are given a few instructions in here, too. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” and “let the wife see that she respects her husband.” And I know a lot of women have a lot of trouble with those instructions, given our cultural history (yes, Ann, sometimes you do have a point!) *but* my point is, those are instructions to the *wives* -- not the husbands. It does not say “husbands, make sure your wives submit to you.” The wife is to see to it, herself, and there’s no mention of force.

I ran across a few other passages in First Peter and in Ephesians talking about other authority situations, too. Elders are told to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” Fathers aren’t to “exasperate” their children. I’m sensing a theme here.


NOWHERE in the New Testament is there anything even approaching “…then hit her.” Please stop implying that there is.

PJ

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply, Corrina.

First of all, I didn't mean to launch a wholesale attack on Christianity. I most definitely didn't mean to launch a wholesale attack on Jesus, the way he is presented in the Gospels. And I most absolutely, definitely didn't mean to launch a wholesale attack on all Christians. I really hope you can believe that, Corrina.

When I carefully read the Bible to find out about its attitude to women, I was amazed at Jesus' respectfulness to the women he interacted with. I wholeheartedly agree with you here:

Absolutely! I want to point out that I didn't mean to criticize Jesus when I mentioned that he spoke of his mother in a certain way. I wanted to say, rather, that the Bible doesn't generally treat Mary as a character worthy of reverence. There is precious little of any Biblical reverence for her outside of the first chapter of Luke.

As a matter of fact, I think you can see signs in the Bible that Mary was the subject of some contempt in the town where she lived, probably because she had given birth to Jesus before she was married. Christians believe that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but her virginity wouldn't have been obvious to her local contemporaries. Personally I believe that Jesus' absolutely remarkable respect for women had its roots in his sympathy for and loyalty to his mother, despite the contempt that some people probably showed her.

So again, please believe me when I say that I'm not criticizing Jesus.

Also, when it comes to Christian people, I am good friends with a woman who is a missionary, and whose courage and good will I am absolutely amazed at. She is the kind of missionary who is very light on preaching and very "heavy" on general care, medical help, schooling, food support, what have you. I'm sure you know Matthew 25:34-36:

Well, that summarizes my friend, let me tell you. That's what she is like. And she doesn't stay at home, as I said, but she goes abroad and goes to dangerous and difficult places, and she suffers all kinds of hardship and dangers for the sake of others, and she doesn't seem to think that this makes her very special at all. She is full of fun and jokes, but she never boasts about herself. She is really and truly Christian, the kind of person who goes to church every Sunday and so on, but she doesn't make a big deal about it.

So, Corrina, how could I ever say that Christian people are bad, or that you become a bad person by being Christian?

However, I will say that the Bible contains many frightening and, in my opinion, downright evil passages. I'm not backing down from that.

Also, I will say that Christianity has traditionally often treated women quite badly. I will say that many conservative Christians have not been listening to Jesus very much, but instead they have regarded Jesus as the "sacrifical lamb" of Christianity, the man who laid down his life so that we can live. But these conservative Christians have often not regarded Jesus as a teacher whom we should listen to so we can know how we should live. Instead, these conservative Christians have regarded Paul as their foremost authority and teacher, and Paul's overall message was that people should know their place and obey those who hold authority over them. Therefore, Paul repeated over and over that women should obey their husbands. Jesus never said that. And yet, this call for wifely subordination is very important to many conservative Christians.

Also, Jesus most certainly never said that it was important to punish or even kill women for their sexual transgressions. If you read the Gospels carefully, you will find that Jesus always defends and forgives exactly these "fallen" women. And yet conservative Christian societies have so often punished women very harshly for sexual transgressions. For example, women have often been punished and even put to death for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, whereas men have rarely been punished for extramarital affairs. This flies in the face of what Jesus said about men's and women's sexuality.

(When I say "conservative Christian societies", I speak primarily about Europe a hundred years ago and more.)

I think it would be very dangerous, not least to women, to make the Bible the law of a society. There are very many horrible and frightening passages about women in the Bible.

One message that is repeated again and again in the Bible is that the sexuality of women is horribly dangerous and can wreak havoc. No, Jesus most certainly never said so, but many other voices in the Bible say it. This is an excerpt from Numbers 25:

As you can see, we are told that Midianite or Moabite women seduce Israeli men and make them engage in pagan worship and immoral sexuality. God unleashes his fury on Israel in retaliation, and 24,000 Israelis are killed. This is the kind of story that teaches us that unchecked female sexuality brings disaster and multiple deaths.

When Terry said that 9/11 happened because of the sort of American culture that is represented by Paris Hilton, the Kardashian sisters and Lady Gaga, I felt that this was the same thing as saying that the immorality of female American cultural icons made Muslim people so enraged that they needed to attack America presumably to destroy its immorality. And I thought that the scenario that Terry painted was frighteningly similar to the story told in Numbers 25: Immoral women flash their sexuality, causing righteous wrath, and thousands of people are killed as a result.

But I don't believe for a moment that this was the true cause of 9/11. I followed a lot of international reports in the aftermath of 9/11, and nowhere was it suggested that this horrible attack was an attempt by the Muslim world to wipe out the sexual immorality of American women. A number of other reasons were put forth, but never this one. I absolutely don't believe in it, but still worse, I consider the whole idea an insidious attack on the freedom of women. The very suggestion that the immorality of western women caused 9/11 calls for a clampdown on the freedom of western women, or at least that is how I see it.

But let me say, finally, that I have no criticisms against Jesus. I also believe that most Christian people are good people, not at all motivated by the more scary parts of the Bible, most of which they probably don't even know about.

I was trying to say basically two things, namely these:

1) It is ridiculous as well as truly scary and ominous to suggest that 9/11 happened because of the immorality of American women.

2) A society built entirely on the Bible, so that the Bible becomes its law, has every chance of deteriorating into a society which is as harsh and horrible as countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran and others.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't many good things in the Bible, and it doesn't mean that most Christian people aren't good people.

Ann

Hi Pam,

Let me begin by saying that as someone who is neither an orthodox (nor, for that matter, Orthodox) Christian or a Muslim, I find much more to recommend itself in the New Testament than the Quran. I think my religious opinions would fall fairly close to Thomas Jefferson's - I think Jesus was an extraordinary teacher of morality and there is little better one can do than to follow his example in the Gospels. But I have also found much to be of value in the traditions from Buddhism through Zoroastrianism.

I'm currently on my fourth read through of the Quran, so I know it fairly well. As literature, at least in English translation, I find it boring, repetitive, and at times confounding. The part I personally find most confounding is the repeated assertions that if someone has erred, God will continue to make him err, by "putting a seal on his heart" or by not guiding the nonbelievers. Similarly, the Quran states that "God gives to whom he will," and "God guides whom he will," quite a bit. I've always found that manifestly unfair. I don't claim to know or understand the mind of God, but I cannot imagine how a creator at all concerned with his creation would intentionally confound, confuse, or otherwise obstruct part of it.

Islam, in my opinion, also places too much on God's will - if you die in a car accident, it's God's will, not the result of drunk or careless driving, or unsafe road conditions, etc. To me, this serves to undermine the idea that human beings are responsible for their actions. However, while the Bible isn't nearly as heavy on suggesting that God's intervention can be seen in all events and that everything is foreordained, I know plenty of Christians who believe "everything happens for a reason," or "everything is part of God's plan." Personally, I don't think the Holocaust was part of God's plan. I'd like to think that a benevolent deity wouldn't come up with a plan involving the starving, torturing, and gassing of 12 million people to death. I do believe the Holocaust happened for a reason and that reason was that the Nazi Party was formed, led, and supported by some really screwed up, awful human beings. To believe anything else, in my opinion, diminishes the capacity of those horrible, wretched individuals who actively *chose* to do evil.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, explaining the "beating" verse in the Quran. This one is actually one of the most difficult verses to interpret for one simple reason. Arabic is a remarkably difficult and confusing language. Without getting too deep into the unbelievably complex grammar of the language, suffice it to say that all related words in Arabic will share a root made out of three consonants. That means the words for "writer," "to write," and "book," all have the same root. The words for "teacher," "to teach," "to learn," and "school" all have the same root as well. Because doubled consonants and vowels aren't written in Arabic, different but related words can be written the same way. As a result, what looks like one word may be any number of things, depending on context.

Students of the language like to joke that every word in Arabic means itself, its opposite, and camel. That is largely true. For example, the root "H" "r" "m" occurs in the words Haram and Harram, which alternately mean 'prohibited as evil' and 'sacred.' In Arabic, they are spelled the same way. It is very confusing, but generally the context tells you the right meaning.

The word translated as "to beat" in that verse is the verb formed from the root "D" "r" "b" This verb, depending on its usage can mean: to hit, to defeat, to ignore, to insult, to leave alone, or to avoid (and a bunch of other things that couldn't possibly apply in that context, such as give a military salute, travel, loiter, or impose a tax). It is a very bizarre word, even for Arabic. I personally have no idea what it means in the quoted context, but it could well mean either "beat your wife," or "leave her alone."

In terms of who is the one demanding submission from women to men, I personally don't think it makes that much of a difference. Whether St. Paul is telling a woman, "submit to and obey your husband," (oh, and don't talk in church, or hold a position of authority over men) or whether God is telling men that they have a right to demand submission from their wives, in both cases, the religions are saying women should submit to men. Personally, I don't buy it and am very happy to have a marriage of equals. I don't tell my husband what to do. I don't expect him to obey me, and he treats me with the same respect. We make big decisions together and that doesn't mean that when we agree, we say we came to a joint conclusion and when we disagree, one of us gets to put his or her foot down.

On an entertaining side note, has anyone noticed the marble frieze that Lex Luthor has in his office? It's a winged guardian angel and the symbol of Zoroastrianism, the world's first monotheistic religion. As Zoroastrianism is all about mindfulness and striving toward having good thoughts, good speech, and good actions, I'm going to assume Lex wasn't actually a Zoroastrian and just had the piece of art because it was worth a lot of money.

Rac

Hi Rac

Your previous post wasn't addressed to me so I hope it's OK that I respond.

Firstly, the submission in marriage.

1) It's submission, not obedience. Children are told to obey their parents, wives are told to submit to their husbands.

2) In Ephesians 5:22 it says

'Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.'

What very few opponents of this see is the verse just before it (and remember when it was written there were no chapter and verse breaks.)

Ephesians 5:21

'submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ.'

This comes on the end of a long sentence which was addressed to everyone - not just women.

Submitting to one another - there is nothing in here to suggest that the women should be the ones to submit to the men.

However, there is one relationship that is too important to leave to the hope that someone will submit - the marriage relationship. Therefore, it goes on to address wives specifically in relationship to her own husband.

My take is that Ephesians 5:21 is be tried first - and in 25 years of my marriage the overwhelming majority of conflict/potential conflict has been worked out with compromise - AKA submitting to one another.

There have also been times when my husband has chosen to give in/submit to my wishes.

BUT - should a situation reach a point where there can be no compromise and should my husband (who has been directed to love me as Christ loved the church - ie is willing to die for me) genuinely believe that a certain way is best for me, him, our marriage, our children, and our family, it is my God-given responsibility to submit.

It does not involve being a doormat, it does not involve my opinions being brushed off as unimportant, it does not in any way suggest superiority/inferiority.

I know the idea of submission rankles with many women, but as Terry said, when the husband does his part in totally and sacrificially loving his wife, there really aren't too many problems.


This is a popular view, but, I believe logically flawed.

Jesus made extraordinary, mind-blowing, earth-shaking claims about himself. Here's just one of many ...

John 14:6

'Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."'

What an incredible statement.

There are only three possibilities.

1) It's not true - Jesus is not the way, the truth and the life and he's not the only way to the Father - and Jesus knew it wasn't true.

That makes him a liar and a deceiver - certainly not 'an extraordinary teacher of morality'.

2) It's not true - but Jesus thought it was true. That makes him delusional - with severe delusions of grandeur.

Again - he can't be 'an extraordinary teacher' if he's so severely misinformed about who he is.

3) It's true. Jesus is all the things he claimed to be, including being the only way to the Father.

And if it's true, his claims warrant so much more than thinking of him as nothing more than a teacher of morality.

Corrina.

Thanks for your reply, Corrina.

I'm glad that has worked in your marriage and you've been married a lot longer than I have. But I know that wouldn't work for us. Neither Mr. Rac nor I believe that his possession of a Y chromosome somehow makes him know what is best for us. I defer to him in his areas of expertise. He defers to me in mine. It would be foolish of me to tell him how to network the computers in the house, given that he's a network engineer. It would be foolish of him to tell me how to draft a power of attorney we leave to each of our parents when we go overseas. And when neither of us is an expert or when we have equally strong feelings about something, well, then that's when we have to work it out.

Regarding your question, there aren't three possibilities, Corrina, there are four. The fourth possibility is that the author of John wrote the statement based on his beliefs and attributed them to Jesus. Since not one of the Gospel's was written during the lifetime of Christ, I don't believe there is any way to assume that they are literally true. The argument posited by CS Lewis assumes the Bible is literally true. If you believe that, then CS Lewis's puzzle makes sense to you, if you don't it is a silly and absurd question.

I try to read the Bible in its historical and cultural context. Scholars of religious history are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that major concepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition including strict monotheism (as opposed to believing our one god is way more powerful than your many lesser gods), the concepts of heaven, hell, the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the coming of a savior born of a virgin entered the tradition through its interactions with the dominant religion in that area of the world at the time - Zoroastrianism. When Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Jews to return to Israel and to settle freely in the Persian empire, there was a remarkable amount of exchange between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Many central tenants of the Persian faith found their way into Judaism. I try to read the Bible with the understanding that by the time the events of the New Testament are happening, these concepts are already well understood by the people of that time and place. To me, that means the writers of the Gospels aren't coming at the task tabula rasa.

Now this is probably pure heresy to some people, which I understand. But it is truly how I view religion - as an attempt by human beings to understand the will of God, to determine their place in the universe and the purpose of their lives. Other people view it differently. And that's the great thing about religious freedom - no one can try to force you to believe something you don't.

Rac

Let me begin my acknowledging and accepting Ann's apology. Thank you, Ann, for your apology.

Now for the new stuff.

Ann wrote:
I would write "You've got to be kidding" except I know you're not kidding.

You are way off the reservation on this one, Ann. The deaths of the 24,000 Hebrew men was because they had deliberately disobeyed the Mosaic Law by marrying pagan women. And it was not the sexuality of the women which was an issue, it was the worship of false gods which was the problem.

You also wrote, to introduce this section of your post:
I am one of the first ones to agree that women have power over men, and that part of that power involves sex. But the implicit corollary of your statement is that women aren't supposed to be sexual creatures, and that somehow sex is presented in the Bible as a bad thing.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. The first thing God told Adam and Eve in Eden was to be fruitful and multiply. Humans can't do that without having sex.

In the book of Proverbs, Wisdom is personified several times as a female character, one whose value exceeds that of any precious metal or any gemstone. And she's quite beautiful, or in today's parlance, smokin' hot.

The entire Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs, as some translations title it) is about sex. It isn't a sex manual like the Kama Sutra, of course, but it does make plain that sex between a husband and wife is a really, really good thing.

With apologies to the Catholic readers on the boards, we can also see that Joseph was told by the angel Gabriel that he was not to have sex with his pregnant wife until after she delivered her first child. If sex were anything close to being a bad thing, Mary the mother of Jesus would not have engaged in such a behavior.

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) says that "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." This verse is among a series of short, general admonitions to good behavior, and I take it to mean that whatever a husband and wife want to do with each other if more than okay with God.

My point is that your point is invalid. God doesn't get mad at wives who enjoy sex with their husbands. He never has. He never will. The problem is that quite often, all we men can see in a woman is the sex part, and we forget that she's got a brain and the will to use it. When we guys (I'm speaking of men in general now, not specifically and certainly not autobiographically) see a beautiful woman, we sometimes stop thinking about right and wrong and just react to the moment. That's what those Hebrew men did with the Moabite women. They looked, they saw, their tongues fell out of their mouths and they decided not to think past the fulfillment of their sexual desires.

Shall we talk about American men who make us look like idiots? Let's see, there's John Edwards, former candidate for the Presidency who fathered a child by one of his staffers and denied it for years. There's Albert Haynesworth, pro football player who accepted $21 million to remain with his team and then skipped a number of required practices and has made himself a problem with the other players. There's Donald Trump, the very image of conspicuous and rampant and out-of-control capitalism. There's actor-director-producer Quentin Tarantino, whose violent and bloody movies shock even the jaded public in the US.

I think I've made my point that I don't blame women for 9/11. In fact, I don't blame the men I just mentioned either. As I recall, it was the fault of about two or three dozen evil men who ended up killing about three thousand innocent people on one day and disrupting our nation for years.

Let me make one more point. I never said that Dr. Falwell or Mr. D'Souza or I wanted the US to live under Biblical law. I said that if the US were to live under Biblical principles, things would be better overall in our country. I do not advocate a return to the Mosaic law, and I am not acquainted with anyone who does (except Pat Robertson, and even I find it hard to take him seriously at times). Law and principles are not the same thing. Law is enforced on a society. Principles are adhered to voluntarily by society. I would prefer the latter.

You can insist on your conclusion all you wish, Ann, but you are refuting a point I have never made.

I whole-heartedly agree Corrina! Sounds like my (or is it mine?) and my husband's marriage is very similar to yours - though we've only been married 4 years!

I want to comment on everything I've read but wouldn't even know where to begin. But since I started this thread ( ) I suppose I should make a few comments.

(1) Regarding the mosque: my 'slap in the face' comment was much more eloquently explained by Pam. I agree with everything she said. As far as the law goes, they should be able to build the mosque there but I can't help thinking there are ulterior motives, etc etc etc. Rac, I have really enjoyed your posts - thanks for giving a different perspective!

(2) Regarding woman's rights - Ann, I know you are a strong advocate for woman's rights and I think there are most definitely women who are mistreated and it's good for them to have someone out there who will speak up for them. However, I do sometimes think that your strong passion for this can 'skew', if you will, your interpretation of things (such as comments by other Folcs, bible verses, etc). I agree whole-heartedly with everything Terry said but I most certainly am not a womanizer/woman hater/chauvinist pig, etc. as you had implied about Terry (though I do see you apologized).

(3) Regarding Christianity, I think it was best explained here by Terry

When you read the bible, it really is best looked at as a whole. There are many horrible things you can read in the Bible, I agree - people sacrificing their children, woman being raped and mistreated, sons attempting to murder their fathers, betrayal etc. This in no way means God condones any of this but it is there to show us the fallen nature of man and how we need a savior.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Thanks everyone for posting!

It isn't your face being slapped. 69% of NY residents support it. When NYers can get all up in Oklahoma's business about what goes near the Murrah building, then we'll care what the rest of you have to say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/nyregion/13bloomberg.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

don't you feel manipulated? I mean there waz skeeery moozlims in that spot for years before FOX news decided to exploit bigotry and create an issue out of nothing.

But all we need to know is on the face of the person who had the big sign saying "This is NOT your country" . There may be legitimate emotional opposition, not legal, but emotional....but it is turning into an excuse for islamophobes to spew their ugly. NY doesn't have the patience for them.

Joy, I agree that NYers were effected by 9/11 differently than many other Americans because this atrocity happened in your city but since when did 9/11 become 'NY's business' and not America's. 9/11 was not an attack on NY, it was an attack on the United States - that includes all of us, including the people who died in the other flights.

Maybe I misread your post but when you say "when NYers get all up in Oklahoma's business" you make it sound like you don't think any other Americans other than NYers should have a say about this Mosque. I heartily DISAGREE.

Joy, your statement that sixty-nine percent of New Yorkers support the mosque isn't supported by the article you referenced.

Here's what the second paragraph says.
And I haven't read anything in this thread about "skeeery moozlims." I honestly don't know where you got that. If some protester or commentator used that term, you should take it up with that person.

Accusing one's opponent of racism or Islamophobia usually means you've run out of real arguments. I must remind you that no Islamic person was involved in the Murrah building bombing in 1995, and in fact there is no longer a Murrah building. There is a memorial on that site with the names of all 168 victims written down, and the time of the attack (9:03) is inscribed over the entrance. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that a memorial to McVeigh or his associates be built in downtown Oklahoma City.

I will also remind you that Timothy McVeigh was tried by in Federal court and put to death by Federal authority. The state of Oklahoma had little to do with it, beyond providing testimony and evidence to the prosecution.

I think that a multi-cultural center where Muslims and Christians and Jews and atheists and pagans and all others could go and learn about each other would be a good thing. The concern which I have expressed is that this may not be such a place, and that the Imam heading up the project may be allowing terrorists access to the people he is shepherding and providing part of the funding. Blaming Fox News for stirring up racists and Islamophobes doesn't help the discussion, nor does telling us that it isn't our business because we're not New Yorkers.

Thanks for your reply, Ann.

I didn't think you were attacking anything, but I did think that some of your examples only showed one side. I tried to show the other side.

Regarding Mary - I agree, the bible doesn't particularly highlight her part in the life of Jesus. And, there's every chance she was shunned. She went with Joseph to his home town (so it's not unreasonable to think he would have some relatives there) and had to have her baby in a stable.

Terry has responded to much of the rest of your post and I addressed wifely submission in a post to Rac.

Thanks for your input,

Corrina.

In my previous post I said that the death of 24,000 Israelis was an example of how the Bible often describes unchecked female sexuality as something that brings disaster and death. Terry replied:

Terry also said:

I agree, but the Bible tells us over and over how women use their sexuality to tempt men to disobey God and also often to worship false gods. So their sexuality is the means that these women use to make the men sin and disobey God.

This pattern is firmly established already in Genesis, in the story about Adam and Eve. God creates Adam for no special reason, except for the obvious reason that God wants Adam to exist. We can say that Adam is created both for his own sake and for God's sake.

Now that God had created Adam, he planted a lovely garden in Eden and put Adam in that garden. There were two very special trees in that garden, too: the tree of life, which would have given Adam eternal life if he had eaten of its fruit, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God said to Adam:

We must conclude that God had indeed intended for Adam to eat of the tree of life and become immortal. So God planted the tree of life in the garden of Eden to give Adam eternal life. But God also planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil to test Adam's loyalty and obedience. If Adam ate of that tree, he would die.

But as soon as God has put Adam in the garden with the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he discovers that Adam is alone. After many failed attempts to give Adam the "helper" that he needs God finally creates woman. Please note that woman is created for Adam's sake, while Adam was created for his own sake or for God's sake. God creates woman not because he loves woman but because he loves Adam. Almost certainly God wants Adam to love him back. The tree of knowledge of good and evil exists in the garden as a test of Adam's loyalty to God.

Ah, but the naked woman that God has given to him is so lovely.

There is a serpent in the garden of Eden, and the serpent tempts woman to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil:

The serpent says to woman that if she eats of the forbidden fruit she will be like God. The woman wants to be like God. So she picks some fruits and eats them. And then this happens:

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was with her. He must have heard what the serpent said to his wife. He must have seen her pick the fruit and eat it. He must know what is going on. And when his wife offers him some fruit, Adam must make a choice:

Should he do what his wife wanted and eat the fruit?

Should he do what God wanted and refuse to eat the fruit?

Adam ate the fruit. He knew what he was doing. He chose to do what his wife wanted rather than what God wanted. He chose woman over God.

And why? Why did Adam choose woman over God? Well, we know why:

Adam chose woman over God because he preferred the sex she gave him over anything that God had given him.

The way I see it, Genesis can be said to describe God and woman as two rivals fighting for the love and loyalty of man. In Genesis, man - Adam - chooses woman over God. So what happens when he makes such a choice?

Death happens. That's what. But first Adam and woman are punished while they are still alive. God rules that woman will have to endure pain during childbirth:

And interestingly, God also decides that from now on, man shall rule over woman.

As for Adam, God says to him:
God punishes Adam by sentencing him to painful toil for the rest of his life to produce the food that he must eat.

I find it very interesting how God describes Adam's sin. God doesn't just say, "Because you ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' I will punish you." No, God says "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' I will punish you." Adam's sin began when he listened to his wife.

If woman and God are two rivals for the loyalty of Adam, then Adam's real crime was not so much that he ate the forbidden fruit, but rather that he obeyed God's rival instead of God. By commanding woman to submit to her husband, God forbids her to try to influence Adam any more, and he forbids Adam to listen to his wife. The foremost problem is not so much the details of Adam's transgressions as much as it is his willingness to do woman's bidding instead of God's.

So Adam, man, chose woman over God. This is the major catastrophe in the Old Testament. Because what does this catastrophe lead to?

As I said, it leads to death. First of all, it leads to Adam's death. God says:

God says this to Adam, not to woman. It is not as if woman won't die, too. Rather it is that her death is not important, because she was never created either for her own sake or for God's sake anyway. Creation was always about Adam, and woman was created for Adam's sake, in the same way that everything else was created for Adam's sake. The catastrophe is that Adam will die even though he was the purpose of creation, and after he is dead woman will serve no purpose. So woman will surely die, but the significance of her death is small compared with the significance of the death of Adam. It is Adam's life and death that matters, and when God drove Adam and his wife out of the Garden of Eden, it is really only Adam's expulsion that is of any significance:

God drove both Adam and his wife out of the Garden of Eden, but woman's expulsion isn't even mentioned.

The fact that Adam was banished from the Garden of Eden meant that all his descendants for ever and ever were banished from the Garden of Eden, too. And because Adam was prevented from eating from the tree of life because he had chosen woman over God, every man (and every woman) who has ever lived has had to die as a result of Adam's disobedience of God because of woman.

As a fundamentalist Christian Norwegian man who used to beat his wife to discipline her out of love put it, "You women, you are the Fall."

To summarize, God creates Adam for his own sake and woman for Adam's sake, but Adam chooses woman over God, and every human being who has ever lived has to die as a result.

Ann

There are in fact very strong similarities between the story of Adam and woman in the Garden of Eden and the story of the Hebrew men and the Moabite women in Shittim. In both cases the male persons were very much more valuable to God than the women. In both cases the males were "chosen": Adam was the reason for all of Creation, and the Hebrew men at Shittim bore the mark on their bodies of Abraham's covenant with God, which included all males that belonged to Abraham or were the descendants of Abraham. And in both cases the women involved were much less important in the eyes of the Lord than the men involved.

In both cases the women "worshipped pagan gods", since it is not too farfetched to regard the serpent in the Garden of Eden as an evil demigod. And the Moabite women were obviusly pagan.

In both cases the not-so-chosen women had sexual relationships with the chosen men.

In both cases the not-so-chosen women offered the chosen men forbidden food. Woman in the Garden of Eden offered Adam the forbidden fruit, and the Moabite women in Shittim offered the Hebrew men forbidden food from their pagan rituals. And in both cases the men accepted the forbidden food from the women. The Bible says:

So in both cases men who ought to have been loyal to God chose women over God and ate the food that was forbidden by God when it was given to them by these women. In both cases the women's sexuality is a very obvious reason for why the men chose women over God. And in both cases God retaliates by making very many people die. Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden led to everybody's death, and the transgression of the Hebrew men at Shittim led to the death of 24,000 people.

The Bible tells several other stories in a similar vein, i.e, stories where men are tempted by women they are sexually attracted to into doing wrong, and where catastrophe and death ensue. The two most well-known stories are the ones about Samson and Delilah and Salome, Herod and John the Baptist. Queen Jezebel is seen as a very evil and pagan influence on her husband, King Ahab, and she is seen as an important reason for the decline and fall of the nation of Israel. There are many other little snippets in the Bible warning men of the dangerous sexual power of evil women, such as this passage from Proverbs:

Ann

You know has an atheist I don't want to see any secular politics influenced by any kind of what to me is a history fantasy book at best nor its translations and reinterpretations.

Just look at your clashing over passages and what they mean. I have seen this discussion before and that discussion had the added bonus of one participant going off a far older version (Hebrew I believe, for the Older Testament obviously) complete with treatise on the nuances of certain words in certain phrases during certain times when this particular part was certainly written which totally completely changed the meaning of the whole passage and all those English translations are just utterly wrong and if you aren't basing your argument on that really, really old version you can just stop arguing now, because you are wrong anyway and the Rabbi you talked to who used the same version but interpreted it differently is wrong, too.

A wars over oil and other resources is at least rationally approachable when there isn't an "But my supernatural entity (which is the only one holding all truth) said so, some thousand years ago when the world looked completely different". Same for discrimination of any kind.

Because of my scathing attack on Genesis, I want to repeat that I don't mean to launch a wholesale attack on the Bible, and certainly not on the New Testament. In the NT there is nothing to suggest that the sexuality of women is a horrible threat to humanity, and apart from the story of Salome, Herod and John the Baptist and some obscure warnings in Revelation, there is nothing here to suggest that women cause the downfall of men. There is absolutely nothing to be found to that effect in the Gospels, and even Paul makes no suggestions to that effect.

And the Old Testament certainly isn't all bad from a feminist's point of view. The Song of Solomon celebrates both women and the beauty of loving sex. And there are many brave and good women in the Old Testament, such as Deborah and Ruth, who is my favorite. And like Terry said, Proverbs celebrates Wisdom, which is seen as a female concept. Also, there are many passages that don't celebrate women but also don't attack them, and which are beautiful and inspiring.

Obviously I also know that there is another Biblical version of the creation of man and woman, where man and woman are created equal.

I want to repeat that the reason for my outburst was that I thought that Terry was saying that 9/11 happened because of the immoral behaviour of female American cultural icons. Terry has clarified his post by saying said that American females are no more immoral than American males, and I have no more comments regarding Terry's posts. I still want to say that I find it very dangerous to blame a country's culture for a devastating attack on it when there is extremely little evidence to support such a view. And I think it is still more dangerous to blame "female immorality" for things like 9/11 or earthquakes and floods. Such a view has very little chance to prevent catastrophes like 9/11 or earthquakes or floods, but it has good chances of increasing the oppression of women.

Ann

I haven't been reading this thread, but this comment somewhat jumped out at me.

It seems to imply, Terry, that the intent of those who want to build the 'several blocks away from Ground Zero mosque' is to create a memorial to the 9/11 hijackers. I'm not aware that any such intent has been expressed.

And isn't this rather the wrong analogy? Wouldn't a more appropriate one be, let's assume that Terry McVeigh was a religious man - say, for the sake of this analogy, a Methodist. (I have no idea what religion he was a devotee of, if any)

And let's say that, some years after his atrocity, someone wanted to build a Methodist cultural centre several blocks away from the site of the bombing. I ask you, in all honesty, do you think there would be a similar campaign to stop it being built? Do you think anyone would even notice the plan? Or care?

Somehow...I really doubt it.

LabRat

Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

I would have to say I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible Ann, lol, but you knew that.

Chaos, I disagree with you that the Bible is just a 'history fantasy book at best' - I believe it is the infallable word of God and is not to be taken lightly and SHOULD influence everything in our lives and that includes politics.

Sometimes we can debate until the cows come home but if these fundamental beliefs are in place, there is never going to be an agreement on certain issues. But I am glad that we can discuss our differences here intelligently and politely. These boards really do have some of the most diplomatic people I've seen - just visit any other political board and you'll see bashing on both sides.

Terry, this suggests that all Mosques are dedicated to the glory of terrorism. I don't believe that this is true. Not all Muslims support terrorism. And I think an analogy that might drive this point home is this:

There are rampant Islamophobes like Bryan Fischer opposing this mosque and community center because they claim all mosques are potential terror training and recruitment centers. Because the other opponents of the mosque have not been vocal enough in denouncing Mr. Fischer and his ilk for their bigotry, I'm going to say that all opponents are Islamophobes until they denounce him and get him to stop giving their cause a bad name.

Is this fair? Of course not. I know plenty of people who don't like the mosque for reasons other than just a knee jerk hatred of Islam. To hold them responsible for Mr. Fischer's despicable statements is unfair. I would posit it is also unfair to hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11 or radical Islamism.

No, it doesn't. The claim that this particular mosque is dedicated to the glory of terrorism does not in any way imply the same of all mosques. I'm surprised by this argument, especially in light of the fact that the opponents of the mosque have repeatedly suggested as an acceptable compromise the building of a mosque in any other available location.

It is an easily verifiable fact that whenever a new territory was conquered in the name of Islam, a mosque was erected as a symbolic message to the world that said territory was now under the dominion of Allah. The mosque was always built up high, usually on the site of a church or other site of significance to the conquered peoples, to emphasise their submission (a type of "psychological warfare", as it were.)

1. The original namesake of this mosque ("Cordoba") was just such a mosque - erected on the site of a church, it is (if my memory serves me) the largest mosque in the world, and was built to celebrate the Islamic conquest of Spain.

2. The proponents of the mosque in NY refuse to accept any alternate location, insisting on a mosque overlooking Ground Zero. (This alone speaks volumes. Opponents have been accused of "Islamophobia" and hatred, yet they willingly accept a new mosque anywhere in NYC except here. Proponents of the mosque insist their motives are innocent, yet flat out refuse to consider any other location. Why? What is so significant about this particular site? Why is no other site acceptable?)

3. The date of dedication is set to be the 10-year anniversary of 9/11.

4. Although the supposed purpose of the mosque is to "promote dialog", the very Imam who makes this claim is on record as saying there can be NO dialog between Islam and any other religion. He has expressed his lament over the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as well as his belief that Islam will one day rule the nations and Shaira law will be the law of the land, even in countries which are now democracies (including the USA).

5. Moderate Muslims have spoken AGAINST the mosque, claiming that they (and the rest of the Islamic world) are well aware of the symbolic significance of a mosque overlooking the site of the jihadist attack on America. (And to these peace-loving Muslims, I say "Thank you!" It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to the militant side of Islam.)

Given the above, (as well as concerns over the funding of the mosque), I would say that there is a very real probability that this mosque is intended as a symbol of victory for the Islamic jihadists. In my opinion, I would be a fool (and the very epitome of a dhimmi), if I were to meekly acceed.