Evidence for God from Science

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.

Why?

PaulSacramento wrote:

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.

Why?

Probably for the same reason you would not want to be told to submit to a woman, for the sole reason of her being a woman.

I say, "Do what I say dude" you say, "why?" I say, "because I'm a woman"

-

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

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.

Why?

Probably for the same reason you would not want to be told to submit to a woman, for the sole reason of her being a woman.

I say, "Do what I say dude" you say, "why?" I say, "because I'm a woman"

-

'
From my readings and interrpretations of the Bible we are to submit to each other, man to woman and woman to man.

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5:21

Butterfly wrote: 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.

Asked and answered. I've said given by God.

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.

That is a loaded question, because, as I've already shown, your 'bias' is to view God and his order as arbitrary.

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.

That doesn't 'measure up." That is like me saying, "for Obama to be president, he must measure up to certain standards. He doesn't,therefore he isn't President. Or, even better, he doesn't exist." In other words, I don't prefer him, therefore he isn't.

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.

But that is just it, you aren't arguing it. You are making platitudes. Wrong? According to what? The GR? I've just gave you an example of how the GR does not work. You never addresses my examples, and you've yet to do anything but just state your opinion.

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

That isn't the issue. The issue, is whether God said it. You say you reject the bible because it is biased AGAINST women. (Of course ignoring the many things for women.) And you say it is wrong because you say so. That is question begging. I can just as easily say you are wrong because I you don't adhere to my moral ethic.

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

Yes, I'm a citizen of the USA. I know how we choose authority. That isn't the question.
For family, I say no. Sadly, we have many men who fail to be the men they ought to be. The American family is weak, weaker than it has ever been. I deal with at-risk children who are fatherless. I could ramble off a good number of statistics on children who grow up in a single parent (female) family. I have no objection to women who step up to do what they have to do when men fail to fulfill their role, but the family suffers. big time.

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.

well, I would challenge you to prove otherwise. You state the rules of the Bible are biased for no other reason than you disagree.

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.

I'm certain that on 99% of rights we would agree. In fact the Bible would agree. Of course you have yet to list these rights or account for their source.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote: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.

That is a loaded question, because, as I've already shown, your 'bias' is to view God and his order as arbitrary.

It's not loaded at all, you just can't answer it because you know I'm right. Whether or not you think God is justified in being bias, does not invalidate my claim that it is.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote: 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.

But that is just it, you aren't arguing it. You are making platitudes. Wrong? According to what? The GR? I've just gave you an example of how the GR does not work. You never addresses my examples, and you've yet to do anything but just state your opinion.

Why do you keep bringing the GR into my argument for gender bias? The GR has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is gender biased toward the male.

jlay wrote:

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

That isn't the issue. The issue, is whether God said it. You say you reject the bible because it is biased AGAINST women. (Of course ignoring the many things for women.) And you say it is wrong because you say so. That is question begging. I can just as easily say you are wrong because I you don't adhere to my moral ethic.

That's right. The issue is whether or not God is gender biased, and I have shown that he is...proving my point. Now, I gather that you think it is okay to be gender biased, because it is biased in your favor, but nevertheless it is still biased.

jlay wrote:

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

Yes, I'm a citizen of the USA. I know how we choose authority. That isn't the question.
For family, I say no. Sadly, we have many men who fail to be the men they ought to be. The American family is weak, weaker than it has ever been. I deal with at-risk children who are fatherless. I could ramble off a good number of statistics on children who grow up in a single parent (female) family. I have no objection to women who step up to do what they have to do when men fail to fulfill their role, but the family suffers. big time.

The same ramblings would hold true for children raised in single parent (male) households. It goes both ways you know.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote: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.

well, I would challenge you to prove otherwise. You state the rules of the Bible are biased for no other reason than you disagree.

No, I state the Bible is biased toward the male because it is, and I have proved it. You have yet to show me otherwise.
-

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote: 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.

Asked and answered. I've said given by God.

Your conclusion of male rulership based on what the Bible says would not hold up in any court of law in this country, merely because the book from which you draw on is biased in your favor, so of coarse you think it is right.
-

Butterfly wrote:No, I state the Bible is biased toward the male because it is, and I have proved it.

Proved it how? I've asked you this before so let me repeat it again in case you missed it. Please provide a universally binding definition of bias that is also applicable in all societies at all times. You do know that you'd have to prove objective morality right? In which case I'm certain you will redirect me to Spock's argument. And in that case I will again ask you and him to define what 'love' is (which evidently your version of objective morality, i.e. the GR, describes) other than to state it's some kind of undefinable primitive something.

Butterfly wrote: Your conclusion of male rulership based on what the Bible says would not hold up in any court of law in this country, merely because the book from which you draw on is biased in your favor, so of coarse you think it is right.
-

You've given no examples. You offered no rights, no source. In this country we have man made laws which afford rights. Are you saying that before slavery was abolished that it was RIGHT because a US court would uphold it?? Butter, when you present an argument, you ought to be willing to follow it to wherever it leads. If you think what a court says or agrees with determines truth, then you have just rejected the GR and now appealed to another authority. And not a good one mind you.

It's not loaded at all, you just can't answer it because you know I'm right. Whether or not you think God is justified in being bias, does not invalidate my claim that it is.

Yes, it's loaded, and I've already said I understand your conclusions. I think they are reasonable based on your worldview and presuppositions. But I also think someone can be reasonable and be wrong.

Why do you keep bringing the GR into my argument for gender bias? The GR has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is gender biased toward the male.

Because your arguments need to be consistent with what you claim as your moral ethic. You can't discard it as you see fit to win an argument. Just as I can't discard the Bible. As a Christian, I am bound to it, and the difficulties we are discussing.

That's right. The issue is whether or not God is gender biased, and I have shown that he is...proving my point. Now, I gather that you think it is okay to be gender biased, because it is biased in your favor, but nevertheless it is still biased.

I don't think it is OK to be gender biased in the sense that you are using the term. I don't think it is right to treat a woman with less rights for no other reason than she is female.

The same ramblings would hold true for children raised in single parent (male) households. It goes both ways you know.

Exactly!! Family is important. Roles in the family are important. The family suffers when either role breaks down. Women have an essential and EQUALLY important role. I see a direct correlation in the decay of the family and the confused gender roles promoted today.
Just as steel and fabric have EQUALLY important roles in making a parachute function. The steel can't do what the fabric does and vice versa. Yet, saying that today in terms of,... say, military infantry, means one is being biased. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

No, I state the Bible is biased toward the male because it is, and I have proved it.

You said a mouthful.
The bible is biased because it is and you say so. Brilliant argument. As I've said as naseum, this is ALL you have proven. You tip toe around the examples that show your error, and can only resort to "because I said so" arguments.
I can do that do. How about a little overt sarcasm. Here is my new argument. Men are superior. You are a women. Therefore, you are wrong. Bam!! Game, set, match.

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:No, I state the Bible is biased toward the male because it is, and I have proved it.

Proved it how? I've asked you this before so let me repeat it again in case you missed it. Please provide a universally binding definition of bias that is also applicable in all societies at all times. You do know that you'd have to prove objective morality right? In which case I'm certain you will redirect me to Spock's argument. And in that case I will again ask you and him to define what 'love' is (which evidently your version of objective morality, i.e. the GR, describes) other than to state it's some kind of undefinable primitive something.

I don't need to appeal to any other argument, especially an argument about OM or the GR.

Here is your definition of Bias:

bi·as/ˈbÄ«əs/
Noun:
Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Verb:
Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

I will post my article again, in which I show that the ritual cleansing and purification laws given by God are biased. If a female baby is born the mother and child are unclean twice as long as when a male baby is born. The time difference is for the sole reason of gender which by the definition is considered biased.

Butterfly wrote: The Bias of the Biblical God

A Good Theory


Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.



The Bias of the Biblical God

To make the statement that the God of the Bible is a just and righteous god, it must be shown that he is not biased, but perfect in all his judgments. This is the premise by which I can disprove the “Just” nature of the Biblegod. To disprove a theory one needs only to find a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory, and in this case I have found many more than one.

I have shown in my article The Male Bias of the Bible how the god described within the pages of the Bible is not only unjust, but also biased. If my argument is valid then the Biblegod cannot be a true creator god because he is not perfect in all his ways. My proof begins with the biblical description of the equality of the male and female who were created by its god. Not only are the male and female created equally in the image of God, but they are also created equally in the manner of flesh and bone.

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



Gen.2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If male and female are created spiritually, and fleshly equal, then any judgment they receive should be based on individual merit and not gender. Yet, over and over again throughout the pages of the Bible it is noted that judgments are meted out based solely on gender. I would like to present my case from the book of Leviticus. In reading through the listed verses it immediately becomes apparent that the sole fact of gender is what determines the length of time for uncleanness and purification after childbirth, and this was a specific command from God.

Lev.12:1-5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days (7 days); according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (33 days); she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days (66 days).

Everyone knows that there is absolutely NO difference in giving birth to a male child verses giving birth to a female child. If because of religious traditions a woman is in need of purification after giving birth to a child, the same exact method would be applicable regardless of the gender of her baby. In the Levitical verses not only is the mother unclean twice as long after giving birth to a female child, but also must undergo a purification period that is twice as long. This is clearly a case of bias based solely on gender. Without the need to list any more verses (of which there are many) our requirement has been met in finding a single observation that disagrees with the theory of the “Unbiased Nature of God”, thus showing that the God of the Bible is unjust, and therefore not perfect. This directly leads to my conclusion that the god described in the Bible is made up from the minds of men who are indeed biased.

A true god must be just and perfect.
The Biblegod is biased.
Therefore the Biblegod is not a true god.

-

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote: Your conclusion of male rulership based on what the Bible says would not hold up in any court of law in this country, merely because the book from which you draw on is biased in your favor, so of coarse you think it is right.
-

You've given no examples. You offered no rights, no source. In this country we have man made laws which afford rights. Are you saying that before slavery was abolished that it was RIGHT because a US court would uphold it?? Butter, when you present an argument, you ought to be willing to follow it to wherever it leads. If you think what a court says or agrees with determines truth, then you have just rejected the GR and now appealed to another authority. And not a good one mind you.

The point I was trying to make is that in a court of law, if the testimony of a witness is based on evidence that is biased in their favor that testimony is thrown out because it is biased. The reason you have no problem with the male bias of the Bible is because it is biased in your favor. I'm sure you love having authority over your wife, where you get to have the final say because you are a man, and you are justified because the God you believe in supports it.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:It's not loaded at all, you just can't answer it because you know I'm right. Whether or not you think God is justified in being bias, does not invalidate my claim that it is.

Yes, it's loaded, and I've already said I understand your conclusions. I think they are reasonable based on your worldview and presuppositions. But I also think someone can be reasonable and be wrong.

My argument is based on the definition of "Bias". I have clearly shown in my article that the God of the Bible is biased.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:Why do you keep bringing the GR into my argument for gender bias? The GR has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is gender biased toward the male.

Because your arguments need to be consistent with what you claim as your moral ethic. You can't discard it as you see fit to win an argument. Just as I can't discard the Bible. As a Christian, I am bound to it, and the difficulties we are discussing.

My argument is about Bias. All I need to show is that the Bible is gender biased, which I have done.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:That's right. The issue is whether or not God is gender biased, and I have shown that he is...proving my point. Now, I gather that you think it is okay to be gender biased, because it is biased in your favor, but nevertheless it is still biased.

I don't think it is OK to be gender biased in the sense that you are using the term. I don't think it is right to treat a woman with less rights for no other reason than she is female.

Thank you
-

Here is a link to a current, short video clip (under 2 min.) from the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, where he talks about masculine leadership in society from a biblical perspective. I would like to get some feedback on this from Christian males. I know jlay is supportive of male headship in the family, so what about male leadership in all of society?
-

Butterfly wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:No, I state the Bible is biased toward the male because it is, and I have proved it.

Proved it how? I've asked you this before so let me repeat it again in case you missed it. Please provide a universally binding definition of bias that is also applicable in all societies at all times. You do know that you'd have to prove objective morality right? In which case I'm certain you will redirect me to Spock's argument. And in that case I will again ask you and him to define what 'love' is (which evidently your version of objective morality, i.e. the GR, describes) other than to state it's some kind of undefinable primitive something.

I don't need to appeal to any other argument, especially an argument about OM or the GR.

Really? In that case your argument is grounded in nothing but your subjective opinion and therefore cannot be binding on anyone but you. But let's continue anyway.

Here is your definition of Bias:

Butterfly wrote:

bi·as/ˈbÄ«əs/
Noun:
Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Verb:
Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

I asked you to prove how this modern day definition applies to all societies for all times. I note you failed to do that. But again, let's just continue.

Butterfly wrote:I will post my article again, in which I show that the ritual cleansing and purification laws given by God are biased. If a female baby is born the mother and child are unclean twice as long as when a male baby is born. The time difference is for the sole reason of gender which by the definition is considered biased.

You're absolutely correct that the reason for the time difference is due to gender. Where you are dead wrong is in the assumption that it was due to bias or that it was the sole reason. Let's keep going.

Butterfly wrote: The Bias of the Biblical God

A Good Theory


Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

Unless of course the basis for the theory is confused or lacks coherence with definitional knowledge. But let's keep going.

Butterfly wrote:The Bias of the Biblical God

To make the statement that the God of the Bible is a just and righteous god, it must be shown that he is not biased, but perfect in all his judgments. This is the premise by which I can disprove the “Just” nature of the Biblegod. To disprove a theory one needs only to find a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory, and in this case I have found many more than one.

I have shown in my article The Male Bias of the Bible how the god described within the pages of the Bible is not only unjust, but also biased. If my argument is valid then the Biblegod cannot be a true creator god because he is not perfect in all his ways. My proof begins with the biblical description of the equality of the male and female who were created by its god. Not only are the male and female created equally in the image of God, but they are also created equally in the manner of flesh and bone.

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



Gen.2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If male and female are created spiritually, and fleshly equal, then any judgment they receive should be based on individual merit and not gender. Yet, over and over again throughout the pages of the Bible it is noted that judgments are meted out based solely on gender. I would like to present my case from the book of Leviticus. In reading through the listed verses it immediately becomes apparent that the sole fact of gender is what determines the length of time for uncleanness and purification after childbirth, and this was a specific command from God.

And here's where your problems lie, first in the false assumption that certain rules or judgments were based on gender, or that gender bias is the sole purpose, something you cannot possibly prove.

Butterfly wrote: Lev.12:1-5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days (7 days); according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (33 days); she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days (66 days).

Everyone knows that there is absolutely NO difference in giving birth to a male child verses giving birth to a female child.

Everyone knows? Really? Where exactly did you show that 4,000 years ago everyone knew there there was no difference in birthing a male and female? Absolutely nowhere.

Butterfly wrote: If because of religious traditions a woman is in need of purification after giving birth to a child, the same exact method would be applicable regardless of the gender of her baby.

Yet another assertion on your part without any proof whatsoever. Either back up your assertions or please do us a favor and refrain from using them. I will show you later why yur assertion is completely unwarranted.

Butterfly wrote:In the Levitical verses not only is the mother unclean twice as long after giving birth to a female child, but also must undergo a purification period that is twice as long. This is clearly a case of bias based solely on gender.

And now we come to the heart of your unproven assertions:

1. that there is gender bias to begin with (which I primarily actually agree with but I contend it is in FAVOR of women, not against them)
2. that gender bias was the sole purpose

Let's tackle 2 first.

I contend that gender bias was NOT the sole reason for the Levitical laws. Other reasons have to do with understanding the culture of the time and why God had chosen Israel to be his people and with whom he made a covenant. Once again, let's start with a basic Christian characteristic of God, i.e. that He is omniscient, He knows the end from before the beginning. He knew before choosing Israel, for what purpose they are being chosen, the bottom line of which is in preparation for the only savior (i.e. Christ). In order for Israel to tacitly accept this role, the laws they were given must not only reflect their norms but also they must prove up to the task, i.e. obedience. Time and again you will see God make a covenant with Israel which they accept for a time to later reject it. And time and again God gives Israel another chance. And again, the purpose was so they can prove (to themselves, not to God) their obedience to the law. Of course, the ultimate lesson from all of this is the utter inability to follow the law and the total dependency of humankind on God to save us but that obviously does not become evident until Christ.

So with the above, your assertion that gender bias as the sole purpose is easily dismissed.

Let's move on to point number 1 and why from my point of view the gender bias displayed (in Leviticus or elsewhere) seemingly against women is nothing of the sort; in fact it is bias in FAVOR of women and their status in Israel.

Granted when one first reads Leviticus 12 they may come away with the idea that God is commanding from a biased position against women. Nothing could be further from the truth when one really understands the reproductive role of women role as God intended it.

Let's begin with explaining what exactly it means for a woman to be unclean. For example, does it refer to a woman's physical body or is it referring to her spiritual state as well? Man and woman were created equal in the image of God so what does it mean when she becomes spiritually unclean? When man and woman join together it is the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan, i.e. the union of bodies and spirits fulfilled in the production of a new creation, a new life that is also in the image of God. When a woman menstruates, it is the equivalent of a loss of potential new life and therefore is considered spiritually unclean (not to be confused with sinfulness). You see God has chosen woman to have the holiest of abilities, the honor of conceiving and baring God's image. When this opportunity is lost, it is seen as a period (no pun intended) of morning, hence she is considered spiritually unclean for having this void because she has experienced a potential 'death' of sorts.

As to why she is considered unclean twice as long when she gives birth to a female child than she does to a male child, if one sees it from the correct prism it ought to be seen as described above, i.e. a woman's holy role of reproduction, and since the child she bore is also female with her own potential for holy reproduction, the void is much greater when giving birth to a female than it is to a male. It is all understood from the perspective of HONORING women and their role in Israel and all of humanity, not for the sole purpose of exacting bias against them.

Amazing what new perspectives one uncovers when one does not import their own biases to scripture.

Butterfly wrote:Without the need to list any more verses (of which there are many) our requirement has been met in finding a single observation that disagrees with the theory of the “Unbiased Nature of God”, thus showing that the God of the Bible is unjust, and therefore not perfect. This directly leads to my conclusion that the god described in the Bible is made up from the minds of men who are indeed biased.

A true god must be just and perfect.
The Biblegod is biased.
Therefore the Biblegod is not a true god.

And as I've shown your conclusions are wrong because you've imported your own modern biases into attempting to understand ancient cultures. It makes no difference how long you've studied something. If you didn't study it properly it's as if you didn't study it at all. That is why the only conclusion we draw from your posts is that you know nothing about the bible.

The point I was trying to make is that in a court of law, if the testimony of a witness is based on evidence that is biased in their favor that testimony is thrown out because it is biased. The reason you have no problem with the male bias of the Bible is because it is biased in your favor. I'm sure you love having authority over your wife, where you get to have the final say because you are a man, and you are justified because the God you believe in supports it.

That is simply a wrong statement, and a little insulting. I take my role as husband with humility and don't appreciate what you imply here. This authority comes with MUCH responsibility. It isn't a one way street.

My argument is about Bias. All I need to show is that the Bible is gender biased, which I have done.

No mam. All you have done is shown that through your feminist worldview that you reject the distinctions laid out in the Bible.
Supposing that the God of the Bible is real. Can you say that there is no valid reason for God decreeing things the way they are? Are you omniscient?
For example. Perhaps the difference in time of purification is strictly related to the fact that the male child is circumcised on the 8th day. Can you prove otherwise? No. Is it possible? Yes. Of course you'd probably say, "Well that is just biased not to circumcize the the females. "

If we just start with the text from Genesis we see that at the minimum, it isn't arbitrary. But the initial order was a result of consequence. To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

jlay wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that in a court of law, if the testimony of a witness is based on evidence that is biased in their favor that testimony is thrown out because it is biased. The reason you have no problem with the male bias of the Bible is because it is biased in your favor. I'm sure you love having authority over your wife, where you get to have the final say because you are a man, and you are justified because the God you believe in supports it.

That is simply a wrong statement, and a little insulting. I take my role as husband with humility and don't appreciate what you imply here. This authority comes with MUCH responsibility. It isn't a one way street.

It doesn't matter how seriously you take your role as a husband, or how much responsibility comes with it, the fact still remains that you claim the role as leader because you are a male and the Bible supports your claim. There are many women in single parent households and two parent households that take the leadership role in the family and do as well or better than men. So the only reason you claim your position as head of the family is because you believe God's bias to be valid. And what about marriages that have no children, why is it suddenly when a woman gets married she needs a man to be her head, when all the time she was single she did just fine?

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:My argument is about Bias. All I need to show is that the Bible is gender biased, which I have done.

No mam. All you have done is shown that through your feminist worldview that you reject the distinctions laid out in the Bible.
Supposing that the God of the Bible is real. Can you say that there is no valid reason for God decreeing things the way they are? Are you omniscient?
For example. Perhaps the difference in time of purification is strictly related to the fact that the male child is circumcised on the 8th day. Can you prove otherwise? No. Is it possible? Yes. Of course you'd probably say, "Well that is just biased not to circumcize the the females. "

What does male circumcision have to do with the cleansing and purification time of the mother? At the most you could apply male circumcision to lessen the time of the babies purification and cleansing, but even that wouldn't really work because circumcision was for a specific covenantal reason...it had nothing to do with purification or cleansing.

The passage in Leviticus specifically says that the time of the mothers cleansing and purification is doubled if she has a female child. That is biased whether or not you think it is justified because of culture.

jlay wrote:If we just start with the text from Genesis we see that at the minimum, it isn't arbitrary. But the initial order was a result of consequence. To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

You say it isn't arbitrary? You mean it's not arbitrary to increase pain in childbirth and cause the man to rule over the woman for the rest of human history because Eve was deceived by a serpent? What in the world does being deceived by a serpent have to do with increasing pain in childbirth and male ruler-ship? For that matter why would anyone put a male in a leadership position when it was the male (Adam) who let the woman (Eve) talk him into eating the forbidden fruit?
-

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

bi·as/ˈbÄ«əs/
Noun:
Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Verb:
Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

I asked you to prove how this modern day definition applies to all societies for all times. I note you failed to do that. But again, let's just continue.

You mean to say the definition of bias has changed?

Byblos wrote:And here's where your problems lie, first in the false assumption that certain rules or judgments were based on gender, or that gender bias is the sole purpose, something you cannot possibly prove.

Butterfly wrote: Lev.12:1-5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days (7 days); according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (33 days); she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days (66 days).

Everyone knows that there is absolutely NO difference in giving birth to a male child verses giving birth to a female child.

Everyone knows? Really? Where exactly did you show that 4,000 years ago everyone knew there there was no difference in birthing a male and female? Absolutely nowhere.

People didn't need to know, because it was God who gave the cleansing and purification laws! Unless you don't believe God actually gave those laws and that they were just made up by men...

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote: If because of religious traditions a woman is in need of purification after giving birth to a child, the same exact method would be applicable regardless of the gender of her baby.

Yet another assertion on your part without any proof whatsoever. Either back up your assertions or please do us a favor and refrain from using them. I will show you later why yur assertion is completely unwarranted.

It's not an assertion. It is a fact. There is no difference in giving birth to a female baby versus giving birth to a male baby.

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:In the Levitical verses not only is the mother unclean twice as long after giving birth to a female child, but also must undergo a purification period that is twice as long. This is clearly a case of bias based solely on gender.

And now we come to the heart of your unproven assertions:

1. that there is gender bias to begin with (which I primarily actually agree with but I contend it is in FAVOR of women, not against them)
2. that gender bias was the sole purpose

Let's tackle 2 first.

I contend that gender bias was NOT the sole reason for the Levitical laws. Other reasons have to do with understanding the culture of the time and why God had chosen Israel to be his people and with whom he made a covenant. Once again, let's start with a basic Christian characteristic of God, i.e. that He is omniscient, He knows the end from before the beginning. He knew before choosing Israel, for what purpose they are being chosen, the bottom line of which is in preparation for the only savior (i.e. Christ). In order for Israel to tacitly accept this role, the laws they were given must not only reflect their norms but also they must prove up to the task, i.e. obedience. Time and again you will see God make a covenant with Israel which they accept for a time to later reject it. And time and again God gives Israel another chance. And again, the purpose was so they can prove (to themselves, not to God) their obedience to the law. Of course, the ultimate lesson from all of this is the utter inability to follow the law and the total dependency of humankind on God to save us but that obviously does not become evident until Christ.

So with the above, your assertion that gender bias as the sole purpose is easily dismissed.

You are being "sneeky" and trying to invalidate my argument because you say gender bias wasn't the "sole" purpose, when what I really said was that the BIAS ITSELF WAS BASED SOLELY ON GENDER. I have clearly shown that there is Bias and that Bias is based solely on gender.

Byblos wrote:Let's move on to point number 1 and why from my point of view the gender bias displayed (in Leviticus or elsewhere) seemingly against women is nothing of the sort; in fact it is bias in FAVOR of women and their status in Israel.

Granted when one first reads Leviticus 12 they may come away with the idea that God is commanding from a biased position against women. Nothing could be further from the truth when one really understands the reproductive role of women role as God intended it.

Let's begin with explaining what exactly it means for a woman to be unclean. For example, does it refer to a woman's physical body or is it referring to her spiritual state as well? Man and woman were created equal in the image of God so what does it mean when she becomes spiritually unclean? When man and woman join together it is the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan, i.e. the union of bodies and spirits fulfilled in the production of a new creation, a new life that is also in the image of God. When a woman menstruates, it is the equivalent of a loss of potential new life and therefore is considered spiritually unclean (not to be confused with sinfulness). You see God has chosen woman to have the holiest of abilities, the honor of conceiving and baring God's image. When this opportunity is lost, it is seen as a period (no pun intended) of morning, hence she is considered spiritually unclean for having this void because she has experienced a potential 'death' of sorts.

As to why she is considered unclean twice as long when she gives birth to a female child than she does to a male child, if one sees it from the correct prism it ought to be seen as described above, i.e. a woman's holy role of reproduction, and since the child she bore is also female with her own potential for holy reproduction, the void is much greater when giving birth to a female than it is to a male. It is all understood from the perspective of HONORING women and their role in Israel and all of humanity, not for the sole purpose of exacting bias against them.

Amazing what new perspectives one uncovers when one does not import their own biases to scripture.

It's fine to try and look at Scripture from a new perspective, but that does nothing to invalidate my argument for Bias in the Bible.

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:Without the need to list any more verses (of which there are many) our requirement has been met in finding a single observation that disagrees with the theory of the “Unbiased Nature of God”, thus showing that the God of the Bible is unjust, and therefore not perfect. This directly leads to my conclusion that the god described in the Bible is made up from the minds of men who are indeed biased.

A true god must be just and perfect.
The Biblegod is biased.
Therefore the Biblegod is not a true god.

And as I've shown your conclusions are wrong because you've imported your own modern biases into attempting to understand ancient cultures. It makes no difference how long you've studied something. If you didn't study it properly it's as if you didn't study it at all. That is why the only conclusion we draw from your posts is that you know nothing about the bible.

My argument has nothing to do with understanding ancient cultures. My argument is solely based on the claims of the Bible and its laws which are purported to by given by its god. I have shown that the laws contained in the Bible are biased and the bias is based on gender.

-