"Sexism In the Bible" Article

[Danieltwotwenty]

the verse says the lights weren't visible from the perspective of the surface of the earth. It doesn't say the lights didn't exist.

From this article by Rich:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

What you're saying is that no light was visible from the earth, so if that is the case then how did the grasses and trees which the earth brought fourth on the third day grow? You know it takes quite a bit of time for plants to grow, especially trees...and that requires sunlight. Unless God made them in their full form, but they still would require sunlight to survive.

Bronze age man would have known nothing about photosynthesis, in their minds everything a plant needed would have come from their roots, that is why the order of when plants were created versus sunlight being created didn't matter in the days of creation.

The atmosphere would have been denser or otherwise creatures like the pterodactyl etc... would not have been able to fly with their large, heavy bodies, the stars and moon and even the sun would not have been clearly visible through the dense atmosphere. Over millions of years the atmosphere became less dense revealing the sun, moon and stars in all their glory. Plants would have had enough sunlight to continue to photo synthesise in the primordial atmosphere. Well that's how I understand it from articles written by scientists and when I compare that with what the Bible says it lines up quite well.


Dan

[Icthus]

Butterfly, I don't want to fight, and I don't have much time, but over the course of a while I'd like to not a few things about your article. For now, I'd just like to draw attention to the quote from Exodus near the beginning about coveting which includes a man's wife as property. You have to understand that property as defined here is different from what we call property today. Considering a wife to be "property" in the sense it was used back then is considerably different than it is now. All things in a man's household were considered his "property" in the ANE, even his children. That didn't mean, though, that he could dispose of them or neglect them or make unreasonable demands of them. It didn't mean that they were property in the sense it does today. Through marriage, a woman would become the property of her new husband the way her husband could become the property of those to whom he owed money. For a human to be property in the ANE was primarily an economic relationship. Children, for instance, were the property of their parents. The parents were required to provide for them and look after them, and the children were expected to be obedient and eventually become active members of the family. If a man owed money, he would often become the property of his neighbor. He would assist his "owner" (most often in household tasks. It was surprisingly rare for a servant to be employed outside of the house), and his owner would be required to provide for him and forgive his debts either when they were paid off or when the seventh year arrived. Similarly, women became the property of their husbands. Because the average woman was less suited to the often very difficult labor required to produce ample food for a family than the average men, women were at a natural economic disadvantage. Marriage provided a way for them to find security, both financial and physical. I know it hardly seems a fair system in today's post industrial world, but at the time it worked, whereas modern marriage likely would not have.

I don't want to sound like I'm just rationalizing about this, because I think it's very true. The ANE was a much harsher world than the contemporary Western World and ideas like true equality and equal rights probably wouldn't have appealed much to poor farmers in a desert that struggle each year to keep their families fed. And just a brief note about St. Paul's comments: it isn't rationalizing to try and explain the context of what he said. After all, Paul, according to the NT, had several close friends who were both women and leaders in the early Church like Priscilla. He clearly wasn't the sort of man who refused to let women out of the kitchen. I think Paul tends to get a bad rap about women.

[Icthus]

Just very briefly, I'd like to add that in the infamous "man rapes a woman and she has to marry him" section, it is, technically, a translation choice to render the verb "rapes". Technically, the word only means "to lay with" so it isn't necessarily true that there wasn't consent. I'd also like to note that the idea that the wife would suddenly become the rapist's "sex slave" is pretty absurd. If a man did rape a woman who wasn't married, marrying her would mean that he'd have to provide for her for the rest of her life, and the fact that a woman was guaranteed protection by her father suggests that the husband wouldn't be able to do much and couldn't divorce her.

A good discussion of women in the Bible can be found at http://christianthinktank.com/fem02b.html, and it contextualizes a lot of the issues in your article.

[Butterfly]

Butterfly, I don't want to fight, and I don't have much time, but over the course of a while I'd like to not a few things about your article. For now, I'd just like to draw attention to the quote from Exodus near the beginning about coveting which includes a man's wife as property. You have to understand that property as defined here is different from what we call property today. Considering a wife to be "property" in the sense it was used back then is considerably different than it is now. All things in a man's household were considered his "property" in the ANE, even his children. That didn't mean, though, that he could dispose of them or neglect them or make unreasonable demands of them. It didn't mean that they were property in the sense it does today. Through marriage, a woman would become the property of her new husband the way her husband could become the property of those to whom he owed money. For a human to be property in the ANE was primarily an economic relationship. Children, for instance, were the property of their parents. The parents were required to provide for them and look after them, and the children were expected to be obedient and eventually become active members of the family. If a man owed money, he would often become the property of his neighbor. He would assist his "owner" (most often in household tasks. It was surprisingly rare for a servant to be employed outside of the house), and his owner would be required to provide for him and forgive his debts either when they were paid off or when the seventh year arrived. Similarly, women became the property of their husbands. Because the average woman was less suited to the often very difficult labor required to produce ample food for a family than the average men, women were at a natural economic disadvantage. Marriage provided a way for them to find security, both financial and physical. I know it hardly seems a fair system in today's post industrial world, but at the time it worked, whereas modern marriage likely would not have.

It doesn't really matter how you choose to define property, the point is that laws and rules that God set up in the Bible made a clear distinction between the rights that women were afforded versus the rights of men, and women were considered property just like a mans cattle. If you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, then it was God who inspired its authors to declare that man is to rule over woman. Well, if there's one thing you don't want to do, that is give men who are already aggressive and domineering ruler-ship over other humans by divine decree. By nature people want control, so the gender laws of the Bible handed control over to the man with the bonus of it being sanctioned by God. The main reason women were (and still are in many countries) suppressed by men was because men wanted to have complete control over them, and still do.

I don't want to sound like I'm just rationalizing about this, because I think it's very true. The ANE was a much harsher world than the contemporary Western World and ideas like true equality and equal rights probably wouldn't have appealed much to poor farmers in a desert that struggle each year to keep their families fed. And just a brief note about St. Paul's comments: it isn't rationalizing to try and explain the context of what he said. After all, Paul, according to the NT, had several close friends who were both women and leaders in the early Church like Priscilla. He clearly wasn't the sort of man who refused to let women out of the kitchen. I think Paul tends to get a bad rap about women.

I'm afraid it truly does sound like you are rationalizing the motives of men who wanted to control women. Most if not all of the ANE was governed by patriarchal societies, as such men dominated women and made laws to make sure they remained in power. The men who authored the Bible were no different than their counterparts in the surrounding countries. Even though Paul may have given women more rights than his fellow Jews did, women still were not given equal human rights, and that denial was sanctioned by the Hebrew god. There is no getting around it, the Bible that is held by millions to be the inspired word of God is bias toward the male, condones sexism, and denies women equal human rights.

[Butterfly]

Just very briefly, I'd like to add that in the infamous "man rapes a woman and she has to marry him" section, it is, technically, a translation choice to render the verb "rapes". Technically, the word only means "to lay with" so it isn't necessarily true that there wasn't consent. I'd also like to note that the idea that the wife would suddenly become the rapist's "sex slave" is pretty absurd. If a man did rape a woman who wasn't married, marrying her would mean that he'd have to provide for her for the rest of her life, and the fact that a woman was guaranteed protection by her father suggests that the husband wouldn't be able to do much and couldn't divorce her.

A good discussion of women in the Bible can be found at http://christianthinktank.com/fem02b.html, and it contextualizes a lot of the issues in your article.

The Hebrew word is taphas meaning to seize or lay hold by force, there is no consent involved here at all. The verse refers to a man who finds a virgin, seizes her and rapes her.

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) 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 silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

Instead of punishing the woman by making her marry her rapist, don't you think maybe the man should have been punished? At the very least the rapist should have been fined heavily and turned into a eunuch, so he couldn't rape anymore women. Instead he is rewarded with a wife whom he can rape all he wants to. And this is what people call God's justice? It's sad to see that all you seem to focus on is the poor man who has to support a wife for the rest of her life.

[Icthus]

"Butterfly Wrote:"
It doesn't really matter how you choose to define property, the point is that laws and rules that God set up in the Bible made a clear distinction between the rights that women were afforded versus the rights of men, and women were considered property just like a mans cattle.

How does the way property is defined have nothing to do with it? The Bible obviously doesn't consider women to be like cattle. Cattle were not made in the image of God. It is not murder if you kill a cow, but if you kill a woman the price you pay is the same as it is for a man.

To be fair, the part about man ruling over women isn't stated as a commandment. It's just stated as something that is going to happen, like when God predicts that Israel will be invaded. God doesn't actually say "man will rule over woman because it is right" or "men are better than women".

I also have a problem with the way you define patriarchy. Not that I'm defending it, but claiming that patriarchy exists just to give men power over women is profoundly untrue. Patriarchy developed for a lot of reasons, mainly social and economic, and given a comparatively primitive society, it certainly has its perks as far as keeping a country going. But really, if you think that the way women are treated in the Biblical codes is no different than in other ANE societies, then I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. The link I gave, for example, notes that in Israel, rape was always the fault of the rapist, whereas in other cultures, the victim could be blamed and even killed under the law. In Israel, you couldn't murder your wife because you think she's cheated on you. And your point that men could have all the women they want is simply wrong. Regardless of whether or not the Bible is sexist, it was far fairer than the rest of the ANE.

It think we should also note that, while many of the law distinguish between men and women, women do not have less worth as human beings created in the image of God.

I don't even know what you mean when you say "Even though Paul may have given women more rights than his fellow Jews did, women still were not given equal human rights, and that denial was sanctioned by the Hebrew God." The fact that women didn't get equal rights has nothing to do with whether or not God wants it, and I'm pretty sure you can't say that God sanctioned sexism in the NT times given that Jesus is God and he was pretty darn egalitarian. He had female disciples, a role only men were usually allowed to have. He treated some of the women in the NT with more respect that he gave to any of the men, and the first people he appeared to after the resurrection were women. When asked about marriage in heaven, didn't he say that there wouldn't even be gender there? I mean, regardless of whether or not the early Christians got over their prejudices and gave women the rights they deserved, it was pretty clear that Jesus didn't think less of them than he thought of men. In the OT times, God tried to straighten the Israelites out on a lot of things, but the laws he set up were provisional. Do you think that even if he said "treat women equally" that he would have been listened to? The Israelites had enough trouble worshipping only one God: is there any chance they would have turned around their entire worldview? The Mosaic Law is far kinder to women than other codes of its day.

By the way, I'm not necessarily an inerrantist, especially concerning some of the earliest materials in the Old Testament. In my view, it is quite possible that the Mosaic Law contains elements from other law codes that were meshed in during or after the united monarchy. So using the OT to prove sexism isn't really going to work on me.

What I think it really boils down to is your opinion on what is justified. If you think, as I do, that the OT Law is an imperfect code for an imperfect and rebellious people that works to better Israel gradually, then you probably won't have much of a problem with it. Then again, if, as you do, you think that the OT Law must, if it were true, perfectly represent the ideas of God, then you probably won't like it. I think contextualization removes a lot of the evil we tend to associate with it, but I can respect your opinion. The NT, though, which I believe contains, in Jesus, the fully revealed word of God, doesn't leave much room for doubt. Women are pretty explicitly equal to men in Jesus' ministry, even if society doesn't always allow this to be demonstrated. I mean, in Christ there is neither male nor female. That's kind of an undeniably clear statement of equality.

Anyway, I'm fighting again, and I really don't want to fight anymore, though debate is alway good. Take a look at the link and see what you think. It connects back to a broader series of articles on women in the Bible. I can't say I agree with everything it says, but it's worth a look, especially to contextualize some things.

It was fun reading over your article, by the way.

[neo-x]

Your whole post is nothing but a series of excuses as to why the god of the Bible allows, condones and mandates sexism. You act as if God had to accommodate people and their bad moral behavior because of their primitive mentality, which is like saying that I have to allow my toddler to hit other children because he doesn't know any better.

Within the pages of the Bible, God had no problem initiating unique laws and rules that were not practiced in other societies of the time. God imposed new standards upon his chosen people to live by, yet time and time again male-bias rears its ugly head in the laws that were mandated by him. Granted, male dominated societies were the norm then and now, but that is no reason for an omnipotent law-giver to condone existing laws along with adding more biased laws into the mix.

It matters not that women were supposedly treated better than their female neighbors, because what we are dealing with here is divine standards not human standards. God is suppose to be just, and perfect not preferring one person over another, yet the Bible claims that he is the author of its moral laws which includes the Golden Rule. Well, let me tell you something; you cannot deny a person equal human rights and claim to be just and perfect. It looks to me like the god of the Bible is a perfect reflection of the dominate male mentality of the time, and that being a tribal, male war god.

A simple syllogism states:

1. The Bible is bias towards the male
2. God inspired the Bible
3. Therefore God is biased toward the male

If God is biased, he is not just and perfect, therefore the god that the Bible promotes cannot be the true god.

Well, its very easy to make sweeping generalizations without actually addressing the points, but you wouldn't do that because in the context they would make sense. Anyway, I can just revert this back to you and say that your posts are nothing but excuses to somehow blame God without actually considering the contexts of your objections, and may be you do not agree with this but...

The problems you have in your assumptions are numerous:
1. The law is perfect
no, its not,
2.the law is objective always
no its not.
3. Israel is a perfect theocracy with perfect men
no its not.
4. The standard of God should be ideal.
No. God has to work with what he's got. And that's the thing to note because he is not going to magically change their will, their customs and their society. God never does that. The same way when someone murders and God doesn't interfere or you lie but there is no light bolt out of the sky hitting you as a punishment. That's the objection most people have, if its wrong why does God allow it? because God never directly interferes. Sorry, that is just the way it is.You can not deny these observations and somehow conclude the O.T on your own understanding, that's plain wrong. I have already said that there is sexism shown in the O.T with Male-dominant societies all over the world. I suggest you answer my points in my post rather than sweep it away.

You can not compare the 3500 B.C old Israel with modern world, that is a non-starter. It is nothing more but a modified version of argument from outrage.

Proof-texting verses is a great way to get your desired results once you know which verses to cherry pick but you can not leave context behind. If you can not lift out the whole message of the scriptures than your conclusions are lacking.

[Butterfly]

I also have a problem with the way you define patriarchy. Not that I'm defending it, but claiming that patriarchy exists just to give men power over women is profoundly untrue. Patriarchy developed for a lot of reasons, mainly social and economic, and given a comparatively primitive society, it certainly has its perks as far as keeping a country going. But really, if you think that the way women are treated in the Biblical codes is no different than in other ANE societies, then I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. The link I gave, for example, notes that in Israel, rape was always the fault of the rapist, whereas in other cultures, the victim could be blamed and even killed under the law. In Israel, you couldn't murder your wife because you think she's cheated on you. And your point that men could have all the women they want is simply wrong. Regardless of whether or not the Bible is sexist, it was far fairer than the rest of the ANE.

It think we should also note that, while many of the law distinguish between men and women, women do not have less worth as human beings created in the image of God.

First off, we are going to see things far differently because of the fact that you are looking at all these issues concerning discrimination against women from a male perspective. The only men that truly understand the discrimination and violation that women have suffered at the hands of men are male slaves, and men who have been raped by other men in prison. If you will notice all the people on this thread, and the other one I am on that are trying to justify, or deny sexism in the Bible are men. Women in biblical times had the same feelings of being violated by men as they do in modern times, we are all humans with deep emotions concerning our humanity and how we want to be treated. When others try and take that right away from us, and deny us the ability to fully experience our humanity it is wrong. It is especially devastating when the being that people call God instigates those acts of discrimination. When God allows a book to be written, that professes to be his word, giving laws and rules that keep women in subjugation to men...that god is not good, no matter how much better he is than what men do.

Patriarchy mainly developed because of men wanting control over women. Egalitarian societies worked just fine socially and economically, the reason for their downfall was because aggressive men wanted complete power and control over women and weaker men, instead of sharing all aspects of life equally.

The Bible should be more than just fairer than the rest of the ANE, because it is suppose to be divinely inspired. There is no question that people treat each other badly and deny each other human rights, but when God starts giving laws that discriminate against women and treats them unequally and unfairly, that's where the problem comes in. It's like saying it's was okay for the Hebrews to have slaves, because they treated their slaves better than anyone else in the ANE. No, it's never okay to own another human being.

I don't even know what you mean when you say "Even though Paul may have given women more rights than his fellow Jews did, women still were not given equal human rights, and that denial was sanctioned by the Hebrew God." The fact that women didn't get equal rights has nothing to do with whether or not God wants it, and I'm pretty sure you can't say that God sanctioned sexism in the NT times given that Jesus is God and he was pretty darn egalitarian. He had female disciples, a role only men were usually allowed to have. He treated some of the women in the NT with more respect that he gave to any of the men, and the first people he appeared to after the resurrection were women. When asked about marriage in heaven, didn't he say that there wouldn't even be gender there? I mean, regardless of whether or not the early Christians got over their prejudices and gave women the rights they deserved, it was pretty clear that Jesus didn't think less of them than he thought of men. In the OT times, God tried to straighten the Israelites out on a lot of things, but the laws he set up were provisional. Do you think that even if he said "treat women equally" that he would have been listened to? The Israelites had enough trouble worshipping only one God: is there any chance they would have turned around their entire worldview? The Mosaic Law is far kinder to women than other codes of its day.

It all depends on whether you believe in God or not. If you do then of course it's God's fault that women are denied equal rights, if you don't then it's just mans fault. As far as sexism being sanctioned by the Biblegod, it most certainly is even in the New Testament, and being pretty darn egalitarian doesn't cut it for God. Why is it that my morals and values concerning equal human rights are so much higher than God's? I would never treat women the way God does because I know how women feel, and I know that it is wrong to deny people basic human rights, no matter what other humans do.

By the way, I'm not necessarily an inerrantist, especially concerning some of the earliest materials in the Old Testament. In my view, it is quite possible that the Mosaic Law contains elements from other law codes that were meshed in during or after the united monarchy. So using the OT to prove sexism isn't really going to work on me.

What do you make of the statement that Jesus made concerning the law:

Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What I think it really boils down to is your opinion on what is justified. If you think, as I do, that the OT Law is an imperfect code for an imperfect and rebellious people that works to better Israel gradually, then you probably won't have much of a problem with it. Then again, if, as you do, you think that the OT Law must, if it were true, perfectly represent the ideas of God, then you probably won't like it. I think contextualization removes a lot of the evil we tend to associate with it, but I can respect your opinion. The NT, though, which I believe contains, in Jesus, the fully revealed word of God, doesn't leave much room for doubt. Women are pretty explicitly equal to men in Jesus' ministry, even if society doesn't always allow this to be demonstrated. I mean, in Christ there is neither male nor female. That's kind of an undeniably clear statement of equality.

Anyway, I'm fighting again, and I really don't want to fight anymore, though debate is alway good. Take a look at the link and see what you think. It connects back to a broader series of articles on women in the Bible. I can't say I agree with everything it says, but it's worth a look, especially to contextualize some things.

It was fun reading over your article, by the way.

Denying women equal human rights is never justified. The biased and unequal treatment of women in the Bible did not help women to gain equal rights...it did the opposite. When men think they are justified in subjugating women, they are very reluctant to let go of their God given authority. It took nearly two thousand years from the time of Jesus, till women succeeded in demanding a equal place in the society they helped to build. Women make up half the population, and give birth to the other half, what right does any man have to tell a women that she should have anything less than full equality.

I don't like fighting either, but then I don't think we've been fighting, just discussing.

Glad you enjoyed my article,

[Butterfly]

Well, its very easy to make sweeping generalizations without actually addressing the points, but you wouldn't do that because in the context they would make sense. Anyway, I can just revert this back to you and say that your posts are nothing but excuses to somehow blame God without actually considering the contexts of your objections, and may be you do not agree with this but...

The problems you have in your assumptions are numerous:
1. The law is perfect
no, its not,
2.the law is objective always
no its not.
3. Israel is a perfect theocracy with perfect men
no its not.
4. The standard of God should be ideal.
No. God has to work with what he's got. And that's the thing to note because he is not going to magically change their will, their customs and their society. God never does that. The same way when someone murders and God doesn't interfere or you lie but there is no light bolt out of the sky hitting you as a punishment. That's the objection most people have, if its wrong why does God allow it? because God never directly interferes. Sorry, that is just the way it is.You can not deny these observations and somehow conclude the O.T on your own understanding, that's plain wrong. I have already said that there is sexism shown in the O.T with Male-dominant societies all over the world. I suggest you answer my points in my post rather than sweep it away.

If # 1. The law of God is not perfect
And #4. The standard of God is not ideal
Then what good is the Bible?

The point is not whether there is sexism all over the world, but rather that the sexism in the Bible is God ordained. God is either omnipotent, or impotent. It seems like your god is impotent, because he never interferes, and can only work with what he got. I will reiterate, the male-bias of the Bible proves that it is a book conceived in the minds of men, because it perfectly reflects the mindset of male dominant societies.

[Icthus]

The only thing I want to say right now is that I don't think it's fair to say that men can't understand the situation of women. The fact that there are several men here defending the Bible against accusations from a woman doesn't demonstrate anything. In fact, the sources from the article I linked to are, if I recall correctly, mostly by women.

[Byblos]

The only thing I want to say right now is that I don't think it's fair to say that men can't understand the situation of women. The fact that there are several men here defending the Bible against accusations from a woman doesn't demonstrate anything. In fact, the sources from the article I linked to are, if I recall correctly, mostly by women.

Exactly. The worst kind of "sexism" is the claim that one cannot understand it unless they've experienced it. That is the highest form of hypocrisy.

[B. W.]

The point is not whether there is sexism all over the world, but rather that the sexism in the Bible is God ordained. God is either omnipotent, or impotent. It seems like your god is impotent, because he never interferes, and can only work with what he got. I will reiterate, the male-bias of the Bible proves that it is a book conceived in the minds of men, because it perfectly reflects the mindset of male dominant societies.

God did not ordain sexism:

What principles do you see here:

Joel 2:28 "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." NIV

Gen 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them". NIV

Pro 31:10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
Pro 31:11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
Pro 31:12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
Pro 31:13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
Pro 31:14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
Pro 31:15 She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants.
Pro 31:16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
Pro 31:17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
Pro 31:18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
Pro 31:19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
Pro 31:20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
Pro 31:21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
Pro 31:22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Pro 31:23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
Pro 31:24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
Pro 31:25 She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
Pro 31:26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
Pro 31:27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
Pro 31:28 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
Pro 31:29 "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all."
Pro 31:30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
Pro 31:31 Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate. (NIV)

There was no sexism with God.

I pose instead that God used human sexism, made laws that expose it so people become aware of it, so it be done away with so both genders can return to sanity. This is happening.

Proverbs 21:19 NKJV offers great advise to men: "Better to dwell in the wilderness, Than with a contentious and angry woman." NKJV

You are the one contending that women have no power or rights, we Christian men don't who have been married 25 years or more... and for those a few years less learn this too... Often the hard way

You should post your claims upon an Islamic website to see real sexism at work...
-
-
-

[Butterfly]

The only thing I want to say right now is that I don't think it's fair to say that men can't understand the situation of women. The fact that there are several men here defending the Bible against accusations from a woman doesn't demonstrate anything. In fact, the sources from the article I linked to are, if I recall correctly, mostly by women.

Yes, that was an overstatement about men, my bad My husband is an excellent example of a man who can totally see the rampant sexism in the Bible, and understands and empathizes with women who have suffered under its abuse.
-
-

[Butterfly]

The point is not whether there is sexism all over the world, but rather that the sexism in the Bible is God ordained. God is either omnipotent, or impotent. It seems like your god is impotent, because he never interferes, and can only work with what he got. I will reiterate, the male-bias of the Bible proves that it is a book conceived in the minds of men, because it perfectly reflects the mindset of male dominant societies.

God did not ordain sexism:

What principles do you see here:

Joel 2:28 "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." NIV

Gen 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them". NIV

Pro 31:10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
Pro 31:11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
Pro 31:12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
Pro 31:13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
Pro 31:14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
Pro 31:15 She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants.
Pro 31:16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
Pro 31:17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
Pro 31:18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
Pro 31:19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
Pro 31:20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
Pro 31:21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
Pro 31:22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Pro 31:23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
Pro 31:24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
Pro 31:25 She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
Pro 31:26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
Pro 31:27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
Pro 31:28 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
Pro 31:29 "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all."
Pro 31:30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
Pro 31:31 Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate. (NIV)

There was no sexism with God.

I pose instead that God used human sexism, made laws that expose it so people become aware of it, so it be done away with so both genders can return to sanity. This is happening.

Proverbs 21:19 NKJV offers great advise to men: "Better to dwell in the wilderness, Than with a contentious and angry woman." NKJV

You are the one contending that women have no power or rights, we Christian men don't who have been married 25 years or more... and for those a few years less learn this too... Often the hard way

You should post your claims upon an Islamic website to see real sexism at work...
-
-
-

For every verse you quoted, I can give you ten where God ordained and sanctioned sexism against women. For starters here is a link to my article The Male Bias of the Bible.

If God used human sexism to make women suffer for thousands of years under the bondage of men, until they could rise up on their own, without his help and begin to demand equality...that is truly pathetic indeed.

I have no illusions about sexism in Islam, and I know it is rampant in Islamic countries, but that doesn't change the fact that it also is rampant throughout the Bible. Don't you know that much of the Koran is based on the Bible? Islam is considered one of the Abrahamic religions, just like Judaism and Christianity. All three build off of the foundation of Old Testament.
-
-

[Icthus]

The only thing I want to say right now is that I don't think it's fair to say that men can't understand the situation of women. The fact that there are several men here defending the Bible against accusations from a woman doesn't demonstrate anything. In fact, the sources from the article I linked to are, if I recall correctly, mostly by women.

Yes, that was an overstatement about men, my bad My husband is an excellent example of a man who can totally see the rampant sexism in the Bible, and understands and empathizes with women who have suffered under its abuse.
-
-

I notice in your example you equate understanding the plight of women with thinking the Bible is sexist. Does that mean that since I don't think the Christian God, which you often call the "Biblegod", is sexist I must not understand or sympathize with the plight of women? Because I do. I believe that men and women were created as equals and that it is wrong to treat women unfairly. I believe that God, through the ultimate revelation which is Jesus Christ, demonstrates amply that he believes this as well. I believe that the OT law was an imperfect code working within an imperfect context, but the light of God's indiscriminating love shines through it. The Angel of the Lord appeared to women several times, a woman became a Judge of Israel, women could be prophetesses, they could take the Nazarite vow, the punishment for killing a woman was the same as for killing a man, a woman was allowed to pay a lower price to redeem herself from creditors, women were considered victims when raped, they could not be sold into prostitution.

I think your treatment of ritual purity in your article is unfair. When the Law says that a woman is unclean during her period, for instance, that doesn't mean that she is to be viewed negatively for it. Ceremonial uncleanliness cannot be equivocated with moral deficiency. As part of the article I posted notes, inanimate objects could be unclean. That doesn't mean that they are bad or "dirty". The Israelites certainly didn't think that giving birth to a child, for instance, was a dirty or bad thing. Ritual purity served a number of purposes such as keeping those who had recently handled the dead from coming into close contact with others, restricting the habits of the Israelites to differentiate them from neighboring civilizations, and excusing those in certain situations from participating in regular work or otherwise mandatory rituals. Take the example of the new mother: whether or not she has a boy or a girl, the sacrifice to be used is the same (The WORTH of the child is the same regardless of gender, just as the penalty for injuring a male or female servant is the same and as the penalty for murdering or slandering a member of either gender is the same. The idea that women are "worth less" than men is contradicted by the legal data). The only thing that changes is the length of time she remains "unclean" afterward. But was does being "unclean" mean? It certainly doesn't mean that she has sinned or done some dirty thing by having a baby. The Bible rather often comments on the joy of bringing life into the world and the uniqueness of women in their ability to do so. Jesus compares the pain of his death before the resurrection to the pain of a mother in labor after which comes a miracle. Are we expected to believe that Mary did something dirty or impure in giving birth to our Lord, Jesus Christ? Of course not. Uncleaness means that she is unfit to participate in the usual activities of her society for a time. She couldn't do any manual labor and was excused from participation in most religious activities. It is almost certain that she would spend that time caring for her newborn, and no one could drag her away and tell her to do something else because the law forbade it. A mother who had given birth to a girl, therefore, would have twice as much "time off" in order to care for her child, which makes sense because in an agrarian society a mother and her daughter would be expected to spend far more time together and be far closer than a mother and her son. It isn't fair to just glance over the passage and say that giving birth to a girl is obviously considered icky, that's sexism. That isn't what's going on.

I agree with you that it's horrible that the Bible has often been used to justify sexism, especially since it doesn't. Several passages have been taken to endorse sexism, but God does not ever say "women are worth less than men". On the contrary, there is neither male nor female in Christ. That is a message of radical equality whether or not it has historically been upheld.