by Open mind 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
This is the title of a new Awake! magazine. (Jan or Feb 2008, not sure which)
Is it just me, or is that a lousy title? Even from a JW, Writing Deparment, marketing standpoint, it sounds like a poor choice of words.
Just so we're clear, I'm not knocking the TOPIC of Violence Against Women AT ALL. But the whole "What is the Bible's View" thing rubbed me the wrong way.
What's your take?
Open Mind
Who the hell is saying it's the bible's view??
I understand exactly what you're getting at, Open Mind.
It sounds like they are saying, ''the Bible is either pro-women beating or against it, look inside to find out''.
They should of used: What is the Bible's View on Violence Against Women?...
seems more neutral...
The wording does make it seem as if the Bible could be in favor of violence against women. Of course, the Bible (in certain parts) does advocate a lot of violence against a lot of people. But that title is a marketing faux pas, imo2.
How about violence against babies? The WT doesn't seem to have any issues with that. But babies don't have the ability to take to the streets, write a manifesto or otherwise stick up for themselves.
The WT, imo, does advocate violence against women or anyone else who is vulnerable and appears in any way to disagree with their power structure. As they and Rush Limbaugh could tell you, it pays to be on the side of the more powerful and more likely to win.
Regards,
SandraC
First of all, it is an oddly worded title for the subject, as others have suggested....
I think it interesting though that they might be trying to water down the bible's own testimony against itself on misogyny. Lets face it, the bible has anything but a gleaming record when it comes to how women are to be treated. Women are never equals, they don't have the same rights, and it is proven that within certain families, this kind of mindest does lead to men abusing their women. It is sick and disgusting.
So the borg is married to their "interpretation" of the bible, and they claim that they take all of the bible seriously, so that means that the statements on women have to be dealt with. With evidence in that a biblical view of women does in fact promote at the very least emotional and mental abuse of women, (and often worse then that) they have to defend the bible's view. It's laughable.
Thanks for the responses so far.
You sum up well the overall problems that the WT faces in having articles on this subject.
But when it comes to the TITLE for a Cover Story, they should have just left the whole "Bible's Viewpoint" aspect out of it, IMO. Tackle that part of it inside the mag once you've got a reader half-way hooked. I think to your average potential reader, if there was ANY QUESTION at all that the Bible or the Watchtower or whoever (fill in the blank with whatever organization or person you want) might not be 100% opposed to Violence Against Women, that's just a huge turnoff right there.
I guess what surprises me about this is that I think the magazine COVERS have really come a long way in the last 5 years or so. There was a Watchtower a while back with a really cool looking cover of a woman sitting in a gown next to a stream and the topic was "Spirituality". It was very new agey looking and appealing, IMO. (I did a thread on it a while back.) Of course inside, it was the same old clap trap, but at least the cover was good.
But this Awake title really seems dumb to me.
Come on Writing Department / Art Department! How much are they paying you guys? Oh yeah. Never mind.
Open Mind
yeah the dubs have a long history of putting women only in subservent postions and then makeing them wear something over their heads........ gasp ......... so they wont be userping the proper headship arraingement.
the bible was written by men............ sure its inspired........ but still written by men. the way women have been treated by that whole culture.............. its sometimes good.......... meaning you get a good man and he wont make her wash his feet............ WOW aint that mighty big of him. far more often you get examples of the judge that refused to do anything about the widows case but she kept at him so he finally gave in to shut her up....... or how jesus would actullly speak with women like the samaritan woman at the well........ when everyone else would have ignored her as if she wasnt there................ nice.
so a modern woman is supposed to feel what? JOY at how she woulda had to be rich......... look good......... and be silent and fertile......... otherwise her value wouldnt be appreciated bibilcally?
yeah i can forsee this being a HUGE commercial success with feminsts the world over........
Of course, the OT shows where the Israelites were to slaughter non-Israelite women and female babies. What about the concubine whose husband allowed her to be gangraped until she died, then cut up her body into 12 pieces. Or Lot offering his daughters to be raped, or Abraham and Isaac saying their wives were their sisters when other men wanted them for wives, to protect their own lives. Did God really give them permission or did they come up with this "custom" themselves and put God's name on it?
Blondie
Okay, I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about the bible, never have and never will. Don't ask me about scripture or passages cause I won't even pretend. There have been times, especially here on JWD that I've felt less than inadequate to join in discussions. But the more I learn and the more I hear statements like this makes me glad I don't believe in god or that the bible is inspired by god.
Yep just a bunch of old geezers making up $#!& and saying it from god. Just one big fat fairytale and not a very nice one at that :
Of course, the OT shows where the Israelites were to slaughter non-Israelite women and female babies. What about the concubine whose husband allowed her to be gangraped until she died, then cut up her body into 12 pieces. Or Lot offering his daughters to be raped, or Abraham and Isaac saying their wives were their sisters when other men wanted them for wives, to protect their own lives. Did God really give them permission or did they come up with this "custom" themselves and put God's name on it?
Thanks for that little gem above Blondie. How could anyone believe in the bible with crap like that? And if it did happen why would you want to serve, worship a diety that allows that?
nj
The title is wrong because - - why would it matter what the Bible says?
'Violence against women'.
It's so obviously wrong you shouldn't have to turn anywhere for the answer. It's self evident.
However - since they are Bible apologists, it's not so weird that they would mention the Bible's view in the article (in a positive light).
Perhaps it's even done in light of all the negative publicity the Quran has received on this subject lately, and they want to say that the Bible (in contrast) does not support it.
But the title is in a way suggesting that if the Bible said it was A OK to beat women, then we should be doing that, and if it's against it, then we should be too, simply for that reason.
They could instead have called it "Violence against women - a growing problem" (if that's the case), and then explained the Bible's view (as they see it) inside.
'Violence against fellow living beings - why it is wrong' would perhaps be an interesting article. Not sure you'd find support for that view in the Bible though.
Btw - the Bible's view of violence against women is that if you are visited by angel(s), and there's an angry mob outside, by all means offer them to rape and kill your daughter(s). You'd think the guy offering the daughter(s) up would be corrected by said angel(s) or God himself. No miracle in sight there, though. There's also nothing wrong in raping women and killing their children in front of them, as long as it's God's will, and they are "evil".
[edit] Hmm... seems I spent too long writing this post (and doing other things simultaneously), 'cause it's already been said. Sorry. [/edit]
