mightychurch.com

Thankfully, DV has been banned in Australia.
   
It’s worth keeping this stuff in mind if there are moves to have Sharia law in any form, as there has been in some places.

Hi Dannii,
I’ve often thought about that and it’s not a good comparison. Islam is about the revelations of ONE prophet in ONE time in ONE book, transcribed word for word from God.

There is simply no ‘wiggle room’ out of this one.

The bible is a library of books from the Old Testament revelations, histories, and laws, written in a specific part and time of God’s plan, that is gradually unfolding and ultimately fulfilled in Jesus nearly a thousand years after the law was delivered. And in fulfilling the demands of the laws, Jesus radically casts a new vision of a new kingdom of God, one that can co-exist under the laws of most nations without imposing draconian restrictions on the population. It’s all there in Romans and Galations.

Where is Islam’s book of “Romans” for instance?

Despite the idea that the Qu’ran is supposedly a perfect copy of the original Qu’ran in heaven, lots of it is thought to be abrogated by other parts. A simple division being between the suras of Mecca and Medina.

Secondly, you seem to be insisting that they interpret the Qu’ran literalistically, but you would hate to interpret the Bible that way. Rather than latching on to a possible interpretation (which may be held only by a minority, and those who do would not be in Australia) it would seem wiser to me to discuss with Moslems the doctrines they actually hold to.

Do you have them?

Do I have what?

Do you have any references to the fact that they do interpret this passage in any other way but literally?

Dave   I know you know a lot about Climate Change , but your post about the Koran and verses putting down women make me wonder about your credentials in this area. At least your comments need a bit of balance. The bible also rubbishes women if you want to take it that way i.e. women coming as an afterthought from a rib of man for the “company” of man is not a very auspicious beginning. The Bible was written by men, like the Koran, and clearly they were very suspicious and subjective to the wiles of women. 

  Even at the end of the Bible women were treated dismissively. e.g. Revelations 4:  1-4 “144,000 people stood before the throne—-. Of the whole human race they were the only ones who have been redeemed. They are the men who have kept themselves pure by not having sexual relations with women “
  Most western men adore their mothers and respect their wives as equals. But IMO they don’t appreciate that they were given to a wife who maitained the succession of power. Men generally seem to think that they are in control. AS the Bible makes clear “men in sheeps clothing “, hypocracy etc are part of Gods’ creation, i.e. things are not always as they seem.
  To get back to the topic though, I would just put burkas in the “too hard ” basket. But you can bet as soon as someone robs a bank wearing a burka, then the Government will ban them pronto.

Doug, you’re quoting a story in picture language from the most difficult book in the bible. I’m quoting a command. Dr Paul Barnett says this refers to the temple prostitutes common in temple worship. The real sin here is not so much the sexual prostitution but worshipping the fertility goddesses of the day.

Otherwise, we know the bible doesn’t condemn sex between a married Christian couple, OR command husbands to beat there wives. Instead we are to lay down our lives for our wives as Christ laid down his life for the church.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, master of slave for all are one in Christ”. (Paraphrase from memory).

So I’m curious to see them explain away a direct command to get into a bit of domestic violence. Do they have another verse in the Koran that says “Never, under any circumstances, lay a hand on your wife or beat your wife”. That might be interesting! But I can’t see any indication of picture language or metaphor in the Koranic verses I’m talking about. It just says it.

The first result in Google for Sura 4.34: http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

If you want to talk genres, then firstly the whole of the Qur’an is poetry. Now I’m no expert so I can’t say any more, but I’d advise caution. To the Arabic-reading Moslem the figurative language might be as obvious as it is in Revelation to you, and Revelation might be as opaque to them as this part of the Qur’an is to you. The best thing to do would be to befriend some Moslems and ask them of course.

If only I had the time! I’m currently writing a peak oil piece as a guest post for another blog.

Actually I agree with Doug in that the Bible does place women on a lower level than men. Women could be executed for being raped. They were considered chattel in war. Sex slavery appears common.
Proverbs attacks women’s wiles.
Women have a subservient position to men in the marriage relationship (at least in common interpretation)

It should also be noted that women got, as a result of biblical influence, an improved position in society. But this is also true in Islam. Under Mohammed the treatment of girls in his society was improved. it was usual at his time to simply kill baby girls out of hand, usually by a form of exposure. If the tribes needed women they stole them from other groups. Summary execution of females was prohibited.
It’s important to see these things in context. I understand that feminist Muslim theologians use this progression to argue for better status for their women. If we feel impatient about this remember that women were considered property (legally) until only the last couple of centuries in our own societies and that Islam is younger than us by about 400 years.

True Owen, and I understood that it was a vast improvement on the surrounding cultures.

But how much of the bible is descriptive and how much prescriptive? What I’m talking about appears to come under the prescriptive part.

Women could be executed for being raped.

Is there a verse on this? Or is this from the surrounding cultures?

This from the link provided by Dannii:
   

In the context of Surah 4.34, I feel we are faced with a choice of three main possibilities; the first is that it did give the husband the right to hit his wife; secondly, the most appropriate meaning of the word would surely be ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’ – in which case the entire notion of a man having rights to beat his wife becomes irrelevant. The third most appropriate meaning would be ‘to return to normal life’ which in this context would certainly imply the meaning of ‘to return to having normal sexual relations’.

 
The author discussed the meaning of key words, and there is a lot of uncertainty there.
But the author appears to favor the 2nd interpretation given.
 
Dannii, I seem to remember you had some Muslims coming to a Bible Study or something recently?  It was on the prayer blog (which has now disappeared).  Did you have any dialogue with them about their beliefs?  If so, did you find that helpful?  (Not asking for any details - that would be a breach of confidence - and I don’t suppose this issue was raised)

”  It was on the prayer blog (which has now disappeared) “

You should be able to find it on the home page :    http://mightychurch.com/

Dave, Owen might be referring to Deut 22:23-24. This, and similar passages, are among the hardest in the Bible. I don’t know what to make of them.

Ros, unfortunately they only came once, though I’ve also been to some meetings held by the Islamic society at my uni. If God grants me more chances in the future I plan to use Sam Green’s strategies, as outline in the recent Briefing article.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (Today’s New International Version)

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.

The emphasis seems to be complicity… she did not call out for help. It was not rape.

My commentary says, “Marriage out to be and is a reflection of the covenant relationship (cf. Hos. 2-3; Eph 5:21-33). In the case of adultery, both must die. A pledged (betrothed or engaged) woman was considered a “wife”. In the case of the seduction of a young girl, the solution may be to pay the bride price.

I think it’s worth adding Deut 22:25-27 following - 

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

 
So there is a presumption of innocence for the girl if this happens out in the country.  This is in contrast to some other cultures (I think Islamic, but I’m not sure), where if a young woman is even alone (unchaperoned) out in the country, she is presumed to have been defiled.  I’ve heard of a case where an older woman deliberately manipulated such a situation for a young woman whose life she wanted to (and did) ruin.  (Not executed- but damaged goods.)

So Doug, I’m still keen to find if you remembered the rape verse correctly…

Also, if this is how you read Genesis… wow. I’ve never heard your interpretation of it before, unless it comes from the most rabidly anti-Christian source of feminist literature?

The bible also rubbishes women if you want to take it that way i.e. women coming as an afterthought from a rib of man for the “company” of man is not a very auspicious beginning. The Bible was written by men, like the Koran, and clearly they were very suspicious and subjective to the wiles of women.

It’s a story of one-ness, of being made of the same stuff, of unity.

Also, I’ll repeat that there are many instances of biblical narrative or story that describe the culture and times. So one has to be careful reading prescribed behaviour into events that are merely being described. That’s a fatal error.

Problem with some of the arguments above, is that people under the Qu’ran are still treating women as cattle, wheras in Christian circles they don’t today.

The emphasis is on what happens in the world today.

I suggest some reading of Women in Christianity and Islam from http://www.answering-islam.org could assist in what the difference is.

Dave I think you may have me mixed up with someone else. I did not have a rape verse. I find it intrigueing that it is apparently impossible to discuss the need for a Burka. The basic reason I think is unmentionable. So Muslims and Christians will just throw nukes at each other until there is no one left.

My mistake, it was Owen.

Women could be executed for being raped.

Got a reference for us Owen? I feel like I need to check that one out.

I find it intrigueing that it is apparently impossible to discuss the need for a Burka. The basic reason I think is unmentionable.

Feel welcome to start that conversation any time you want to Doug, but I’m still trying to come to terms with your views on Genesis and Revelation. The Revelation verses were about temple prostitution, not merely having sex, which we know is a gift from God for marriage if we bother to read the rest of the bible. I’m just trying to understand which bits of the rest of the Koran make domestic violence OK, or go away.

The whole focus of the OT is that the Messiah would fulfil the law and change things. When Jesus forgave the adulteress, and did not stone her, he was showing the power of grace.

Are you telling me Mohammed had something like that in the Koran?

Dave, I have to get back to you on criticism of the Koran ie men beating their wives. I’m only making a plea for balance. The way the current posts are going, Islam is not very popular, to put it mildly. The Bible OT has many references to good Jews “lieing with women” after all the menfolk of the women have been slaughtered.  “to lie” means rape according to Macquarie dictionary. So I think murdering the men and raping the women is at least as bad as men beating and raping their wives.
  You seem to be having two bob each way. Trying to make a literal interpretation of the Koran verses, whereas in the past you have not been a rabid literalist. Correct me if I am wrong. Any Bible study guide will emphasise that Bible verses must be taken in context, ie concern fot culture , knowledge of that era, form of verse ie poetry , history, prophesying etc
  That’s why I prefer the world of God to the word of God. The World of God is there for all to see. NO interpretation needed.

Except that in the world of God a man named Jesus died and rose again. He also said certain things and held certain views about the bible, and the message his friends and students were spreading. So the world of God (historically anyway) tells us the Word of God is very, very important. And when one starts reading that Word of God with the respect that history demands, it can turn into a whole new ballgame.

Dave Yes , and most of Jesus’ disciples died also trying to spread His word. This word was contrary to the ruling frontrunners of the day who all believed in God. They died doing what they thought was best for humanity and of course never new that Jesus would triumph over world kings.

  They died doing what they thought was best for humanity and of course never new that Jesus would triumph over world kings.

What the disciples DID know was that Jesus had conquered death. That seems to trump all other ‘victories’ here on Earth.  As to the other ruling ‘front runners’ of the day who all believed in “God” - well that’s the argument isn’t it - which “god” were they thinking of ?

As Jesus had risen from the dead and also declared that the only way to the one true God was through belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, then obviously that rules out all these other ‘paths’ and ‘gods’ as false. That’s what Christians believe and accept - and that is why Christianity stands alone.