Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

[PaulSacramento]

I am not sure why, in an era of "might makes right" and survival was dependent on physical prowess, people think that women and men were equal in that regard?
Of course the male was the dominate one, the leader, why wouldn't he be?
When God spoke to the Hebrews under those times, to "reverse" those roles or to "equalize" them would lead the Hebrews close to extinction since the boarding tribes were male dominant and violent' aggressive and expansionist.
While women had more authority and rights under the Hebrew law compared to their neighbors ( typically) I think it would be wrong to suggest God should have enforced a gender equality that was not only unfathomable to ancient man, but one that could get him killed.

[Byblos]

I am not sure why, in an era of "might makes right" and survival was dependent on physical prowess, people think that women and men were equal in that regard?
Of course the male was the dominate one, the leader, why wouldn't he be?
When God spoke to the Hebrews under those times, to "reverse" those roles or to "equalize" them would lead the Hebrews close to extinction since the boarding tribes were male dominant and violent' aggressive and expansionist.
While women had more authority and rights under the Hebrew law compared to their neighbors ( typically) I think it would be wrong to suggest God should have enforced a gender equality that was not only unfathomable to ancient man, but one that could get him killed.

Hence calling the bible biased by today's standards is utter absurdity.

[PaulSacramento]

I am not sure why, in an era of "might makes right" and survival was dependent on physical prowess, people think that women and men were equal in that regard?
Of course the male was the dominate one, the leader, why wouldn't he be?
When God spoke to the Hebrews under those times, to "reverse" those roles or to "equalize" them would lead the Hebrews close to extinction since the boarding tribes were male dominant and violent' aggressive and expansionist.
While women had more authority and rights under the Hebrew law compared to their neighbors ( typically) I think it would be wrong to suggest God should have enforced a gender equality that was not only unfathomable to ancient man, but one that could get him killed.

Hence calling the bible biased by today's standards is utter absurdity.

Well, I mean, one CAN present the case that the bible IS bias towards man:
Man hold authority over women, only men may be priests, only men were kings, the messiah was a man, etc.
And it was bias towards the Hebrews
And it was bias towards sheep and lambs too !
And lets not forget it was bias towards the greek language and bias towards humans and bias towards carpenters and lets not forget what the bible was bias AGAINST:
Pigs, shell fish, people with tattoos, people that practice pederasty, prostitutes, having sex as a sign of worship, cross dressing and so on.

[B. W.]

God is very biased toward sin:

Proverbs 6:16-19, "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community...." NIV

Again Butterfly, your premise toward God and the bible is skewed because your views were shaped by...

1-Christian Science Cult

2-Word of Faith Movement ( with its aberrant link to Christian Science/Metaphysical Spiritualism/Liberal theological leanings/classical historically linked heresy)

3-Liberal Theology ( with its error filled assumptions)

and forthly:

4- Modern thought imposing its self upon an era and epoch in time by which such modern thought cannot rightly discern correctly to cast judgment upon

I hope you can see the truth here - you got off track on the wrong footing to base your presuppositions on (error begats error)
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

One just hopes that the generation(s) to come don't look back on us and judge us too harshly in our barbaric times...

[Danieltwotwenty]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, that won't work. I draw from the Bible and use it in context.

Really? You mean like projecting modern day social norms back onto a society from 2 millennia ago? That context? Ok, gotcha!

I'm not projecting anything. I'm calling bias, BIAS!
-

Maybe your own Bias is what you are calling.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, that won't work. I draw from the Bible and use it in context.
-

Me too, we have something in common except my interpretation is different.

[Butterfly]

No you can't use the same argument comparing humans with other animals, you can try and construct a different argument, but you can't use my argument of "bias based on gender alone".

Butter, FWIW, I disagree with Daniel. I believe the distinctions and authority given to man were not simply because man was gender biased. I believe the order is ordained and decreed by God. God is a God of authority, and ideally His plans on earth did decree that men would have a role of authority over women. You've yet to provide anything but question begging and your own opinion. You are welcome to disagree, reject, etc., but you haven't proven that the Bible is wrong in ordaining these roles. You can say it isn't fair, or it's biased, but accoring to what? You say human rights. Where are these rights written? What is the source? If man is merely a product of unguided natural forces, then these rights only exist as an illusion of human consciousness. And thus they are meaningless. It's your preference versus another. You may say the GR, but what about the million even billion of women who believe that men, in certain roles do have authority over a woman. In other words they believe this and conform to it. Shouldn't you, according to the GR, concede that their view is right? I presume, you will just call them stupid, or irrational, sense they don't subscribe to your worldview.

So, you do agree that the bible says god ordained and sanctioned his laws and rules. One of those laws was the one I quoted in my article that deals with purification and cleansing of a woman after childbirth, where I showed the gender bias in that law. You can try to justify why god gave that law, but you cannot deny that it is biased.

You as a man may say that a billion women believe that men in certain roles (which are what?) should have authority over women, but I challenge you that if each and every one of your billion women was asked if she wants equal human rights...she would say YES! People have authority over others for all sorts of valid reasons, but that is not my point, what I am saying is that the Bible is biased against women for the sole reason of GENDER.

I'm not projecting anything. I'm calling bias, BIAS!

No, you are not. That is begging the question. Since you reject the Bible, and you reject the idea that under no circumstances should a man have authority over a woman without the reverse also being possible, you naturally conclude bias. But who are you to force your BIAS on us? Why should we accept your presuppositions?

My rejection of the Bible as the word of god has no bearing on whether or not it is biased, and I am forcing my claims on no one. I have made a case for male bias of the Bible that originates with its god, these are the facts I have presented and so far they still stand as valid.
-

[Byblos]

I have made a case for male bias of the Bible that originates with its god, these are the facts I have presented and so far they still stand as valid.

If you keep saying it enough times, perhaps one day it will stick.

[Butterfly]

I have made a case for male bias of the Bible that originates with its god, these are the facts I have presented and so far they still stand as valid.

If you keep saying it enough times, perhaps one day it will stick.

I'm not sure how to take your statement? Could you elaborate?
-

[B. W.]

No you can't use the same argument comparing humans with other animals, you can try and construct a different argument, but you can't use my argument of "bias based on gender alone".

Butter, FWIW, I disagree with Daniel. I believe the distinctions and authority given to man were not simply because man was gender biased. I believe the order is ordained and decreed by God. God is a God of authority, and ideally His plans on earth did decree that men would have a role of authority over women. You've yet to provide anything but question begging and your own opinion. You are welcome to disagree, reject, etc., but you haven't proven that the Bible is wrong in ordaining these roles. You can say it isn't fair, or it's biased, but according to what? You say human rights. Where are these rights written? What is the source? If man is merely a product of unguided natural forces, then these rights only exist as an illusion of human consciousness. And thus they are meaningless. It's your preference versus another. You may say the GR, but what about the million even billion of women who believe that men, in certain roles do have authority over a woman. In other words they believe this and conform to it. Shouldn't you, according to the GR, concede that their view is right? I presume, you will just call them stupid, or irrational, sense they don't subscribe to your worldview.

So, you do agree that the bible says god ordained and sanctioned his laws and rules. One of those laws was the one I quoted in my article that deals with purification and cleansing of a woman after childbirth, where I showed the gender bias in that law. You can try to justify why god gave that law, but you cannot deny that it is biased.

Hebrews 8:13, "In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." NKJV

Again you cite OT Law as still in place for today. When Lev 12:1-8 was written, it was written during an ancient time. Please note, there now is no temple and no animals to sacrifices nowadays. A new Covenant of Grace was made that did away with these laws. You are not taking account of the historical reasons as well as the bacterial/viral infections that come through blood borne pathogens.

What you failed to note is this: In the OT, the temple was sprinkled with the blood of ceremonial clean animals to rid the influence of sin upon the Holy Things so people could see what was blocking his or her way to God: sin and reveal the only one and means who would cure sin’s infection. Any other blood brought in by any other means would make the Temple area of that bygone era unclean by any gender. Hmmm Bias – circumcision – ouch!!!

Now that old and obsolete has vanished away. All believers in Christ enter into fellowship with the Holy by the Blood Christ shed as Galatians 3:28 states.

The ceremonial laws you cite as evidence for God being Bias was for an ancient people who knew nothing of infections, spread of disease, etc. So let me remind you of your own premise you stated which was: Hebrew men created a male chauvinist god to justify dominating women. Yet, in your eyes, there is no God – so your beef is that you hate men, period and wish to crush them all. Yes, you are forcing your bias upon those reading your opinions about what makes truth - truth.

The Christian Science cult, Word of Faith movement, and Liberal Theology as well as your life experiences have clouded your mind with biases against the truth.

You as a man may say that a billion women believe that men in certain roles (which are what?) should have authority over women, but I challenge you that if each and every one of your billion women was asked if she wants equal human rights...she would say YES! People have authority over others for all sorts of valid reasons, but that is not my point, what I am saying is that the Bible is biased against women for the sole reason of GENDER.

I'm not projecting anything. I'm calling bias, BIAS!

No, you are not. That is begging the question. Since you reject the Bible, and you reject the idea that under no circumstances should a man have authority over a woman without the reverse also being possible, you naturally conclude bias. But who are you to force your BIAS on us? Why should we accept your presuppositions?

My rejection of the Bible as the word of god has no bearing on whether or not it is biased, and I am forcing my claims on no one. I have made a case for male bias of the Bible that originates with its god, these are the facts I have presented and so far they still stand as valid.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." NKJV
-
-
-

[jlay]

Before I go into the direct response to Butter's comments, i think this is important to point out. Gender bias exists and has been a problem in many societies. There are cultures that oppress women. I want to make it clear that I strongly oppose this behavior. And I want to make it equally clear that I do not believe the Bible in any form or fashion supports this. I do believe the Bible does provide distinct family and social roles, and that yes, in many cases men have an inherent authority. I think it is an error to take these distinctions broadly categorize them under the term "Gender bias," and I think this post will help to clarify. Now, to my response.

So, you do agree that the bible says god ordained and sanctioned his laws and rules. One of those laws was the one I quoted in my article that deals with purification and cleansing of a woman after childbirth, where I showed the gender bias in that law. You can try to justify why god gave that law, but you cannot deny that it is biased.

Yes, I agree that the Bible says God ordained and sanctioned His laws and rules. And, I don't have to try to justify it. I simply don't understand all of it. You presume that ritual cleansing is a bad thing. Fine. I don't. And under your use of the word, yes, I can deny it is biased. The reason I can is you make God out to be arbitrary, and this is inherent in your use of the word. Supposing for a moment that the Bible is the actual revelation of God, then can you and I know every purpose for God's decrees? No. If you presume God (the one you don't believe in) is trite, arbitrary and a chauvinist, paired with a 21st century ethic, (And if like most of us, the pop culture has marinated you in.) then of course you arrive at these conclusions. No argument there.

You as a man may say that a billion women believe that men in certain roles (which are what?) should have authority over women, but I challenge you that if each and every one of your billion women was asked if she wants equal human rights...she would say YES! People have authority over others for all sorts of valid reasons, but that is not my point, what I am saying is that the Bible is biased against women for the sole reason of GENDER.

You think that because it is YOUR view, which as I've already shown is laced with certain presuppositions. First of which is that it is wrong, in any form or fashion for man to have authority over a women where the reverse is not allowed. But don't misunderstand the crux of my argument. Every woman and man would want certain rights. No question. But there are plenty of Muslim (and non-Muslim) women who prefer NOT to have equal rights with men. They submit to their religiuos doctrine. Of course this doesn't make it right. But, that is not the point we are arguing. We are arguing this in perspective of the GR, which you claim as objective apart from being sourced outside of man. You say you adhere to it. So, if a woman or women desire to submit to a man, whether it is family order or social order, who are you to violate this and impose your worldview on them? You just assume that surely no rational woman would want something different than yourself. To put it blunt, that is being egotistical. In fact, I'd say it reflects the exact bias you are accusing. That those woman need to SUBMIT to your worldview. I've already challenged you on this and you've failed to offer anything other than question begging and opinion.

My rejection of the Bible as the word of god has no bearing on whether or not it is biased, and I am forcing my claims on no one. I have made a case for male bias of the Bible that originates with its god, these are the facts I have presented and so far they still stand as valid.

No Butter, you've made a fundamental flaw. You have provided your interpretation based on your presuppositions. Now, I suspect that in your own mind you think you are being perfectly rational and objective. I have no problem with you saying, that according to your worldview, it is biased. But, objectively speaking, is it wrong for a woman to want a man to lead, provide, and govern, whether in family, business or elsewhere? In American culture today we have woman who do and don't. Since we are not under a theocracy, I think both can be correct. But, that is a different issue.

You as a man may say that a billion women believe that men in certain roles (which are what?) should have authority over women, but I challenge you that if each and every one of your billion women was asked if she wants equal human rights...

As a married man I can speak only from that perspective. My wife is a strong woman. She is a leader. But she also believes that in our household, I hold a position of authority. And that this authority is divinely ordained. That means in certain situations we may disagree, but she would defer (even if against her WANTS) to my authority. I'm not saying this authority can't be abused. It can, and some often do. But an abuse of authority is not evidence that the authority is wrong in the first place. Of course the Bible dictates some specific rules for these roles, which promote love, selflessness, and respect, and if followed, provide a wonderful ideal for family. And of course strong families are the foundation for any strong society.

Believe it or not, there are a LOT of women who desire for a man to lead, provide, and be the head of a household. They desire it more than those things you desire. And they would be offended if you attempted to undermine the foundations of their worldview. But, even if no women did, it wouldn't determine whether it was right or wrong. Believe it or not, there are women who do not admire Madonna or Lady Gaga and see their so called "empowering" as vile and disgusting and personally offensive to their own moral ethic. My point is not that just because women want something different than you that it is right. The point is to show you that you are presuming bias based on your own subjective morality. You then view the Bible through this lens, and presume there is no way that it isn't bias. You are conflating gender bias (Women making less money for dong the same job, which is wrong.) with the distinctive roles given to men and women in the Bible. And in a sense you are saying that woman should conform to your own worldview. Also, and you are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say deep down, you think these women are stupid, naive or brainwashed. After all, they have to be, because gender bias is a "fact" in the Bible. The problem, is this is based in direct contradiction to the GR. Instead of doing unto others, you are saying, "First, do like me."

This is one of the flaws for holding a subjective view of the GR. Because there are people who think they know best, when they really don't. And of course they could always say, with perfect honesty and rationality, "If I were them, I'd want someone like me telling me what to think and do."

[Butterfly]

Hebrews 8:13, "In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." NKJV

Again you cite OT Law as still in place for today. When Lev 12:1-8 was written, it was written during an ancient time. Please note, there now is no temple and no animals to sacrifices nowadays. A new Covenant of Grace was made that did away with these laws. You are not taking account of the historical reasons as well as the bacterial/viral infections that come through blood borne pathogens.

What you failed to note is this: In the OT, the temple was sprinkled with the blood of ceremonial clean animals to rid the influence of sin upon the Holy Things so people could see what was blocking his or her way to God: sin and reveal the only one and means who would cure sin’s infection. Any other blood brought in by any other means would make the Temple area of that bygone era unclean by any gender. Hmmm Bias – circumcision – ouch!!!

Now that old and obsolete has vanished away. All believers in Christ enter into fellowship with the Holy by the Blood Christ shed as Galatians 3:28 states.

Yes, Paul says that a new covenant is making the old obsolete, but that doesn't change the fact that in the Old Testament God is portrayed as being gender biased. The god of the OT is what the NT was founded on, so if the OT god is biased, so is the NT god. Also, Paul reiterates the reasons why women are not allowed to teach men and must be in subordination to them...based on OT law. So, apparently he didn't think the Old Covenant laws had passed away completely.

1 Tim.2:11-15 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14) and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15) Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

The ceremonial laws you cite as evidence for God being Bias was for an ancient people who knew nothing of infections, spread of disease, etc. So let me remind you of your own premise you stated which was: Hebrew men created a male chauvinist god to justify dominating women. Yet, in your eyes, there is no God – so your beef is that you hate men, period and wish to crush them all. Yes, you are forcing your bias upon those reading your opinions about what makes truth - truth.

The Christian Science cult, Word of Faith movement, and Liberal Theology as well as your life experiences have clouded your mind with biases against the truth.


Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." NKJV
-
-
-

Sorry, no matter how many times you quote my words THAT YOU HAVE TWISTED it's not going to make what you say any more true. It doesn't matter if I do or don't hate men, and if I believe or don't believe in the Biblegod. What I have said remains valid. The Bible portrays a god who ordains and sanctions laws and rules that are gender biased.

For the umpteenth time I will repeat what I have said: the authors of the Bible created a male god who reflected their beliefs of the time period and culture. They did not need to justify dominating women and treating them like property, because they thought that was the normal way of doing things. The same goes for slavery, people of all cultures have seen nothing wrong with slavery, whether or not they believed in a particular god. Again, people don't make up gods to justify their beliefs, rather to REFLECT their beliefs.

You are correct, the NT says there are no differences in races or genders...in Christ. Meaning that all peoples are treated equally when it comes to salvation.

-

[PaulSacramento]

So, what exactly is the issue IF God WAS Gender bias ??

[Butterfly]

Before I go into the direct response to Butter's comments, i think this is important to point out. Gender bias exists and has been a problem in many societies. There are cultures that oppress women. I want to make it clear that I strongly oppose this behavior. And I want to make it equally clear that I do not believe the Bible in any form or fashion supports this. I do believe the Bible does provide distinct family and social roles, and that yes, in many cases men have an inherent authority. I think it is an error to take these distinctions broadly categorize them under the term "Gender bias," and I think this post will help to clarify. Now, to my response.

On one hand you say that you don't believe the Bible supports gender bias, but then on the other hand you say that men have an "inherent" authority. To have an inherent authority men either must be born with it, or given it by God. Which is it? The Bible appears to say that God gave men rulership over women merely because they are men.

Yes, I agree that the Bible says God ordained and sanctioned His laws and rules. And, I don't have to try to justify it. I simply don't understand all of it. You presume that ritual cleansing is a bad thing. Fine. I don't. And under your use of the word, yes, I can deny it is biased. The reason I can is you make God out to be arbitrary, and this is inherent in your use of the word. Supposing for a moment that the Bible is the actual revelation of God, then can you and I know every purpose for God's decrees? No. If you presume God (the one you don't believe in) is trite, arbitrary and a chauvinist, paired with a 21st century ethic, (And if like most of us, the pop culture has marinated you in.) then of course you arrive at these conclusions. No argument there.

No, I do not presume that ritual cleansing is a bad thing. My point is that the ritual purification and cleansing for childbirth is GENDER BIASED, because different lengths of time apply if the baby is female versus male. Please elaborate on how is NOT biased.

I don't assume the Bible is true for the same reasons I don't assume the Koran is true. Before I can assume the Bible is the word of god its god must measure up to certain standards, which he has not.

You think that because it is YOUR view, which as I've already shown is laced with certain presuppositions. First of which is that it is wrong, in any form or fashion for man to have authority over a women where the reverse is not allowed. But don't misunderstand the crux of my argument. Every woman and man would want certain rights. No question. But there are plenty of Muslim (and non-Muslim) women who prefer NOT to have equal rights with men. They submit to their religiuos doctrine. Of course this doesn't make it right. But, that is not the point we are arguing. We are arguing this in perspective of the GR, which you claim as objective apart from being sourced outside of man. You say you adhere to it. So, if a woman or women desire to submit to a man, whether it is family order or social order, who are you to violate this and impose your worldview on them? You just assume that surely no rational woman would want something different than yourself. To put it blunt, that is being egotistical. In fact, I'd say it reflects the exact bias you are accusing. That those woman need to SUBMIT to your worldview. I've already challenged you on this and you've failed to offer anything other than question begging and opinion.

I am not saying it is wrong for people to have authority over others in specific circumstances (like leaders). What I am saying is that it is WRONG for men to have authority over women because of gender. That is the point I am arguing. The god of the Bible gives men authority over women for the sole reason of gender. How many times to I have to repeat that? I don't care if every woman on the planet wants to submit to a man, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is gender biased in favor of the male. That is my point!

No Butter, you've made a fundamental flaw. You have provided your interpretation based on your presuppositions. Now, I suspect that in your own mind you think you are being perfectly rational and objective. I have no problem with you saying, that according to your worldview, it is biased. But, objectively speaking, is it wrong for a woman to want a man to lead, provide, and govern, whether in family, business or elsewhere? In American culture today we have woman who do and don't. Since we are not under a theocracy, I think both can be correct. But, that is a different issue.

As I have said before, women can submit to whomever they choose, but it should be their choice...NOT the mans.

As a married man I can speak only from that perspective. My wife is a strong woman. She is a leader. But she also believes that in our household, I hold a position of authority. And that this authority is divinely ordained. That means in certain situations we may disagree, but she would defer (even if against her WANTS) to my authority. I'm not saying this authority can't be abused. It can, and some often do. But an abuse of authority is not evidence that the authority is wrong in the first place. Of course the Bible dictates some specific rules for these roles, which promote love, selflessness, and respect, and if followed, provide a wonderful ideal for family. And of course strong families are the foundation for any strong society.

If that is what your wife believes and wishes to do I certainly have no problem with her CHOOSING to do that. If she wants to believe that you are the leader merely because you are a male, not because of your qualifications for leadership (in many household women are much better leaders than men), then that is her CHOICE.

In our country we choose leaders based on qualifications, not inherent authority. Shouldn't it be the same for family leadership?

Believe it or not, there are a LOT of women who desire for a man to lead, provide, and be the head of a household. They desire it more than those things you desire. And they would be offended if you attempted to undermine the foundations of their worldview. But, even if no women did, it wouldn't determine whether it was right or wrong. Believe it or not, there are women who do not admire Madonna or Lady Gaga and see their so called "empowering" as vile and disgusting and personally offensive to their own moral ethic. My point is not that just because women want something different than you that it is right. The point is to show you that you are presuming bias based on your own subjective morality. You then view the Bible through this lens, and presume there is no way that it isn't bias. You are conflating gender bias (Women making less money for dong the same job, which is wrong.) with the distinctive roles given to men and women in the Bible. And in a sense you are saying that woman should conform to your own worldview. Also, and you are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say deep down, you think these women are stupid, naive or brainwashed. After all, they have to be, because gender bias is a "fact" in the Bible. The problem, is this is based in direct contradiction to the GR. Instead of doing unto others, you are saying, "First, do like me."

This is one of the flaws for holding a subjective view of the GR. Because there are people who think they know best, when they really don't. And of course they could always say, with perfect honesty and rationality, "If I were them, I'd want someone like me telling me what to think and do."

I am NOT presuming bias based on subjective morality. Quit inserting ideas that are not there. I am stating, based on what the Bible says, that its laws and rules are biased toward the male.

My worldview is that all people should be afforded equal human rights to make the best choice for their lives, not to be told that they must submit to the "inherent" authority of a man.
-