Jump to content


Photo

S*xism In The Bible


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
37 replies to this topic

#1 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 08 September 2009 - 01:33 PM

This is a question I’ve posed to creationists a few times before, but I never seem to get a clear answer. You take the Bible to be God’s literal word, so what is your opinion on gender equality? Women are consistently portrayed as being inferior to men (both physically and intellectually), and even described as “evil” and “unclean” in some passages. I realize that many of these views are no longer held. For example, I Corinthians 14: 34-35 prohibits women from speaking in Church and says that they must ask their husbands any questions they might have upon returning home. But yet even in today’s society, women cannot hold positions of power (ministers, priests, the Pope, ect.) in the church.

So if you are a male who believes the Bible is the truth, than how do you feel about this? Do you consider yourself superior to women? Or do you think males and females are equal in terms of power and intelligence?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 September 2009 - 06:26 PM

It depends on which covenant you refer to. In the old covenant the woman was created to help man, and was blamed for the fall of man through doing what God specifically told her not to. She as basically considered cursed.

But in the new covenant (after Christ was risen), these things were covered by the shed blood of Christ. To show this, Christ chose a woman to be the first to spread the gospel (Mary). When He could have just as easily found a man. She went to the disciples (a room full of men) and told them (preaching to them). And to top it off, who came and confirmed her good news? Christ did by showing up in that same room to show that Mary was telling the truth, that He did rise from the dead.

This was Christ's direct approval and support that a woman can preach. But women were also allowed to be prophetesses even before Christ.

ex 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

judg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

Even priests met with female prophets. If women were not supposed to have this authority, this would have never happened.

2kings 22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.

2chron 34:22 And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect.

neh 6:14 My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear.

is 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

lk 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

Even some prophetesses held judge positions. They even judged over all of Israel:
judg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

The verses used to promote s*xism, always have a reference to marriage in it. This is because man is only given authority over a woman in marraige. Not every woman whom walks the face of this earth.

Like the verse that says that women shall be silent in the churches.

1cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

What is often left out is the meaning of the next verse.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Now a lot of people will personally interpret this as women not allowed to preach. If so, why is marriage referred to? And notice the word husband is plural. Women did not have more than one husband. There is only one place in the church were "husbands" existed and that is in the congregation. So what was being said is that women should not speak while in the congregation, if they learn anything let them learn it from their husbands at home (a reference to being away from church). So they are with their "husbands" in church, then they are with their "husbands" when they return home. Husbands is not a reference to anything behind the pulpit.

If this were a reference to actual preaching do you not think the word preach would have been used? Preach is a very common word used in the bible, and you can test this by doing a word search at a Bible search engine.. So why was it not used here? Because preaching was not the subject, talking in the congregation of the church was.

And I can show where every other verse that is used to show where women should not preach (a individuals personal interpretation), there is aways a reference to marriage.

So the s*xism is of the individual opinion and individual personal interpretation. And the new covenant does not support this, as Christ made this clear by His own actions.

More things to ponder:
1) Was there any prophetess ever stoned for holding such position? Nope.
2) If the people and the priests met with the prophetesses in the Bible, it means that not only was their position approved of, but also appointed. Because priest do no meet with people they do not approve of that are in a position of religious authority.
3) Deborah held not only a position of being a prophetess, but a judge over God's chosen people (Israel). You don't hold a position like that unapproved of less ye be stoned to death.

So you see, the s*xism today promoted by current people who hold religious positions is there own personal belief and interpretation. This is because they are using the word of God out of context to promote their agenda. Now some because they believe what others say, and trust them. Have fallen into this unknowingly. And therefore believe it even though they are not s*xist.

When you make the Bible mesh as a whole, contradictions and misconceptions clear up and the true meaning comes out. If a person takes one verse at face value without finding support in other areas, then they have found what they "want" to be true from the Bible, instead of what is true.

I guess for better understanding one could call it "quote mining" the Bible. But like I pointed out, it's not always done on purpose. But many buy into what has already been said because they are unwilling to do in-depth research on it for themselves. So they are believing at face value what another person says, not taking into account that man is not perfect and that every doctrine has to be tested by the word as a whole.

Also, the unclean part was because of the time of the month. A woman was considered unclean and had to go through a cleaning ritual. And as far as being evil. Any s*x can be evil. Women were not considered evil because they were women. Unless the individual saying this in the Bible was giving their personal opinion. A lot of misunderstanding of what is meant in the Bible is often personal opinions.

Note: This is my opinion which may not be the opinion of the forum owner.

#3 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 09 September 2009 - 02:47 PM

This is the exact answer I’m used to getting. I realize that there are some examples of prophetesses and female preachers. This doesn’t change the fact that even in modern times, the highest positions in the church are reserved for men. And as you said, the bible suggests a married man has authority over his wife. To me, that’s still an example of S*xism because it suggests females are inferior in a relationship.

But what I’m really asking here is for personal opinions. I don’t want to pick apart the Bible and start a debate about whether or not the authors were sexist. I want to know if the creationists on this forum agree with gender equality, both in marriage and in everyday life.

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 September 2009 - 07:09 PM

To me, that’s still an example of S*xism because it suggests females are inferior in a relationship.

View Post

Roles of authority say nothing about states of inferiority. Jesus said that the Father is greater than Him but they hold the same nature and power.

President Obama holds the highest position of authority in our country. That does not mean that others are inferior to him.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 September 2009 - 07:10 PM

Isabella,
You are just looking for fault with the Bible, correct? I doubt there would be any answer you would accept. Except one that agrees with your view, correct?

Question: What if the Bible were reversed in this area? And man was considered all the things you are complaining about? I bet you would find that refreshing.

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 September 2009 - 07:21 PM

Roles of authority say nothing about states of inferiority. Jesus said that the Father is greater than Him but they hold the same nature and power.

President Obama holds the highest position of authority in our country that does not mean that others are inferior to him.

View Post


Isabella,
Speaking of female authority, who's side was ready to allow a female to be vice president, and who's side had a problem with this? The Christian fundie conservative side was ready to vote a woman into second position. The humanist atheist side did not like it.

In fact, Hillary was going to run for president. Who side was she for? And that same side would not let her run even though she had Obama in the polls. How ironic that is that one side would be cnsidered s*xist. While the other side demonstrates what a s*xist is.

#7 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 September 2009 - 08:13 PM

Isabella,
Speaking of female authority, who's side was ready to allow a female to be vice president, and who's side had a problem with this? The Christian fundie conservative side was ready to vote a woman into second position. The humanist atheist side did not like it.

In fact, Hillary was going to run for president. Who side was she for? And that same side would not let her run even though she had Obama in the polls. How ironic that is that one side would be cnsidered s*xist. While the other side demonstrates what a s*xist is.

View Post



:lol: speaking as a registered Republican who voted for Obama. I would have voted for Hilary just as quickly.

#8 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 September 2009 - 08:14 PM

Isabella,
You are just looking for fault with the Bible, correct? I doubt there would be any answer you would accept. Except one that agrees with your view, correct?

Question: What if the Bible were reversed in this area? And man was considered all the things you are complaining about? I bet you would find that refreshing.

View Post



I know which way I would take this conversation if I asked the question, but I will wait patiently to see where Isabella is going with it.

#9 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 09 September 2009 - 09:56 PM

President Obama holds the highest position of authority in our country. That does not mean that others are inferior to him.

View Post

Inferior might be a somewhat strong word in your example, but the president’s authority does demand a certain amount of respect and submission from the American citizens. He makes the rules, after all. The difference is that Obama was elected through a democratic process. Did women ever elect men to have control over them? Was there a vote that I missed?

You are just looking for fault with the Bible, correct? I doubt there would be any answer you would accept. Except one that agrees with your view, correct?

View Post

I already said that I’m simply looking to hear some personal opinions on the subject of gender equality. But surprisingly, not a single one has been shared! It’s a simple question. Do you:
1) Believe men should have control/authority over women
2) Believe women should have control/authority over men
3) Believe both genders are equal
It’s an incredibly simple question, and I’m asking it out of genuine curiosity.

Question: What if the Bible were reversed in this area? And man was considered all the things you are complaining about? I bet you would find that refreshing.

View Post

I’m in no way promoting feminism; I don’t think women are superior. I thought my frequent use of the word equality made that clear, but apparently I was wrong.

Isabella,
Speaking of female authority, who's side was ready to allow a female to be vice president, and who's side had a problem with this? The Christian fundie conservative side was ready to vote a woman into second position. The humanist atheist side did not like it.

View Post

I’m Canadian. I can’t vote in the United States, nor do I have any desire to. I follow American politics to some extent, but I really don’t have much interest in it unless one of their policies is going to affect my country in some way.

I know which way I would take this conversation if I asked the question, but I will wait patiently to see where Isabella is going with it.

View Post

Feel free to take the conversation anywhere you like. I just created this topic because I was curious to hear some opinions, and maybe ask some questions about the opinions I hear.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 September 2009 - 04:29 AM

I already said that I’m simply looking to hear some personal opinions on the subject of gender equality. But surprisingly, not a single one has been shared! It’s a simple question. Do you:
1) Believe men should have control/authority over women
2) Believe women should have control/authority over men
3) Believe both genders are equal
It’s an incredibly simple question, and I’m asking it out of genuine curiosity.


1 & 2) In marraige it should be equal to the extent that man has the final word if an agreement cannot be made. Outside of marriage everything is equal.
3) Explained above.

And of course you should always respect your parents regardless of gender.

#11 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 September 2009 - 02:00 PM

In marraige it should be equal to the extent that man has the final word if an agreement cannot be made.

View Post

Ok. Is this an opinion you hold solely because of the Bible, or is it your personal belief that husbands should get the last word simply because they’re men?

#12 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 September 2009 - 03:17 PM

Did women ever elect men to have control over them? Was there a vote that I missed?

View Post

Actually, if you believe in evolution and natural selection then nature gave us control. After all, we are bigger and stronger. :huh:

So what are you griping about? :lol:

#13 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 10 September 2009 - 03:23 PM

It's not just the bible that (allegedly) insills male dominance on society. Many non-Christian cultures also place men at the head of the table.

That said, I'm sure I've read about cultures where women are given seniority just by virtue of gender. I'll need to look it up...

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 September 2009 - 04:18 PM

:huh: speaking as a registered Republican who voted for Obama.  I would have voted for Hilary just as quickly.

View Post


Speaking as a registered Republican who used to be a registered Democrat, I couldn't stomach either of those socialists. :lol: <----> :lol:

#15 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 September 2009 - 04:19 PM

Actually, if you believe in evolution and natural selection then nature gave us control. After all, we are bigger and stronger. 

View Post

Well according to that logic, we should let bears and elephants tell us what to do! Physical strength doesn’t equal control, at least in any civilized culture. Strength only gives a person control if they intend to use their strength to attain that control. But that’s called abuse, and can land you in jail. If men were intended to be in control, they would have bigger brains, not bigger muscles.

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 September 2009 - 04:33 PM

Ok. Is this an opinion you hold solely because of the Bible, or is it your personal belief that husbands should get the last word simply because they’re men?

View Post


That was a sexist remark :huh:

I retired after over twenty-one years in the military. And throughout that period I fully understood protocol and the fact that a person of superior rank was only superior to me in that rank, nothing more. Ours were positions and a jobs for which we were highly trained, and the rank mainly designated the increased responsibilities.

The husband is the head of the household (in a Christian home) by appointment, and with that appointment comes added responsibility. The wife wields no minor authority in her own right (I’m sure you’ve heard the colloquialism “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”). But, the length of your argument is limited by the scope of your misunderstanding of the matter, the culture and the dynamics involved.

So to render such a flawed argument just so you can poke with a feminist stick doesn’t change the fact that the male was created superior (if you will) in some aspects, and the female was created superior in others, which totally escapes your propaganda. Men and women are different (viva la difference) in many ways, but women were never meant to be men and men were never meant to be women.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 September 2009 - 04:36 PM

Well according to that logic, we should let bears and elephants tell us what to do!

View Post


Sometimes, that exactly what evolutionists do :huh:

No-no-no, you cannot build there, that's where the spotted owl lives :lol:

#18 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 10 September 2009 - 07:48 PM

Believe men should have control/authority over womeN.

View Post

The Bible says men should have authority in the church and as head of the family, that’s it. But does that make man superior, any more than a hammer is superior to a saw? No. The Bible also says: Eph 5:25-26 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.” BTW, The Bible gives a reason for man’s authority in the church – women are easier to deceive (1 Tim 2:12-14), and thus allow Satan easier access to control the church. But on the other side of this coin, the Bible honors women for more readily believing truth without stubborn skepticism. BTW, if you doubt what I say, explain to us why women prefer to have men come with them when they buy a used car. :lol:

Believe women should have control/authority over men

I think Women believe this, especially the control part. :huh:

Believe both genders are equal

Spritually, yes. Physically and emotionally, of course not. It's comparing apples to oranges. Women are much more stronger emotionally, ie they can survive loss much better than us fragile men.

Christianity is the only religion that puts women on a pedestal. Question for you. Can you name another religion in the world that is favorable to women? They all demean and lower the status of women, except for Christianity. So, why are you picking on the one religion that is the only one that gives you equal access to heaven? Or do you want to be a good Muslim woman and avoid not having to be one of the 30 virgins given to 'martrys'? Or perhaps you would like to be chosen against your will to be someone’s wife (multiple religions)?

What do you think of the following two verses:

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

Or an equal blessing from the beginning:

Genesis 1:27-28, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Fred

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 September 2009 - 08:36 PM

Well according to that logic, we should let bears and elephants tell us what to do! Physical strength doesn’t equal control, at least in any civilized culture. Strength only gives a person control if they intend to use their strength to attain that control. But that’s called abuse, and can land you in jail. If men were intended to be in control, they would have bigger brains, not bigger muscles.

View Post

I was just joking with you. :huh:

#20 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 September 2009 - 08:40 PM

That was a sexist remark 

View Post

How was my question sexist? I just wanted to know to basis for his opinion!

I retired after over twenty-one years in the military. And throughout that period I fully understood protocol and the fact that a person of superior rank was only superior to me in that rank, nothing more.

View Post

And were those who held higher ranks born with those ranks, or did they work for them?

The husband is the head of the household (in a Christian home) by appointment, and with that appointment comes added responsibility.

View Post

Fair enough. If that’s the way Christians choose to structure their household, I certainly don’t have the right to demand otherwise. But what exactly are these added responsibilities? The (now outdated) traditional family structure is as follows: the woman raises the children, cleans the house, and cooks the meals; The man works and earns money. But these days, women are well educated and have jobs that are just as good as men. I know several families where the husband and wife earn equal incomes, and a handful where the wife is actually earning significantly more.

So to render such a flawed argument just so you can poke with a feminist stick...

View Post

I already explained that I’m not a feminist, and I have no idea where you got this from. I support EQUALITY. I don’t think men OR women should be viewed as superior to the other.

Sometimes, that exactly what evolutionists do 
No-no-no, you cannot build there, that's where the spotted owl lives 

View Post

You’re mixing up “evolutionist” with “conservationist”. That being said, I completely support people who want to preserve natural habitats and maintain our planet’s diversity of life. Why cut down a forest or bulldoze a meadow just so we can build yet another shopping mall?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users