Is the Bible sexist?

[cipherdecoy]

Well, is it? I don't see how it can't be.

[cipherdecoy]

Oh, darn! Wrong thread

Edit: Wrong board

[blazeofglory]

Prove with your facts.


Well, is it? I don't see how it can't be.

Documnet it with examples and I will take it.

[Dark Muse]

Though the Bible can be judged as sexist to modern standards, you have to look at it in context when it was written. I do not agree with the Bible nor many of the things expressed within it. But I dislike it when people try to judge history based on modern ideals. The Bible is sexist because there was a time when all of history, was sexist. Pick up any ancient piece of literature and you are bond to find something sexist in it. That is just the way people as a whole thought.

It does not make it right, it does not mean I agree with the views they had, or the things they done. But as much as I am person the most unlikely person to say this, I have to know, in this case you cannot just point to the Bible as being the bad guy. It is not fair to point it out exclusively.

So yes, the Bible was sexist, but than again, at that time, so was pretty much the whole world.

[Scheherazade]

So yes, the Bible was sexist, but than again, at that time, so was pretty much the whole world."was"? I wish!

:rolleyes:

[JBI]

Though the Bible can be judged as sexist to modern standards, you have to look at it in context when it was written. I do not agree with the Bible nor many of the things expressed within it. But I dislike it when people try to judge history based on modern ideals. The Bible is sexist because there was a time when all of history, was sexist. Pick up any ancient piece of literature and you are bond to find something sexist in it. That is just the way people as a whole thought.

It does not make it right, it does not mean I agree with the views they had, or the things they done. But as much as I am person the most unlikely person to say this, I have to know, in this case you cannot just point to the Bible as being the bad guy. It is not fair to point it out exclusively.

So yes, the Bible was sexist, but than again, at that time, so was pretty much the whole world.

You'd be surprised; there were actually some societies in the world at that time that favored women over men. For the most part the world was "sexist" by our standards, and that is apparent in the Bible.

The problem is not, however, the historical context, but rather the contemporary relevance of the text. If it was almost any other book, we could dismiss the sexism as a product of the time, but for many readers, the Bible is the word of God, and therefore cannot be dismissed as such, because God is deemed "perfect" and therefore everything in the book is relevant to our society, and expresses his precise wish on the people of the world.

Because of this, the Bible shifts from its position as an old book to a problematic book. If one believes in the book, it is impossible to ignore the messages of misogyny as such, and to accept the book as a historical work, and not a contemporary guidebook/self-help book/"inspirational book".

The proper question, if we were to really take this argument beyond personal beliefs, would be, "If god exists, and the Bible is his exact words and will, is he:p sexist."

That negates the problem of belief, and focuses on the fact that the book cannot be read as regular literature by everyone.

[Dark Muse]

You'd be surprised; there were actually some societies in the world at that time that favored women over men. For the most part the world was "sexist" by our standards, and that is apparent in the Bible.

Yes I am aware that there were some expceptions which is way I had said


pretty much the whole world.

As so not to be all inclucisve as to say the entire world was. But most of it.

[dzebra]

Are you defining the word as being "discriminatory based on gender," or "the view that one gender is inferior?"

I have found both definitions in various places. If the former is the definition, then nature itself is sexist, since it discriminates against men by not allowing them to give birth. Nature discriminates against women by giving them a physically weaker build on average. I view that definition of sexism to be flawed because different genders have different strengths suited for different functions, so naturally there will be discrimination based on the natures of human genders.

If using the second definition of sexism, then I think the Bible is not sexist. Sure, there are stories of people being oppressed, but these are not presented as instruction. Jesus did not present the view that either gender is better than the other. He did emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of both genders, though, but I don't see that as sexism.

[mtpspur]

I have the conviction that you can prove anything you like out of the Bible if you mix/match and twist the scriptures enough. Personally I find the creation of Eve as coming out of Adam a great honor to women since they are one step removed from the earth Adam was made of. The resurrected Christ first appears to a woman he addresses by name. Just to name two instances of women being signled out--not to mention the widow's mite.

[Statistic]

Of course the Bible is sexist against women. But I would ask, is such sexism unwarranted? Based on a recent epiphany, I have deduced that most women are inferior to men and therefore must be handled differently than men. So women are not man's equal, because they require special care.

My basis for this point is that women are a) physically weaker than men and b) less emotionally stable than men due to hormones. They are less capable of individual survival and therefore inferior to men.

[idiosynchrissy]

IMO, yes.

[Bakiryu]

Of course the Bible is sexist against women. But I would ask, is such sexism unwarranted? Based on a recent epiphany, I have deduced that most women are inferior to men and therefore must be handled differently than men. So women are not man's equal, because they require special care.

My basis for this point is that women are a) physically weaker than men and b) less emotionally stable than men due to hormones. They are less capable of individual survival and therefore inferior to men.

excuse me? i don't see ANY men giving birth to live young. How are women weaker than men when they can be brave enough to do this?

And less capable of individual survival? Most men would wear their socks in their arms if they didn't have women around.

And women don't really require special care, that's just societal conditioning.

[JBI]

Statistically, actually, the female body is not built the same way as the male's, and anatomically female bodies seem designed to ease birthing, and not for field labor. In truth, there are women who are stronger than most men, but on the average, the male physical body is stronger, and has longer endurance than the female.

This however, means nothing, since it is women who have the ability to give birth, which more than compensates, if such a thing is necessary, and if such an argument can even seem logical. In truth though, in today's society, women are at no disadvantage in the vast majority of sectors, and in almost every physical task, with the exception of a few extremely difficult ones, such as professional athleticism.

That being said, I will disagree that women are less emotionally stable. I would think the opposite, as women seem to have endured things, and do endure things, far worse than men, and have complained far less.

That being said, societal goals and values reflect the perception of what is "female". This varies from place to place, and in some cultures women perhaps can be viewed as "emotionally weak" or in others can be viewed as the rock foundation of society.

[Dark Muse]

JBI just have to say, you have managed to form into words, the thoughts that had been bouncing around in my head but I was unable to try and orginize in an intelligent response. But yes, I agree with you, and could not have said it better myself.

[curlyqlink]

Though the Bible can be judged as sexist to modern standards, you have to look at it in context when it was written.
I sympathize with your argument, and it drives me nuts when someone condemns say a nineteenth-century novel because it doesn't jive with present-day social standards.

However, it seems to me the Bible is a special case. First, it is commonly used as a moral guide. It's a big problem then if its ethics are dated and unenlightened.

Also, I'm currently reading Ovid's Metamorphoses, and it's striking to me just what a prominent voice women are given in these ancient myths. It seems to me it would be as difficult to accuse Ovid of sexism as it is to absolve the Bible of sexism. The Bible's tone is stern and moralistic, it seems very much the product of a culture that valued adherence to the Law, of a people who were habituated to obeying a single, and male, leader.

The Bible is (thankfully) not the sole voice of the ancient world.

[DeadAsDreams]

Every civilization back then was a patriarchal society which means that men back then were much more powerful than women.

I havent really detected any overtly sexist tones about the bible, but many of the people who wrote it, and indeed every man at that time would be considered sexist now.

However its like condeming someone in the 18th century for using the N word. Its just the way things were back then.

[JBI]

Like I mentioned before, not every society was "sexist" if such a term can be applied. Take for instance earlier Ojibwa customs, where women were given control of the distribution of food, and were therefore responsible for every major decision, and needed to be consulted on such "masculine" things as war, where it was women who decided whether or not to provide the provisions for such adventures/misadventures.

In truth, the way society sees women cannot even be broken down to feminist/not-feminist as no culture is really the same. pre-Confucian Chinese culture, for instance, generated numerous sexual manuals for men to read on how to properly make women have multiple orgasms. Such practices would probably be viewed by women of our age as "feminist" yet when put into context, it can be also read as an ego thing for men, which creates more trouble.

The real dialectic seems to be between MOST WESTERN MEN and MOST WESTERN WOMEN since Feminism as relates to the Bible is a Western construct.

Something like Lot's wife (I don't know how you spell the name in English, please forgive me if it is spelled differently) can be viewed as misogynist in many ways. Firstly, she has no given name, and is simply called Lot's Wife. Second, it is she who breaks down, when everyone else obeys god, and doesn't look back. Thirdly, it is she who cares what happens behind her, showing her sentimentality with that which is terrible in the eyes of God, and perhaps her greed and dismay at having lost her house.

The Bible therefore can be viewed as saying those things about women in general, that they are a) not worthy of names, b) not as brave as their male counterparts, and c) are greedier, and think more about material possessions.

Of course, such a thing can be refuted pretty easily, but it is quite possible to do this sort of thing with almost every part of the Bible, and come up with the same results.

Another critic could call the Bible being racist at this point, by pointing out that it is the person from Sodom who actually looks back, and not Lot, or his Children, who come from a "purer" (I use the term for rhetorical purposes, I personally don't believe in any form of blood purity, much less that the story happened) stock, and therefore didn't care what happened to said evil.

There are a million possibilities with the way we read the Bible, depending on the way we see the Bible. The way we see the world is also a major contributing factor.

[wilbur lim]

I do not realize that the Bible is sexy,it is religious and vital.

[blazeofglory]

The bible is written by not God, and it was written by man and there are characters in the bible, and of course all of them are ordinary characters and not distinct from you and me. As such we can surmise that the bible is not devoid of sex. Sex is something par of life, and why not par of religion, and why should er denigrate it or go against it. There were mistakes on the part of some popes or clergymen to despise sex, and women in religious matters.

There are life like characters in the bible. We across everyday reality in the bible and as such no questions arise therein to say that it is without sex.

We misconstrue sex matters and wrongly educate children on this issue. Take this issue impartially, and study it with no preoccupation.

[cipherdecoy]

Prove with your facts.



Documnet it with examples and I will take it.

Ephesians 5:22 - 25
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

And so much more. I got all those from a site by the way, since I'm too lazy to plough through the Bible, but I do remember reading things along those lines.

[togre]

Keep reading in Ephesians 5. How is the husband supposed to act? He is supposed act like Christ himself, who gave his very life for the sake of his Bride, the Church.

[kiki1982]

Well, difficult question...

Sexism is thinking that one sex (i.e. women) is inferior.
There is a lot of 'submission' going on in the Bible, but there is also a lot of respect demanded. Which does mean, that maybe women were looked at as weaker than their husbands, but that didn't rally mean that husbands could hit them, see them as less valuable than them, commit adultery (not even by looking!), and all tose things that come with sexism.

I am not sure that the Bible actually preaches sexism in itself, as it always balances the 'submission' from the one party with love from the other.

In the letter to the Ephesians, chapter 5, that was stated as an example, it doesn't only say:


Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord; for the man is the head of the woman, just as Christ also is the head of the Church. Christ is, indeed, the Savour of the body; but just as the Church is subject to Christ, so must women be to their husbands in everything.

According to Collins Dictionary, 'subject' or 'submit' (as used below) can mean either 'to yield to a superior force' or 'to refer or accede for a decision/judgement'. It can also mean, I admit, 'to be under', but that is not the only meaning the word has. And then it is to be seen what the word in Hebrew was, because that's another issue...

Furthermore, the verses were taken out of context (again), because guess what it says afterwards:


Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for it, to concecrate it, cleansing it by water and word, so that he might, present the church to himself as glorious with no stain or wrinkle or anything of the sort, but holy and without blemish. In the same way men also are bound to love their wives, as they love their own bodies. In loving his wife a man loves himself. For no one even hated his own body: on the contrary, he provides and cares for it; and that is how Christ treats the church, because it is is body, of which we are living parts. Thus it is that (in the words of Scripture) 'a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. It is a great truth that is hidden here. I for my part refer it to Christ and to the church, but it applies also individually: each of you must love his wife as his very self; and the woman must see to it that she pays her husband all respect.

So a woman needs to respect her husband (naturally) but in turn, he needs to love her as his own flesh: look after her, care for her, even give his life up for her, if necessary... I don't think that is sexist at all, actually.
Sexists like to refer to the Bible because it is easy to ul things out of context and to interpret/translate things differently.
It is humans who have made society sexist and not the Bible, although men often took it as a reference. If anything the Bible preaches respect for women, something that is not enough addressed.

[blazeofglory]

Ephesians 5:22 - 25
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

And so much more. I got all those from a site by the way, since I'm too lazy to plough through the Bible, but I do remember reading things along those lines.

You have quoted wonderful lines all full of meanings and substances as a matter of fact. This is what exactly the bible is. Imagine how women were ill treated, and it happens with most books of religions. It is unpalatable to many despite the fact that they are quotes from the holy book.

[cipherdecoy]

You have quoted wonderful lines all full of meanings and substances as a matter of fact. This is what exactly the bible is. Imagine how women were ill treated, and it happens with most books of religions. It is unpalatable to many despite the fact that they are quotes from the holy book.

I don't see what is so "wonderful" about those lines.

You asked me to prove the sexism of the Bible with facts and that you will take it if I document it with examples. I have, but you haven't proved it to be otherwise

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

If the submission of wives to husbands "is fit in the Lord", it implies that He is favouring the dominance of men over women, and sexism is inherent in that.

Cheers :)

[kiki1982]

Both I and Togre gave some fantastic advice: read on. Reading the Bible is so difficult if you don't pay attention. People study this kind of thing for years...

Only the word 'submit' can have a lot of meanings, and then it's only the translation, because your translation was different to mine...

It is easy to see those verses as sexist, but if you just pay more attention to the whole thing and not to one verse on its own then you might get a lot further. A verse is not a sentence on its own, it's a piece of a text. So the whole text should be read in stead of only the sentence.

If you read the newspaper, you don't only read one sentence in it, do you? If you read a book, you read the whole book and you don't pull sentences in it out of context. Don't do that with this either...

[DeadAsDreams]

I don't see what is so "wonderful" about those lines.

You asked me to prove the sexism of the Bible with facts and that you will take it if I document it with examples. I have, but you haven't proved it to be otherwise

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

If the submission of wives to husbands "is fit in the Lord", it implies that He is favouring the dominance of men over women, and sexism is inherent in that.

Cheers :)

You're are taking that out of context and not looking at the verses around it. I could say lots of things that would be contrary to the message of the bible by using verses independently of each other.

For instance that passage goes on to say "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19

Then theres this; "Husbands love your wives, just as Chirst loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, jast as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Ephesians 5 25-31

Basically this means that the husband should be head of the house but he should love and protect his wife. They should become one. Believe it or not but Men and Women were made differently. However, they compliment each other. A Husband is supposed to protect and provide for his family. Women are supposed to love their husband and support him.

But seriously, have you or blaze of glory even read the bible? Or, are ya'll just pulling random lines of scripture from websites? The bible is quite possibly the most complicated book known to man and is impossible to be judged with such little knowledge.

[JBI]

Both I and Togre gave some fantastic advice: read on. Reading the Bible is so difficult if you don't pay attention. People study this kind of thing for years...

Only the word 'submit' can have a lot of meanings, and then it's only the translation, because your translation was different to mine...

It is easy to see those verses as sexist, but if you just pay more attention to the whole thing and not to one verse on its own then you might get a lot further. A verse is not a sentence on its own, it's a piece of a text. So the whole text should be read in stead of only the sentence.

If you read the newspaper, you don't only read one sentence in it, do you? If you read a book, you read the whole book and you don't pull sentences in it out of context. Don't do that with this either...

Translation just matters if you follow the book. If, for instance, you are a member of a church who uses exclusively the KJV, then that book becomes the primary, and the study of the original ceases to be important. It doesn't necessarily make the original sexist (though the original, in this case, is a sexist book) but merely creates a new text taken as the "new" word of god.

[Pendragon]

Depends on your point of view. Had it been written by another culture, it might have been considered wrong for another reason. For example, had it been written in Nazi Germany, it would undoubtedly been racism and especially Antisemitism that would drive it. It is a product of a culture. God inspiring man to write will still mean that unless told word for word a slant will be put on things.

[blazeofglory]

I don't see what is so "wonderful" about those lines.

You asked me to prove the sexism of the Bible with facts and that you will take it if I document it with examples. I have, but you haven't proved it to be otherwise

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

If the submission of wives to husbands "is fit in the Lord", it implies that He is favouring the dominance of men over women, and sexism is inherent in that.

Cheers :)

What I really saw wonderful about them is these lines documents why there are cases of voluptuous things in the Bible. Indeed some chapters in the bible have things or ideas that help us and in others they are full of things that are not exemplary, something that elevate our minds and cleanse us of impurities in us.


Depends on your point of view. Had it been written by another culture, it might have been considered wrong for another reason. For example, had it been written in Nazi Germany, it would undoubtedly been racism and especially Antisemitism that would drive it. It is a product of a culture. God inspiring man to write will still mean that unless told word for word a slant will be put on things.

It is a product of a culture and all cultures are not benevolently helping man kind, and things as such mislead people ultimately.

[cipherdecoy]

For instance that passage goes on to say "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19


A man can love his wife and still be sexist.



Basically this means that the husband should be head of the house but he should love and protect his wife. They should become one. Believe it or not but Men and Women were made differently. However, they compliment each other. A Husband is supposed to protect and provide for his family. Women are supposed to love their husband and support him.

Why do women have to play the supportive role, and the men, the dominant role? Doesn't the fact that a husband should be the head of the house suggest a kind of sexist dominance? Men and women complement each other, but according to the Bible it seems that the woman is a mere appendage to the man.



But seriously, have you or blaze of glory even read the bible? Or, are ya'll just pulling random lines of scripture from websites? The bible is quite possibly the most complicated book known to man and is impossible to be judged with such little knowledge.

Honestly, I haven't read the whole of the Bible. But I think the quotations that I have listed are pretty much self-explanatory. I can't see how those lines are not sexist, and even if the Bible contains other lines that contradict them, they certainly wouldn't negate the sexism that I believe exists in the lines I've quoted. Why should contradictions even exist in a book held in so high an esteem? In any case though, those are only my opinions and I've created this thread in the hope that my question can be answered.

[subterranean]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Sexist: adjective 1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising. Noun 2. a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.

American Heritage Dictionary
Sexism:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.


I see differentiation of roles, not discrimination. How does the act of submission towards a husband is seen as a sexist act while, at the same time, a husband will love his wife as his own body?

As Matthew said, ''for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'

[JBI]

After Hillary Clinton's convincing win in Pennsylvania's April 2008 Democratic primary, About.com Guest Commentator Jack Kerwick posed some thought-provoking questions about the New York Senator's religious convictions and how she reconciles them with her feminist ideals.


Hilary isn't even that big a feminist. If I recall correctly, she turned down being on the cover of Vogue magazine, because she thought the picture would make her appear to "feminine". How feminist is that - not wanting to appeal to people reading women's magazines.

Pendragon, you know as well as I that it ceased to be normal literature, when it transcended from fiction to perceived truth. Scripture cannot be left alone, unless you decide to ignore its truth. If however, you consider it truth, you must question its politics.

We cannot view the book as a literary work if we choose to interpret it as being more than that, I.E. the word of god. The book, if it is accepted as a center of truth, must then be considered to be of our time period, and therefore subject to our own political, sociological, and aesthetic criticisms.

[Redzeppelin]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Sexist: adjective 1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising. Noun 2. a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.

American Heritage Dictionary
Sexism:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.


I see differentiation of roles, not discrimination. How does the act of submission towards a husband is seen as a sexist act while, at the same time, a husband will love his wife as his own body?

As Matthew said, ''for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'

Well said.

The phrase "made in God's image" suggests that males and females equally possess attributes of God. In fact, many theologians would suggest that the division of gender we call "masculine" and "feminine" are the qualities of God distributed between our genders. Part of the problem we struggle with is the idea that the individual who "leads" is somehow more important than the individual who supports. The idea that the team captain is more important than the team, or the boss more important than his/her staff is silly - they both need each other to achieve. And, leadership is overrated. With it comes numerous headaches and stresses. We pretend our head is the most important part of our body - maybe; wait until you get an attack of gout in your big toe - suddenly it becomes a very important body part, too.

I think the problem is our perception of power, leadership, and submission. Human relationships are all about power - but God is not about power: Christ - He who created all - bent down and washed the feet of human beings; He did the job assigned to the lowliest human servant to teach us what God is like. I think the Bible appears "sexist" because human beings cannot conceive of a relationship without some sort of power dynamic. As such, whoever gets asked to submit (which is both genders, by the way, if you read Ephesians 5 from beginning to end) appears to us to be "weak" and worthy of less admiration/respect. From God's point of view that's silly - because God - who deserves the most respect for His unlimited power - had no problem laying aside that power for the higher purpose of saving humanity. We ascribe value to power - but that's our take on gender, not God's. Besides, women don't need to be in "power positions" to be powerful: their approval is so powerful that men will do almost anything to get it. Trust me when I say that a woman does not need to be a CEO to influence me to wish to serve her and make her happy. All she need do is let me know that she respects me and thinks I'm pretty special. At that point, I'll do anything she wants :D

[Pendragon]

Pendragon, you know as well as I that it ceased to be normal literature, when it transcended from fiction to perceived truth. Scripture cannot be left alone, unless you decide to ignore its truth. If however, you consider it truth, you must question its politics.

We cannot view the book as a literary work if we choose to interpret it as being more than that, I.E. the word of god. The book, if it is accepted as a center of truth, must then be considered to be of our time period, and therefore subject to our own political, sociological, and aesthetic criticisms.
No. It is the Word of God, but there are things that simply do not apply to modern age. Do you feel the urge to go dig a hole and cover it when you defecate? No. But there was good reason then, in that culture. I have seen too much as a minister of some 25+ years to know the truth of what Jesus said about everyone that cries "Lord, Lord". They can out quote me, they know more church history, but can they do what He said do without slanting it their way? I image a few can, few and far between. I know one Brother out of all I know living that I trust with few questions. Why? He lives it every day without fail. I come short so much I sometimes wonder about myself!

Seriously, write the Holy Scripture even today in various countries and see the various slants they take/ I have an Amplified Bible, and founding fathers can't agree on Greek and Hebrew meanings. Some say this and some that. What does my heart say after much prayer is what I go with.

God Bless

[shekinah]

Ephesians 5:33, However, each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

[Cellar Door]

I do indeed find the Bible to be sexist - however, one must take in context the time period in which it was written. Women were summarily treated as the exclusive property of some man, be it husband or father. For the Bible to be written any other way, people of that time period would have no ability to understand it. I do not think it is the written word of God, because it is too phallocentric. However, I will concede the possibility of the word of God as seen through man's eyes, and ears.

[Bitterfly]

Personally I find the creation of Eve as coming out of Adam a great honor to women since they are one step removed from the earth Adam was made of.

I am sorry??? An honour for Eve?? :lol: Are you forgetting that her birth, as decribed in Genesis, goes against "natural law": men are born from women normally, dear. :)
I would say the Bible is sexist if only because of this, in fact.
And then you have St Paul, whom I can't abide. :sick:

As for Christ, that's a different matter. He seems to have been rather a feminist, actually (asking for adulterous women not to be stoned, picking female followers - even though the apostles were all men - appearing first to women when he was ressuscitated - if I remember well though, this counted for nothing since women could not be witnesses...).

[cipherdecoy]

Hmm. I don't see how the time in which the Bible was written would be an extenuating factor for its sexism. People were undoubtedly more sexist then than now, and I think no amount of understanding of their beliefs and what shaped them would negate the sexism of the Bible. Just because sexism was a norm doesn't make the Bible any less sexist, does it?

If that makes any sense.

[JBI]

Ok, lets get into scripture then, since we cannot agree on approaches. Take your pick, throw out whatever, this sentence seems to sum it up. From The King James Version, the book of Genesis

16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There you have it - god decrees that women should be the slaves of men. Interpret however you want, but the beginning of Genesis alone, 10 or so sentences after woman is created already displays the "word of god" telling us that women are to be less than men.

Try to wiggle out of that one deniers. Face it, the Bible, as seen by today, is clearly misogynist.

[carino]

I have read the comments made and found all of them valid and have reached the conclusion that the Bible is sexist. Some Christians have told me that God created women to serve man (especially men) and they point to some of the scriptures to prove their point. Can anyone tell me how most Religions view women in general and whether their views reflect what is in the Bible. I don't post often and consider myself uninformed when it comes to Religion but I have often wondered why certain faiths cherry pick the Bible.

Thank you for your views and opinions on this subject.

[Drkshadow03]

Ok, lets get into scripture then, since we cannot agree on approaches. Take your pick, throw out whatever, this sentence seems to sum it up. From The King James Version, the book of Genesis

16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There you have it - god decrees that women should be the slaves of men. Interpret however you want, but the beginning of Genesis alone, 10 or so sentences after woman is created already displays the "word of god" telling us that women are to be less than men.

Try to wiggle out of that one deniers. Face it, the Bible, as seen by today, is clearly misogynist.

So you're argument is basically that "the Bible, as seen by today, is clearly misogynist" by quoting a translation first published in the 1600s. Now I'm not an expert on all the various Christian denominations, but does anyone even use the KJV bible as their authoritative text anymore? I'm sure some must, but the majority of Christians?

A scholar named Carol Meyer feels the way most Bibles translate Genesis 3:16 is wrong and inaccurate, not to mention disregarding the larger historical context, which helps focus on how we should read it. Carol Meyers translates the beginning of the verse:

"I will greatly increase your work and your pregnancies. Along with work you shall give birth to children."

Basically this translation should be read as a matter of fact statement of the consequences that will naturally occur to now that they are leaving the fruitful Garden of Eden. The statement works in relation to Adam's "curse" of fallow ground. Women will be responsible for both child-production and to work in the subsistence economy. Not as a punishment, but to eat and not die. As many commentators both religious and secular have pointed out the only one who is never cursed (the words are never used) is Eve.

The second half has a similar function. It's a matter-of-fact statement of women's existence in Ancient Israel life. It's a fact of life that women in the Ancient world often died in child-birth. Basically the statement is saying when read in context, even though, you may die from getting pregnant, you'll still have the urge to sleep with your husband and get pregnant, despite knowing it may in fact kill you.

In this regard, you can read the "rule over you" metaphorically as your sexual desires for him will rule over you (you won't be able to control your urges), or you can also read it as Marc Zvi Brettler does: "men will determine when couples engage in sexual intercourse."

Now certainly the last is marginally sexist, but I would hardly say G-d is decreeing women should be the slaves of men unless you're engaging in a complete misreading or you're a fundamentalist Strawman Christian. :D

But really I don't see the big deal. If the Christians here want to think of their Bible as encouraging equality (even if it doesn't), isn't that actually a good thing that they've found a way to read the Bible that works for them and promotes equality?

[JBI]

Don't play with authoritative texts - I use the Hebrew, but who here can understand it here but me? It says roughly the same thing. And yes, there are sects who still use the King James Version, or some variant of it. My bilingual copy, with copies of Rashi, and other scholars seems to echo my interpretation. Rashi seems to dwell more on the pains of childbirth, in response to the pru oorvoo blessing god has bestowed on them (be fruitful and multiply). He seems to note that God refers to childbirth as a blessing, yet here is doing something else. He seems to interpret it as god not punishing Eve, as she has already been punished, being female, and therefore is made to suffer. The translation of the last clause in the last line can be nothing but to the effect of "he will rule over you" or something along those lines.

Commentary seems to say the opposite of what you have said, pointing out that Eve doesn't receive a curse, but Adam does, being that now he must work for everything he wants, and must slave to survive, rather than be provided for.

Your interpretation seems to ignore the fact that god already gave them the blessing of fruitfulness. They already were destined for procreation. God merely seems to smirk at Eve, because now she realizes what she is - a woman, and not a man, and therefore - according to the book - subject to her husband's will.

[Drkshadow03]

Don't play with authoritative texts - I use the Hebrew, but who here can understand it here but me? It says roughly the same thing. And yes, there are sects who still use the King James Version, or some variant of it.

::shrugs:: So do you disagree with Carol Meyer's rendering or not?

Almost every Biblical scholar I have ever read who deals with Genesis makes references to Carol Meyers; there seems to be large agreement for her version. Keep in mind they all can read the Hebrew just as fluently as you can. Reading a commentary from my Hebrew version edited by Dr. J.H. Hertz, Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire he writes in a footnote to the Hebrew Genesis 3:16:

"This is no sentence upon the woman. It does not contain the term 'cursed'. Moreover, G-d himself pronounced the fruitfulness of man a blessing (I, 28), nd therewith woman's pain and travail are inextricably bound up, being part of woman's physical being. The words addressed to the woman are therefore parenthetical, and signify in effect: 'Thee I need not punish. A sufficiency of woe and suffering is thine because of thy physical being'.

In spite of the pangs of travail, the longing for motherhood remains the most powerful instinct in woman."

Why, by golly, that sounds an awful lot what I and Carol Meyers and the secular scholars say. Who would've thunk it!



Your interpretation seems to ignore the fact that god already gave them the blessing of fruitfulness. They already were destined for procreation. God merely seems to smirk at Eve, because now she realizes what she is - a woman, and not a man, and therefore - according to the book - subject to her husband's will.

Your response seems to ignore the fact that most scholars agree that Genesis 1 is a completely separate story/unit from 2 and 3, which is where the fruitful line occurs. It may have even had completely different authors. In fact one theory suggests Genesis 2 and 3 are the more primitive stories. With that said, the blessing of fruitfulness technically happens in a completely different story that is unrelated at least as far as narrative events are concerned with what happens in Genesis 2 and 3. Therefore the comments in Genesis 1 have absolutely nothing to do with Genesis 3.

Although the two stories make a thematic unit about the nature of G-d and the universe, but that's a completely unrelated argument.

P. S. Why do I have a feeling this is going to turn into a battle of quoting different authorities? While this is all very interesting to debate, I suspect we're really not going to get anywhere here.

[JBI]

I'm sorry - I misread you - my problem with the text has nothing to do with Mayer's problem, but with the second clause, which you seem to ignore. God clearly puts woman lower than man in this chapter. All this talk of curses and whatnot has no point. God comes straight out and says it, "He shall have power over thee" meaning, he will have physical power over thee, and if he has power sexually, what other power does he have? This essentially calls all women lustful perverts who must submit to their husbands in order to satisfy their genetic perversions, or something along those lines. The line is misogynist no matter how you read it, as it puts women's sexuality bellow that of men. Keep in mind, this is the same god who later on kills Onan for pulling-out.

I think we both are mis-reading each other, and arguing the same thing. The line is sexist, that isn't in dispute, the question is, if men are given this "power over sexual freedom." yet as you have made clear, god seems to make clear that women will still have the urge to sleep with men, then men naturally have a power over women, as, according to biblical marriage laws, the man has control when choosing a wife, and then the man has control over the sexual agenda of the marriage, and wouldn't that essentially give man power in any given relationship. Sure, it can be argued that maybe women have power over managing the household, or some other misogynyst rubbish, but the fact remains women, according to the bible, should not have sexual freedom, and must submit to their husbands desire for sex, and if they step out of the relationship, according to the laws given in Deuteronomy, they should be stoned to death.

Of course, we can also interpret this differently. Who is to say the second clause of the sentence is not outside of the first childbirth clause. Given that reading, god clearly is telling women that they will desire their husbands, but their husbands are the ones who will be in control, and thereby will say when such desires may be fulfilled. That reading, according to what I got out of the text, is just as supportable.

And Genesis 1 and 3 and 3, etc. are all the same book. The Pereck divisions all came later on in history.

[Pendragon]

Dark has brought up an interesting point. All of the things were punishments. The serpent had legs at that point (some are still born with vestigial legs) but no more. "On thy belly thou shalt go." Man is cursed to provide what God used to give freely, the crops to live upon. "Toil by the sweat of your brow." Woman has to bear kids, and the "desire for a woman rules man", thus instigating every abuse and rape from that point. Punishments for disobedience, and anyone who can read this scripture: "Prov.30

1. [20] Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness."

Might understand more about "forbidden fruit".

God Bless

Pen

[El Viejo]

excuse me? i don't see ANY men giving birth to live young. How are women weaker than men when they can be brave enough to do this?

And less capable of individual survival? Most men would wear their socks in their arms if they didn't have women around.

And women don't really require special care, that's just societal conditioning.

Hm. "Brave enough" to give birth? When you're wheeled through the doors into the delivery room courage may be useful, but it's irrelevant with respect to whether the event occurs or not.

So many things would be so different if there were no men (relating and supporting 24/7), or if there were no women (meat and sports 24/7). No one would think about socks or where they went.

If women don't require special care, why are there gynecologists by the tens of thousands, but almost no andrologists?

'Equal' doesn't have to mean 'same' and 'different' doesn't have to mean 'inferior' or 'unequal.'

[dzebra]

'Equal' doesn't have to mean 'same' and 'different' doesn't have to mean 'inferior' or 'unequal.'

I completely agree.

I'd like to add to that and say "authority" does not have to mean "superiority."

[Redzeppelin]

I completely agree.

I'd like to add to that and say "authority" does not have to mean "superiority."

Good point.

[crystalmoonshin]

That being said, I will disagree that women are less emotionally stable. I would think the opposite, as women seem to have endured things, and do endure things, far worse than men, and have complained far less.



Yes, I agree with you. Women do indeed have more patience than men and are more enduring. They are like the earth, always stepped upon, but very strong to support everything, nevertheless. I wouldn't wonder why ancient people connected goddesses to the earth, and why terra is feminine.

[Bitterfly]

My basis for this point is that women are a) physically weaker than men and b) less emotionally stable than men due to hormones. They are less capable of individual survival and therefore inferior to men.

You'll have to explain, then, why women consistently have longer lives than men, if they're really physically weaker and less capable of individual survival. And men are not exempt from hormones either!!!

[blp]

Though the Bible can be judged as sexist to modern standards, you have to look at it in context when it was written. I do not agree with the Bible nor many of the things expressed within it. But I dislike it when people try to judge history based on modern ideals. The Bible is sexist because there was a time when all of history, was sexist. Pick up any ancient piece of literature and you are bond to find something sexist in it. That is just the way people as a whole thought.

It does not make it right, it does not mean I agree with the views they had, or the things they done. But as much as I am person the most unlikely person to say this, I have to know, in this case you cannot just point to the Bible as being the bad guy. It is not fair to point it out exclusively.

So yes, the Bible was sexist, but than again, at that time, so was pretty much the whole world.


The thing is, though, Dark Muse, this isn't quite the same as saying, Was Michelangelo sexist?or Was Shakespeare racist? or whatever, the key difference being that the bible is supposed to represent divine law and, some would even say, the unalterable word of God. This is rather called into question if we're prepared to say, as you seem to be (and I am), by today's standards, many aspects of it are simply morally wrong.

[blp]

Ok, lets get into scripture then, since we cannot agree on approaches. Take your pick, throw out whatever, this sentence seems to sum it up. From The King James Version, the book of Genesis

16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There you have it - god decrees that women should be the slaves of men. Interpret however you want, but the beginning of Genesis alone, 10 or so sentences after woman is created already displays the "word of god" telling us that women are to be less than men.

Try to wiggle out of that one deniers. Face it, the Bible, as seen by today, is clearly misogynist.

Yup. And four pages in, no one's even mentioned the foundational myth of the fall of 'man', which hinges on woman as conduit for the devil's bad influence.

[crystalmoonshin]

Then again, the Bible didn't mention the serpent approaching Adam. It approached Eve because Eve is a woman and a woman is a curious being, more curious than a man. Knowing this, the serpent was sure that this shall bring about the fall. Then when Eve told Adam to take a bite of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, he yielded and this shows that he is weak, too.

If one thinks that women are weak, then what do you call those who easily succumb to a woman's wish?

The problem is that each and every one of us, regardless of sex, is weak and we can only be strong in GOD alone. So the debate concerning the sexes is pretty useless to begin with.

[weltanschauung]

no people. symbolic.
god wasnt planting trees in the garden of eden, and the snake isnt an animal. and adam wanst one man. and the apple isnt a fruit.
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

[mona amon]

Ok, lets get into scripture then, since we cannot agree on approaches. Take your pick, throw out whatever, this sentence seems to sum it up. From The King James Version, the book of Genesis

16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There you have it - god decrees that women should be the slaves of men. Interpret however you want, but the beginning of Genesis alone, 10 or so sentences after woman is created already displays the "word of god" telling us that women are to be less than men.

Try to wiggle out of that one deniers. Face it, the Bible, as seen by today, is clearly misogynist.

People are always trying to wriggle out of it (the fact that the Bible is God's word, yet sometimes tells us to do things which contradict our sense of what is right). I don't worry about it at all. I can quite easily believe in God, accept that the Bible is God's word (well, mostly), and still have no guilt whatsoever about refusing to let my husband rule over me.:p But I like to watch people less apathetic than me try to wriggle out of it, an endlessly facinating process. Jesus does it. So does Paul. And Peter is told by a voice from heaven to disregard something in the Law.

[JBI]

Yup. And four pages in, no one's even mentioned the foundational myth of the fall of 'man', which hinges on woman as conduit for the devil's bad influence.

That actually isn't in the text - that came as a substitution to explain the snakes ambiguity later. The original reads more like a beast fable. The concept of the fallen angel is a Christian, not Judaic one.