Is the Bible sexist? Why, or why not?

[LifeMaiden]

Okay, I didn't want to disrespect Teh Deviant's thread about Eve because the discussion was going off in another direction regarding the Bible and views on women. Some stated openly that the Bible WAS indeed sexist, and many others stated clearly that it was NOT.

This sort of goes hand in hand with an old thread I posted which became...er...LOL...heated, and that was Christianity's views of women.


Is the Bible, in your opinion, sexist? If you believe it is, why, and what Scripture quotes can you give to back up your opinion? Likewise if you believe the Bible honors and upholds women's sanctity, what important Scripture quotes can you give in support?


My other remaining question is...why is it that, if the Bible isn't sexist, then why has it been used to justify keeping women 'in their place' for eons? Do you feel it's the same reason why the Bible has been misused and purposely or wrongly misinterpreted for other reasons, ( racism, etc)?


Why have feminists and Christian women so far apart in their ideologies regarding women? You won't find many 'feminists' who are strong followers of Christ...(ArwenElizabeth and I had this brief discussion in the " What issues concern you most as Christians?" thread. :) )

[Lawrence]

IceMaiden,

First, we need to unpack the word "sexist". If by that you mean that the Bible as a whole tends to favor the accounts of men and downplay the role of women on balance, then it is indeed sexist. The viewpoint of the male during the period when most of the Bible was written (let's just say 700 BC - 200 AD) was the only one that mattered for the simple reason that only males were taught to read and write. There were exceptions, Flavian Rome for example elevated the role of women, but those were exceptions. In Jewish culture, only the boys were instructed in Torah as far as we can tell and the histories of the Jews that we possess (Dtr-Josh-1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles) were written by men and for men. Women were securely in the domain of their father and eventually and inevitably their husband.

That being said, strong women make several appearances, Debra, Ruth to name a couple. They must have been indeed prominent in their communities to rise above the editor's radar, so to speak. Granted, they tend to be outshadowed by the Bathshebas, but there are a few highlights.

There are indeed sevearl feminists who are strong followers of Christ: Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, Elain Pagels, Patricia Jung, to name a few I am familiar with. These feminist theologians have re-read scripture to emphasize not only the role of women but have interpreted many of the stories in the bible from the perspective of women. Liberationist theologians, owing to their stance concerning the preferential option for the poor and opressed (most of whom are women in this world) also would be considered strong followers of Christ and could be considered "feminist" in their interpretations.

The beauty, and danger, of a revealed text or collection of text is that they can be interpreted in many ways. Hence their timelessness. They are, however, only as good as the societies and people interpreting them. Take a patriarchal society with negative views on the feminine and place a Bible before them and they will inevitably come up with a patriarchal reading. Mid-twentieth century American theology, on the other hand, gave birth to feminist theology not coincidentally concurrent with the equal rights/women's movements.

Now, have all Christian denominations gotten on the equality bandwagon? Nope. There are many competing Christian societies in the world. But that is another discussion.

[onlymystory]

Whenever I get asked if the Bible is sexist (and usually the person means anti-feminist) I always ask them if they've ever read the book of Esther. Esther is the only book of the Bible that makes not one mention of God in the entire thing. It talks about faith but nowhere is God mentioned by name. Yet this story of one woman is important enough to make it into the Holy Bible. Doesn't seem all that sexist to me.

[LifeMaiden]

I think what I mean by sexist is...male superiority and female inferiority...were men depicted as 'better' than women somehow, or more capable? Clearly there were many powerful females in the Bible. I think another member mentioned that a person had to keep in mind the era in which the Bible was written when considering whether it's sexist or not, or has certain views about women.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I don't think the Bible is sexist at all. women have a place in ministry and in the church, just not in certain positions. I have a real problem with female ministers and preachers; it's just not right. God didn't give that authority to women. Sure, He wants them to share the Gospel, just not in that context. I strongly disagree with female pastors. It's just wrong.

[Gryphon]

Jesus treated women with more respect and generocity than possibly any other man of his time. Men of that time didnt even treat women with the intergity that they do now. Jesus saved Mary and raised the widow's son from the dead... He was so gentle with them, but I dont think the bible looks down on them.

If the bible was sexist why mention Deborah as a Judge over Israel? She was appointed as a Prophet and put in a position OVER MEN! If the bible was sexist then why mention her? It doesnt seem logical in my opinion.

[LifeMaiden]

Jesus treated women with more respect and generocity than possibly any other man of his time. Men of that time didnt even treat women with the intergity that they do now. Jesus saved Mary and raised the widow's son from the dead... He was so gentle with them, but I dont think the bible looks down on them.

If the bible was sexist why mention Deborah as a Judge over Israel? She was appointed as a Prophet and put in a position OVER MEN! If the bible was sexist then why mention her? It doesnt seem logical in my opinion.

I think a lot of that interpretation of the Bible being sexist comes to mind when you read more famous quotes like the idea that a man is the spiritual head of the household, women should submit to him etc. We almost never hear about powerful women from the Bible in our culture and society, let's face it. It's why a lot of :rolleyes: feminists seem to not view the Bible or Christianity with an open mind and heart.

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

The Bible sounds sexist for a few reasons. It attributes a gender to God, and that gender is male. It denies leadership roles in the church to women. It makes the wife obey the husband, but not vise versa. And it is mostly all about what different men did a long time ago.

But does the Bible view women as being "lesser" or anything like that? That question is for people who like to type a lot. I think that the Bible sees women as being made especially for certain things, and our society today says that those things don't have much importance.

I think women can be leaders in a church. I think men and women are created equally. I think wives must obey their husbands as much as husbands must obey their wives. And I think God transcends gender.

Jesus wasn't sexist, but that's not the question. 90% of the "main characters" in the Bible are men, but 50% of people are men. It seems that the Bible pays more attention to men than women. You've got Jonah, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Nehemiah, Job, David, Joshua, Jeremiah, Joseph, Isaiah, John, and all those other men with significant portions of the Bible talking about them. Then you've got Esther, Deborah, Ruth, and that's about it for the women. Just because the Bible talks about some important women, doesn't mean it is not sexist because even sexist people will acknowledge and agree that some women are important. It is their view about women in general that makes them sexist.

[echoscot]

The Bible sounds sexist for a few reasons. It attributes a gender to God, and that gender is male. It denies leadership roles in the church to women. It makes the wife obey the husband, but not vise versa. And it is mostly all about what different men did a long time ago.

But does the Bible view women as being "lesser" or anything like that? That question is for people who like to type a lot. I think that the Bible sees women as being made especially for certain things, and our society today says that those things don't have much importance.

I think women can be leaders in a church. I think men and women are created equally. I think wives must obey their husbands as much as husbands must obey their wives. And I think God transcends gender.

Jesus wasn't sexist, but that's not the question. 90% of the "main characters" in the Bible are men, but 50% of people are men. It seems that the Bible pays more attention to men than women. You've got Jonah, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Nehemiah, Job, David, Joshua, Jeremiah, Joseph, Isaiah, John, and all those other men with significant portions of the Bible talking about them. Then you've got Esther, Deborah, Ruth, and that's about it for the women. Just because the Bible talks about some important women, doesn't mean it is not sexist because even sexist people will acknowledge and agree that some women are important. It is their view about women in general that makes them sexist.

Your qouta counting is a bit off. 50% of the population is not male. Qoutas actually do not prove or disprove sexism. Assigning gender to God does not make something sexist. As it is I do not believe any man "assigned a gender to God". He took it on Himself. If He really is male, it is not sexism, but truth. If He is not male, then you would be correct that a man made a sexist assumption. Since Jesus, Himself, being fully God and Fully man referred to God as "his Father" and my faith rests fully in His resurrection I trust Him to be correct. And Jesus was by both secular and religious accounts most definitely a male. That is not sexism, just fact.

As far as the positioning of women, you are correct when you state that women should obey their husbands, but incorrect in the assumption that it does not give any instruction to the men. 1 Corinthians 7:4 is a very good example to illustrate the oneness that should be in a marriage. When Paul speaks of a man being the head of the house, he uses Christ as head of the Church as an example. We know Christ's example was that of dying love and servanthood, by many counts.

You are also completely missing the point about the culture of the time. That has been addressed earlier in this thread. When scripture is put in context of the the ancient civilizations it promotes rampant feminism by comparison.

Oh and by the way there are a WHOLE LOT more than just 3 women mentioned of any strength in the Bible. Mary, Sarah, Hagar, Miriam, Moses mother, Zipporah, Mary Magdalene, The woman at the well, Martha and Mary sisters of Lazarus.

My friend, there are incredible Christian devotions that spend months fousing on just the women of faith in the Bible. There are also ones on the "bad women" of the Bible, which I always thought sounded like a fun study.

Besides, you are using quota counting to determine sexism, which is a flawed determination. It is a fact of life that NOTHING is split 50/50 or evenly or fairly. The Bible records fact and history. If someone were making it up you could assume as much, but if you believe it to be true then it is not assumptive in its statements.

[Tootsie]

Sometimes I get the feeling that the Bible is sexist. Even though God says, 'Respect women' I still get the feeling that men are favored in God's eyes. However, I talked to a pastor about this, "Submit to the man of the household and obey him, etc." and he said, "Yes, it DOES say that, but if the man really loves his wife he will listen to what she has to say and then change his mind for her."

I don't agree.

I think it should go both ways. Excuse me, but if God really sees us equally, then why can't WE have more rights even in the Bible? It says the wife has to obey the man and that woman was created because man was lonely. Did God blame all women because of Eve's mistake? Are we laden down with pregnancy, breast cancer, yeast infections, menstrual cycles, cramps, weaker, & lesser labels because of Eve's mistake? Can't we be equal to God too? Plus, if you think about it, God only really spoke to men, not women. He would communicate with the man of the house and then if it was neccessary, the man would communicate it to the woman of the house. Are we not 'good' enough for God?

I think men have forgotten the rules in the Bible where it says, 'Respect the women'. Is there a part in there that says it? Has there ever been?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

In fact, there is. Ephesians 5, which is where you find the verse everyone loves to hate ("Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."), goes on to say this:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Thus the standard for how a wife is to be loved and honored is the same way that Jesus loves His Church. Jesus died for His Church. That's a pretty high standard to meet when it comes to loving and respecting your wife.

Another thing to keep in mind is what Jesus means by "leadership" or "headship". To nonbelievers, being "head" means being "the boss" - i.e. you get to impose your will on others and tell them what to do. Here's what Jesus had to say about that in Matthew 20:
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave"
Any follower of Jesus who is the head of anything (a household, a business, a church, whatever) is to be the servant of all, not the Big Boss. That's my role in my household - chief servant. Sure, my wife and I cooperate, but when push comes to shove, if someone's got to stay up late or get up early, or work a little longer, it's me. That's what being head of my household means, by Jesus' definition.

[Tootsie]

Well, I think it makes a little more sense, but I still feel the 'lesser' sex in the world, if not in the Bible. Oh well, I'll just learn to street fight :).

Thanks for the verses, PotW, I seem to get it now...

[Galadriel]

The Bible is certainly sexist. it was written in an age when men had so much fear about the reproductive power of women they did everything they could to delimit and lessen the existence of women, except to bring up more men!

[echoscot]

The Bible is certainly sexist. it was written in an age when men had so much fear about the reproductive power of women they did everything they could to delimit and lessen the existence of women, except to bring up more men!


Uhmmm please read through the thread before just jumping in and blasting away. This ground has been covered in great depth earlier on. Thanks.

[Tootsie]

Er- sorry, Echoshot, but isn't that what this thread is about? Giving your opinion and expressing yourself? I don't mean to get involved, but it's been bugging me.

Can you explain why she can't express her opinion?

[Twilightdryadhobbit]

Plus, if you think about it, God only really spoke to men, not women. He would communicate with the man of the house and then if it was neccessary, the man would communicate it to the woman of the house. Are we not 'good' enough for God?

I think you may be forgetting some Biblical examples, such as Mary, who was spoken to by an angel, a messenger of God who said that she, out of anyone else on earth, out of any other way for Jesus to get there, was going to get to carry God's son. That kind of makes me think that we're (I'm a woman) "good" enough for God. Also, the first person Jesus (Who is technically God made man) talked to after he was raised from the dead was, guess who... a women! In fact, the angels talked to several women, but the first person Jesus appeared to was a woman.

Also, you can't discount John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

That includes woman. This all proves to me, that yes, we're good enough for God.

[echoscot]

Er- sorry, Echoshot, but isn't that what this thread is about? Giving your opinion and expressing yourself? I don't mean to get involved, but it's been bugging me.

Can you explain why she can't express her opinion?
I didn't say she couldn't give an opinion, but in a debate situation like this it show some relation to what has already been said. That was a generalization that ignored specific facts and ground that has been covered in that last few pages. I only asked that she read through them first. If she disagrees with what is presented show where and why.

Those are common ground rules of debate, which is what is going on here.

It is a bit like jumping in to the middle of a conversation without having really heard what has been said. Basically that would be considered rude.

I was trying to find a polite way of stating that and give her an opportunity to rephrase that. But since I've been called out I'll just have to be blunt. Reproductive freedom, what a laugh. (edit: fear of reproductive power, I misquoted that).

God only speaks to men. Multiple examples to the contrary were already listed in this thread.

She also makes unverified claims. Restate them, but give support. Most of the stuff posted prior to hers denies everything she claimed. Instead of making a generalization, she should look at the specifics presented and bring up why she disagrees with them.
Be prepared to back it up. This is a very touchy subject and no one on either side should just blast their opinion. They should speak and support their view. There are times where someone may not have any reason for believing what they do, but state that. "I just personally believe yada yada yada. I don't really have any backing for it. And if you make derogatory remarks about things people hold sacred, "The Bible certainly is sexist" is an excellent example, be prepared for people to call you out. Again, I was giving her a polite opportunity to re-read and rephrase.

[inkspot]

The Bible is certainly sexist. it was written in an age when men had so much fear about the reproductive power of women they did everything they could to delimit and lessen the existence of women, except to bring up more men!
Yes, let us have some examples of the sexism in the Bible.

Also, I dunno who was frightened of reproductive power, but not men in the Bible. Numerous verses point out that children are a blessing from the Lord, and happy is the parent who has a bunch of them!

When a wife has no children, he blesses her with some, and she is happy. Shout praises to the LORD!
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth.

The Bible seems to me very much in favor of ladies, and babies.

Tootsie, if as you say you feel like a lesser person for being a woman, I would recommend the fabulous book "Captivating" by John and Staci Eldredge. It has a lot of words, but it presents a beautiful, biblical picture of how God sees women. Very empowering.
:)

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

Oh and by the way there are a WHOLE LOT more than just 3 women mentioned of any strength in the Bible. Mary, Sarah, Hagar, Miriam, Moses mother, Zipporah, Mary Magdalene, The woman at the well, Martha and Mary sisters of Lazarus.
Sure there are many women mentioned in the Bible, and lots of them are talked about in positive ways. But the vast majority of the Bible deals with men. And even some of the women you use as examples are not really main characters, you know. Moses' mother. Lazarus' sisters. The point is that the heroes are mostly all men and most of the Bible is dedicated to talking about men.

Also, even if the Bible seemed very feminist (pro female equality) when it was written, that doesn't mean that it is not sexist. That just means the Bible was less sexist that the cultural norms.

[inkspot]

Also, even if the Bible seemed very feminist (pro female equality) when it was written, that doesn't mean that it is not sexist. That just means the Bible was less sexist that the cultural norms.
The Bible was very feminist when it was written, and it is very feminist now. Eve was the mother of us all; Mary was the mother of God; the longest recorded personal conversation of Christ was with the woman at the well; Mary and Martha were Christ's dear friends; it's obvious in the writings of Paul that women were leaders in the NT church.

It's no good saying the heroes of the Bible are men. The hero of the Bible is Jesus -- all the others are merely pointing the way to Him, and He had to come either as a man or a woman, there was nothing else He could be and be human. If he had come as a woman, men could as easily have said the whole thing was sexist.

But it's not that -- it's not men vs. women or men over women; it's people reaching up to God, and God reaching down to them: men, women and children. It's feminsim, masculinism -- humanism, Kierkegaard would say, Christian humanism.

[Parthian King]

The point is that the heroes are mostly all men and most of the Bible is dedicated to talking about men.

This is an understandable position, but it is fundamentally in error. The "hero" Adam knowingly sinned (while Eve was deceived), then blamed it on God. Noah was a drunk. Abraham pimped out his wife. Isaac did the same (like father, like son). Jacob was a liar and a cheat. Judah was a whoremonger. Gideon was a coward, Samson was a lecher, the Danites were idolaters, Samuel was no better a father than Eli (whom God remove before him for the same reason). The coup de grace is David, the great king after God's own heart: He stole the wife of one of his top generals (I guess the many wives he already has weren't enough), then killed him to cover it when she became pregnant. Solomon wasn't much better--he, the wisest man ever to live, ended his reign as a dotard fool, worshipping the idols of the foreign wives who had taken his heart captive. I could go on, but you get the point.

Not a very flattering picture of these male "heroes." The Bible is largely aimed toward men because it was men that read it--women didn't read at all. Let's remember that women have had the vote in the liberal, modern, Western U.S. for less than a century. And we expect to judge the Bible, a collection of ancient oriental texts, by 21st century standards? That said, Ink's position is very well taken.

Let's get one thing straight: GOD is the hero of the Bible. THAT is THE message of the whole thing--what it is "dedicated to."

If you see it any other way, you've missed "the point."

[broken.]

I don't think the Bible is sexist at all. women have a place in ministry and in the church, just not in certain positions. I have a real problem with female ministers and preachers; it's just not right. God didn't give that authority to women. Sure, He wants them to share the Gospel, just not in that context. I strongly disagree with female pastors. It's just wrong.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's wrong to have female pastors? How do you feel about female senior pastors vs. females in other pastoral positions (like associate pastor, etc.)

[LifeMaiden]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's wrong to have female pastors? How do you feel about female senior pastors vs. females in other pastoral positions (like associate pastor, etc.)


Well now that would make for a whole different thread here about female pastors :).

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

This is an understandable position, but it is fundamentally in error. The "hero" Adam knowingly sinned (while Eve was deceived), then blamed it on God. Noah was a drunk. Abraham pimped out his wife. Isaac did the same (like father, like son). Jacob was a liar and a cheat. Judah was a whoremonger. Gideon was a coward, Samson was a lecher, the Danites were idolaters, Samuel was no better a father than Eli (whom God remove before him for the same reason). The coup de grace is David, the great king after God's own heart: He stole the wife of one of his top generals (I guess the many wives he already has weren't enough), then killed him to cover it when she became pregnant. Solomon wasn't much better--he, the wisest man ever to live, ended his reign as a dotard fool, worshipping the idols of the foreign wives who had taken his heart captive. I could go on, but you get the point.
We're all sinners. Even "heroes" make mistakes. But if the whole point of your comment is to show that they are not really "heroes", whatever, you are ignoring my point completely. How do you know so much about those men? Because the Bible talks about them a lot. If you don't like the term "hero", then replace it with something else that you like. The Bible talks about men, mostly. Most of the "main characters" are men. Some women here and there, but it's mostly men. That's my point.

The Bible is largely aimed toward men because it was men that read it--women didn't read at all. Let's remember that women have had the vote in the liberal, modern, Western U.S. for less than a century. And we expect to judge the Bible, a collection of ancient oriental texts, by 21st century standards?
Ok, so God (who operates outside of time, is all powerful and all knowing) aimed the Bible at men because women wouldn't read a long time ago? God, who knew that women would be eventually struggling for equality in a world of glass ceilings and sexism, wrote the Bible for men because women could not read a long time ago? Are you saying that God was rather short-sighted?

We shouldn't judge old things by modern standards. We shouldn't judge the ancient Egyptians as mean in the way they treated the Jews because that happened a long time ago. How can we expect to judge the ancient Egyptians by 21st century standards? You are right. And how can we judge the ancient Mongols who raped and pillaged their way into our history books by 21st century standards? It was so long ago!

That last paragraph was sarcasm.

[LifeMaiden]

Hopefully, the most important thing today is that even if the Bible is seen as sexist by some, people won't interpret it as such and as many of you have done, mentioned the names of strong females in the Bible in addition to mentioning the men who are not always talked about favorably in scripture.

[Parthian King]

I did not miss HPPG's point in the least. "Hero" is the word she used, and I responded to it. Apparently she doesn't like it when people take her at face value. In any case, I would have said--and continue to say--the same thing regardless of the preferred term: The Bible uses characters (male and female) as foils to glorify God and show how desperately humanity needs Him. She said most of the Bible is dedicated to talking about men. I say it is all dedicated to talking about God. It is blind to the social stirrings and petty squabbles of the modern age because it has bigger fish to fry. That's my point.

Ok, so God (who operates outside of time, is all powerful and all knowing) aimed the Bible at men because women wouldn't read a long time ago? God, who knew that women would be eventually struggling for equality in a world of glass ceilings and sexism, wrote the Bible for men because women could not read a long time ago? Are you saying that God was rather short-sighted?

I am going to answer this for the sake of others who may read it, not for your sake HPPG, because you seem bent on something other than reasonable discussion.

For starters, this statement is in absolute contradiction to any balanced doctrine of inspiration that any orthodox church holds to. The Church has long held that the Word of God as expressed in the Bible is not the ipsissima verba (the dictated word), but rather the ipsissima vox (the voice) of God. This means that the cultural perspectives, language, limitations, and even weaknesses of the inspired authors are found in the text, even while the text itself is the infallible Word of God. This is not my opinion, it is orthodox doctrine. What HPPG is suggesting is that we interpret the Bible and judge it as if an omniscient God dictated it in some sort of atemporal vacuum, or should have. Thankfully, He did not, and the Bible is stronger for it because it is a human document as well as a divine one.

Second, the jury is still out on HPPG's statement about "a world of glass ceilings and sexism," even among modern women. I am not blind to oppression. I have seen things in some parts of the world that had me wishing I could lift some women so they might have enough heart to look up, much less get up and reach for any ceiling, glass or otherwise. But HPPG's language is that of a modern/postmodern movement in the developed world that many women haven't bought into, or have and then walked away very disillusioned by it. God's Word is not a footpad of modern socio-political movements.

Third, though HPPG snidly suggests I am accusing God of shortsightedness (by itself enough to disqualify her remark as absurd), by her comments she continues to accuse Him of sexism, a form of denigration and exclusion. Even though the suggestion that I impugned God's foreknowledge is ridiculous, if it came down to it, I'd rather hold that God didn't foreknow than that He did, but deliberately chose to belittle His own daughters.

The odd thing here is that I as a man am arguing that God had a high view of women, while HPPG, a female, seems to be arguing He didn't. And for the record, I believe in ordaining women to ministry positions, not in spite of Scripture, but because of it.

We shouldn't judge old things by modern standards. We shouldn't judge the ancient Egyptians as mean in the way they treated the Jews because that happened a long time ago. How can we expect to judge the ancient Egyptians by 21st century standards? You are right. And how can we judge the ancient Mongols who raped and pillaged their way into our history books by 21st century standards? It was so long ago!

Show me an ancient source--biblical or otherwise--that says that either of these two groups was esteemed as gentle as good in their day, and that our enlightened modern view of things has cleared up that misperception and now we correctly see them as cruel and despotic for the first time.

[Natasia_Vae]

The bible mentions dogs 14 times but it never mentions cats, so does this mean God loves dogs more? :)

[LifeMaiden]

The bible mentions dogs 14 times but it never mentions cats, so does this mean God loves dogs more? :)


There are no cats in the Bible???????? WHAT???

Awwwwww. And I'm a cat person. :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, there's at least one cat. A lion. Samson kills him (Judges 14:6). {Sorry, cat people!}

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I think sexism in the Bible is the product of mankind's sin. During the time the Old Testament is written about, the world was obviously a very patriarchal society. By our modern value systems, yes, that is sexist. Rather than ordaining his authority in strictly man, God put his power into society, making him the ruler of the principles he established. The New Testament gives us principles for the correct line of authority and a basis on the curing of sins, and that includes discrimination of gender.

When Jesus died on the cross, the Bible portrays a much more equal stand of genders. John 3:16 says "Whosoever will" rather than "He who will", an all inclusive statement that goes on to tell us that all people have an equal, unbiased chance for salvation.

I think this can sum up a great deal: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28) That Bible quote stuck out to me, and it truly shows that the Bible definitely, in the end at least, does not hone or support discrimination of females.

[LifeMaiden]

Actually, there's at least one cat. A lion. Samson kills him (Judges 14:6). {Sorry, cat people!}


Haha...well, that's right...wasn't there also the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den...although, I don't remember about that too much. Was this the same lion Samson killed?

[inkspot]

No, Samson killed a different lion ... I think the Bible also talks about some "great cats" or something of the desert, and I know it mentions young lions who cry for their food (and God feeds them).

[Parthian King]

I stumbled across something a few years back that revolutionized how I saw the Bible, the New Testament, and specifically Paul in relation to women.

While reading Galatians 3, I followed Paul's argument about the Seed of Abraham. He very specifically says the promise is to "Seed" (singular) and not "seeds," plural (Gal. 3:16a). The Seed Paul refers to is Christ and Christ alone--the designated heir of Abraham (Gal. 3:16b).

But later in the chapter Paul says this:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.--Gal. 3:26-29

Starting at Paul's conclusion, we read that once we are in Christ, we are Abraham's seed. But Paul has made clear that there is only one seed! This means that God sees us all as "in Christ"--in Jesus we are all counted as the one seed, the one heir of Abraham, and hence of the Kingdom of God.

Normally, in the Hebrew mentality, there are no sub-heirs. Abraham had other sons after Isaac by his second wife Keturah, but only Isaac inherited (Gen. 25:5). This means that only the firstborn (male) son can inherit--inheritance is not shared with younger brothers, and sisters aren't even considered.

But, incredibly, God has made us all co-heirs with Christ:

Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ--Romans 8:17

This seems a paradox, since only the firstborn can be the heir! How can we who are many all inherit? Hebrews 12:23 speaks of "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven." In the Greek, "firstborn" is plural! This logical and genetic contradiction communicates a deeper spiritual reality.

What I'm trying to get to is that in Galatians 3, Paul is using Old Testament inheritance language. He is saying that in Christ, we are all the (singular) seed of Abraham, even though we are many. In Christ, then, God looks upon each of us as His firstborn Son--a full heir to His entire Kingdom. That's why Paul makes the apparently paradoxical statement of saying "you are all sons" then follows it by saying "there is no male nor female."

Some recent versions (like the NRSV, and the TNIV) have tried to be "inclusive" and have translated Gal. 3:26 as, "You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus" instead of the apparently "sexist" "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." The terrible irony is that such a translation defeats Paul's very efforts to communicate a much deeper inclusion! What Paul is really saying is that women, just like men, have the full rights of the firstborn son of God before God's throne. Both are included by the incredible miraculous and inconceivably profound grace of God in the very person of Christ.

This means that all of us--sisters as well as brothers--can enter the presence of the Father with the confidence as if we were the firstborn Son. This is not hubris or presumption, because it is grounded in who Christ is and what He did. And it is not based upon sex/gender, because "firstborn son" in Old Testament inheritance language has to do with status, position, and privilege.

So based on this, I contend that the Bible is not sexist at all. Quite the contrary. It is revolutionary beyond what most have dared to grasp in raising women to be as men in the way the entire Church values them.

[inkspot]

Wow! That's really an excellent analysis! Thanks, PK!
:)

[Malacandra]

Haha...well, that's right...wasn't there also the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den...although, I don't remember about that too much. Was this the same lion Samson killed?

There's only a fewhundred years between Samson (from Judges), before the first of the kings) and Daniel (after the events in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles). :rolleyes: :p :D

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

Apparently she doesn't like it when people take her at face value.
Sounds like a drive-by flaming. My point was that, by focusing on a single word I used, your argument was a red herring. Replace "hero" with another word. Apparently you'd rather look at an argument superficially than substantially.

For starters, this statement is in absolute contradiction to any balanced doctrine of inspiration that any orthodox church holds to.
Wrong. Sorry. The statement in question only says that God is all-powerful and all-knowing and operates outside of time. You must have imagined all the other stuff about God dictating the Bible.

Second, the jury is still out on HPPG's statement about "a world of glass ceilings and sexism," even among modern women.
Are you denying that women are not treated equally in the world? Women still have less rights than men in many countries. That's called sexism. Women all over the world are struggling for equality. That's a fact. Again, you ignore the entire point in order to focus on something superficial.

Third, though HPPG snidly suggests I am accusing God of shortsightedness (by itself enough to disqualify her remark as absurd), by her comments she continues to accuse Him of sexism, a form of denigration and exclusion.
Lies. I've never accused God of sexism. Your credibility is steadily falling. A remark that shows you are wrong is not absurd. If it's absurd, you should have a really good explanation of why your comments don't lead to God being short-sighted.

Even though the suggestion that I impugned God's foreknowledge is ridiculous, if it came down to it, I'd rather hold that God didn't foreknow than that He did, but deliberately chose to belittle His own daughters.
Um, you say that the suggestion is ridiculous, but you can't say why. No explanation. No defense. All you say is "I'd rather hold that God didn't foreknow". Sounds like you are admitting that your view leads to God being short-sighted.

The odd thing here is that I as a man am arguing that God had a high view of women, while HPPG, a female, seems to be arguing He didn't.
Why is that odd? Also, I'm not arguing that God didn't view women highly. I'm arguing that the Bible seems sexist because it is aimed toward men.

Show me an ancient source--biblical or otherwise--that says that either of these two groups was esteemed as gentle as good in their day, and that our enlightened modern view of things has cleared up that misperception and now we correctly see them as cruel and despotic for the first time.
Ancient sources are hard to find, but here are some good scholarly sources for you.
Berry, Roger L. God's World - His Story. Harrisburg: Christian Light Publications Inc., 1976 pp. 115-120.
Payne, Elizabeth. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. New York: Random House, Inc., 1992 pp. 80-88

Slavery was common in the area and around the time of Ancient Egypt. The treatment described in Exodus was part of normal empire-building. Many sources talk about the Egyptians as peaceful, but powerful. The only people who thought of the Egyptians as anything but good, were the Hebrews, because they were slaves. But nice try... dodging the issue by demanding evidence.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Gee, PK - this modus operandi seems strangely familiar here. Where have we seen this kind of pastiche response style before?

Hmmmm.

[LifeMaiden]

Gee, PK - this modus operandi seems strangely familiar here. Where have we seen this kind of pastiche response style before?

Hmmmm.


Numerous times, POTW. Numerous times :)

[arwenelizabeth]

Gee, PK - this modus operandi seems strangely familiar here. Where have we seen this kind of pastiche response style before?

Hmmmm.
There surely can't be two people out there with the exact same writing style and attitude, can there? Don't the mods have a way to check IP addresses and make sure people don't register with multiple names?

[LifeMaiden]

There surely can't be two people out there with the exact same writing style and attitude, can there? Don't the mods have a way to check IP addresses and make sure people don't register with multiple names?


They can use ghostsurf and mozilla.com/firefox to block IP addresses and register under a new name without the IP showing.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It's not really an issue - the party in question was not banned, but left of her own accord. I don't know if there's any guideline against having two IDs, just having two active IDs at the same time - but I could be wrong on that.

[arwenelizabeth]

They can use ghostsurf and mozilla.com/firefox to block IP addresses and register under a new name without the IP showing.
Well, IM, if they didn't know how to do it before, they do now! ;)

But like POTW said, it's not an issue in this case, I guess.

[Rock On]

To answer your question, Ice Maiden, I would have to say that the Bible is not sexist. I say this because the woman has her role as does the man. Now, I believe that women are temptations and can be easy targets for men so they are portrayed as evil in the Bible. All the hardships rest on men's shoulders in the Bible. However, Mary was chosen as the Lord's mother and is revered greatly by Jesus, so in that case the Bible disengages that point of sexism. In the beginning of time, I think that God intended for the woman to help make up a man, not that she is not an individual, but that she should help form his being. Once again, I think women are portrayed as temptations in the Bible. Men are not portrayed that way to women because men have the power to control a woman while women do not.

[LifeMaiden]

To answer your question, Ice Maiden, I would have to say that the Bible is not sexist. I say this because the woman has her role as does the man. Now, I believe that women are temptations and can be easy targets for men so they are portrayed as evil in the Bible. All the hardships rest on men's shoulders in the Bible. However, Mary was chosen as the Lord's mother and is revered greatly by Jesus, so in that case the Bible disengages that point of sexism. In the beginning of time, I think that God intended for the woman to help make up a man, not that she is not an individual, but that she should help form his being. Once again, I think women are portrayed as temptations in the Bible. Men are not portrayed that way to women because men have the power to control a woman while women do not.


I like the way you said that. :) Esp about women being temptations...because it's true!! I think the Bible is truly a reflection of human nature at times...I mean symbolically, how many women do you know are so tempted by men as objects of desire or whatever that they would do anything...lose a kingdom, kill people, etc etc.


Which reminds me, I've been neglecting reading the Bible.

[LifeMaiden]

Well, IM, if they didn't know how to do it before, they do now! ;)

But like POTW said, it's not an issue in this case, I guess.



* bangs her head against the wall* OHHH why did I say that about those sites???? I better edit that post of mine. Sorry. My brain was fried.

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

There surely can't be two people out there with the exact same writing style and attitude, can there?
So we've come to conspiracy theories now, eh? That's pretty off-topic and pretty petty. None of you are experts in writing styles and attitudes, so why pretend?

If any of you are implying that I am the same person as chuam8919, you are wrong and crazy. Just because two people write in similar ways and agree that some people around here are bullies, doesn't mean they are the same person.

[arwenelizabeth]

So we've come to conspiracy theories now, eh? That's pretty off-topic and pretty petty. None of you are experts in writing styles and attitudes, so why pretend?

If any of you are implying that I am the same person as chuam8919, you are wrong and crazy. Just because two people write in similar ways and agree that some people around here are bullies, doesn't mean they are the same person.
Um, HPPG, that's an awfully hostile response to what was basically idle and even somewhat playful conjecture. :)

I don't think anyone was thinking you are the same person as Chuam. (If I really wanted to get into conspiracy theories, I'd suggest that you threw that out as a red herring, but it's really irrelevant anyway.) We had quite another person in mind.

And incidentally, since you want to get petty, you've no idea that "none of us are experts in writing styles and attitudes" - there may be trained linguists and/or psychologists among us, and you'd have no way of knowing. :rolleyes:

Chill! If you've got nothing to hide, why get so upset? :cool:

[Parthian King]

Sometimes things get to the point where they no longer merit detailed response (though it is clear that in the view of my worthy opponent, my posts obviously don't fall in that category!).

The rest of my posts are here for anyone to read about where I stand on the issue addressed in this thread's title.

[LifeMaiden]

Um, HPPG, that's an awfully hostile response to what was basically idle and even somewhat playful conjecture. :)

I don't think anyone was thinking you are the same person as Chuam. (If I really wanted to get into conspiracy theories, I'd suggest that you threw that out as a red herring, but it's really irrelevant anyway.) We had quite another person in mind.

And incidentally, since you want to get petty, you've no idea that "none of us are experts in writing styles and attitudes" - there may be trained linguists and/or psychologists among us, and you'd have no way of knowing. :rolleyes:

Chill! If you've got nothing to hide, why get so upset? :cool:




It's hard not to get emotional and react suddenly, as I sometimes do too ...but if I find that a post might sound too harsh, you can go back and edit it and make it 'softer.'


I agree, Arwen.


" Chill" .


Especially in this heat.

[Gondor Knight of Narnia]

I don't think the Bible is sexist, this is why. :)

Acts 10:34-35
34And Peter opened his mouth and said: Most certainly and thoroughly I now perceive and understand that God shows no partiality and is no respecter of persons,

35But in every nation he who venerates and has a reverential fear for God, treating Him with worshipful obedience and living uprightly, is acceptable to Him and sure of being received and welcomed [by Him].


when it says "he who venerates..." I think it applies to females as well.

There's also this interesting part:

I Corinthians 11:11-12
11Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;

12For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author].

Galatians 3:28-29
28There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if you belong to Christ [are in Him Who is Abraham's Seed], then you are Abraham's offspring and [spiritual] heirs according to promise.

[HarryPevensiePotterGirl!!]

Sometimes things get to the point where they no longer merit detailed response (though it is clear that in the view of my worthy opponent, my posts obviously don't fall in that category!).
Read as: HPPG critiqued me and I have no response... so there!

Really, none of you are experts in writing styles or attitudes, let alone attitudes expressed through writing styles; and the suggestion that it's possible is a desperate attempt to save face, especially considering it came from the same person who made the "same writing style and attitude" remark.

Arwen, welcome to the thread... maybe you could say something about sexism and the Bible while you are in the "Is the Bible sexist" thread?

[Parthian King]

I found this great recipe for shrimp ceviche! Just take...oh wait, I already posted that. Perhaps my recipe for cazuela de pescado?

[arwenelizabeth]

Read as: HPPG critiqued me and I have no response... so there!

Really, none of you are experts in writing styles or attitudes, let alone attitudes expressed through writing styles; and the suggestion that it's possible is a desperate attempt to save face, especially considering it came from the same person who made the "same writing style and attitude" remark.

Arwen, welcome to the thread... maybe you could say something about sexism and the Bible while you are in the "Is the Bible sexist" thread?
Um, once again... chill, please! As IM said, it's quite warm enough outside. :D

Here's my condensed view on sexism and the Bible: since the Bible is the Word of God, the real question is not whether the Bible is sexist but whether God is sexist. If He isn't, we've got nothing to be concerned about. And if He is, well...

I don't think any true Christian could possibly profess to believe and love a God who arbitrarily preferred half of human creation to the other half. Perfect Love, perfect Truth, perfect Wisdom - all of which God is - leave no room for such things. God loves every human, male or female, equally; therefore he is not sexist; therefore his written word, while complex enough that some may take sexist interpretations of it, must not in its essence be sexist either.

(Incidentally, it bears mentioning that we can believe - as many Christians do - that men and women are fundamentally the same in value but different in the roles for which they are created. I think it should be self-evident that this is not contrary to Christian truth - after all, we profess all three persons of the Trinity as fully and co-equally God, but they have different roles: for example, only the second Person, the Son of God, took on flesh and died on the cross as man and God, Jesus Christ. Therefore it should not be ridiculous that God might have created humans to take on different roles as well, even while all having the same value as persons.)

Parthian King, I'd love to see your recipe for cazuela de pescado! It doesn't by any chance have HOT TAMALES as an ingredient, does it?

[inkspot]

You're off topic, PK (what is cazuela?). Everyone is off topic! HPPG, nobody meant to insult you, and I am sorry it incensed you for people to compare you to someone else -- the resemblance really was uncanny, and as a writer myself, I might be considered a writing style expert, but that's beside the point. Don't you worry about it, hon. You just go ahead and post what it was you wanted to say, and if anyone finds something they want to respond to, they will. Sometimes, though, there is just no appropriate response.
:)

[Parthian King]

My apologies, Ink. ;)

A cazuela is an individual casserole baked in a shallow clay pot. This kind is a spiced mash of ground peanut and green plantain over white fish, baked piping hot and served with rice, hot sauce, and (of course) limes. To die for, truly. Arwen, I'd love to share it, but I'm better at eating it than cooking it. Plus, it tastes much better under the ecuatorian sun. Great comments, btw...

[inkspot]

My apologies, Ink. ;)

A cazuela is an individual casserole baked in a shallow clay pot. This kind is a spiced mash of ground peanut and green plantain over white fish, baked piping hot and served with rice, hot sauce, and (of course) limes. To die for, truly. Arwen, I'd love to share it, but I'm better at eating it than cooking it. Plus, it tastes much better under the ecuatorian sun. Great comments, btw...
Sounds wonderful! Deliciosa.

Here we have an example of how the Bible is not sexist, because PK, a Bible teacher, is sharing about cooking, a traditionally feminine chore.

Neatly bringing us back on topic. :)

[echoscot]

Wow, things have gotten quite interesting since I was here last. It is much more exciting, than say Calculus and Differential Equations, sorry ink I know that is off topic.

As far as the "other person" of conspiracy theory fame, are we certain she left? I think I saw her post a week or so ago in the original divisive thread.

[inkspot]

No, it's by no means certain. She was not banned or anything. She just declared herself the victor and said she wouldn't be back. But I am sure this is not the same person as HPPG, because I think the other person would not be embarrassed to come back under her own name. It was just a little joke among the battle-scarred. :)

Now, in favor of the Bible's being not sexist: did you know the longest personal, face to face conversation recorded between Jesus and any one person is the Samaritan woman? It also demonstrates the Bible isn't racist, either: she was a woman and Samaritan, two people a rabbi in Jesus' day would not have bothered with, but we have a history of Jesus's spending more time and words with her than anyone else. And further, He told His disciples it was His bread and meat to do so -- this is what I live for, He more or less said, to talk to her!