Thanks for your input. I'll stick to the truth, however.
It's common knowledge the women was the property of the husband and father in biblical times, deemed so by Covenant Code in Exodus that includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor.
The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession." Sons had all rights
before the mother, only when they too young could the mother inherit part of his estate to raise the son.
Even if a single women was raped, the rapist had to pay the father and marry the girl he raped and she had to stay with him for life.
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
The OT is full of codes and laws relating to women as the property of the father or husband, it's not that they weren't loved. Men under the cultural codes could take many wives and concubines as they could afford.
This continued well until after Christ, even in the NT women could only be educated at home under the husband, were not allowed to speak, etc.
However, it's clear God made one Covenant in the OT and a new one through Christ, yet men, even biblical men combined parts of both old and new to define the legal status of women.
Sadly through Christian history the church has looked down upon women and limited their rights, with only secular law intervening to give them equal rights.
Yes, once our morality and biblical codes for a past culture was the law, it was that same morality that deemed women as inferior and robbed them of civil rights. That's the danger now, spiritual codes of morality defining civil rights. Certainly no one has to like it, each to his own, but we're trending on dangerous ground when any one religious groups morality decides civil rights, rights are best decided by the constitution.
I prefer it that way, that way I know if one day I'm in the minority my rights will be protected...y enforcing some of the old contract's provisions, and some of the new contract's stipulations, while ignoring many of the old and most of the new contract's aspects, they have in fact created a completely separate and totally illegitimate third contract. The treatment of women by the mainstream church is based almost solely on the provisions of the old contract which, of course, insures total domination by men resulting in the extreme deprivation of women in every aspect of their lives.
The God who was party to the Old Testament / Contract, became the man Jesus who was party to the New Testament / Contract. It is, therefore, absolute truth that doctrines / provisions of Jesus redefine the old contract with the nation of Israel and those past doctrines are of no effect, being replaced or fulfilled by the new. To deny this is to deny the power and authority of the Holy Spirit which guided Jesus in the formation of this new contract and must be strongly considered in the light of this doctrinal certainty:
By enforcing some of the old contract's provisions, and some of the new contract's stipulations, while ignoring many of the old and most of the new contract's aspects, they have in fact created a completely separate and totally illegitimate third contract. The treatment of women by the mainstream church is based almost solely on the provisions of the old contract which, of course, insures total domination by men resulting in the extreme deprivation of women in every aspect of their lives.
The God who was party to the Old Testament / Contract, became the man Jesus who was party to the New Testament / Contract. It is, therefore, absolute truth that doctrines / provisions of Jesus redefine the old contract with the nation of Israel and those past doctrines are of no effect, being replaced or fulfilled by the new. To deny this is to deny the power and authority of the Holy Spirit which guided Jesus in the formation of this new contract and must be strongly considered in the light of this doctrinal certainty:
By enforcing some of the old contract's provisions, and some of the new contract's stipulations, while ignoring many of the old and most of the new contract's aspects, they have in fact created a completely separate and totally illegitimate third contract. The treatment of women by the mainstream church is based almost solely on the provisions of the old contract which, of course, insures total domination by men resulting in the extreme deprivation of women in every aspect of their lives.
The God who was party to the Old Testament / Contract, became the man Jesus who was party to the New Testament / Contract. It is, therefore, absolute truth that doctrines / provisions of Jesus redefine the old contract with the nation of Israel and those past doctrines are of no effect, being replaced or fulfilled by the new. To deny this is to deny the power and authority of the Holy Spirit which guided Jesus in the formation of this new contract and must be strongly considered in the light of this doctrinal certainty:
