One More Reason Religion Does Not Come From God

[Danmark]

All three of the Abrahamic Religions are sexist. More in the past than today, Judaism and Christianity have been blatantly sexist. Islam, being about 1000 years behind is still violently sexist. The persistent notion perpetuated by the the three Abrahamic religions that women should be subservient to men, are inferior to men, are only here to serve men, is as clear an indicator as any that these religions come from men, not God. We know this because the claim is false. We know that women are our equals... at least.

Edited by Moderator Zzyzx (on request) to add:

1. Are these religions sexist?

2. If so, what are the reasons?

[KenRU]

Such obvious sexism needs no further explanation. Paul's words speak for themselves.

I will confess to being amazed at how words (far too often in debate) suddenly lose their plain meaning when that plain meaning has an unwanted message.

"Rule" suddenly equals Lead. "Head Of" no longer means Position of Authority.

Except of course when god "Rules" (it THEN clearly means Compulsion, as Z states).

And except when god is the "Head Of" then it MOST CERTAINLY means a Position of Authority.

Clearly context is important, but the message, as Danmark says, is uniform throughout both the OT and the NT.

To only use the plain meaning when it suits a particular desired message is disingenuous, and should amaze (as well as sadden) anyone.

[Bust Nak]

For an outsider looking in, who would appear on top in hierarchical terms if we accept this subversive logic that rulers now serve? Would it be the man who rules the woman or the woman who is ruled by the man?

The former - man who rules the woman.

Isn't a key point of Jesus' teaching - here and more broadly - to subvert these hierarchies wherever we find them? To eliminate hierarchies altogether?

I don't understand where you are getting that idea from, the text clearly says the opposite.

If I say to one child, "Timmy, listen to Jimmy while I am gone," then to the other "take good care of your brother." I am clearly setting up an hierarchy, putting Jimmy in charge, in the position of authority over Timmy.

[Danmark]

Such obvious sexism needs no further explanation. Paul's words speak for themselves.

I will confess to being amazed at how words (far too often in debate) suddenly lose their plain meaning when that plain meaning has an unwanted message.

"Rule" suddenly equals Lead. "Head Of" no longer means Position of Authority.

Except of course when god "Rules" (it THEN clearly means Compulsion, as Z states).

And except when god is the "Head Of" then it MOST CERTAINLY means a Position of Authority.

Clearly context is important, but the message, as Danmark says, is uniform throughout both the OT and the NT.

To use the plain meaning when it suits a particular desired message is disingenuous, and should amaze (as well as sadden) anyone.

And "this generation" 2000 or more years in the future, as does:
"some standing here right now will not taste death."

"Messiah" becomes 'god'

"six days" becomes "billions of years" when necessary, but for others it remains six days.

The list goes on and on, but when we suggest the word or phrase means what it says, we are told "you just don't understand; it takes more research to discover the words mean their opposite."

[theophile]

[Replying to post 92 by Bust Nak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opini ... egion&_r=0

Interesting article in the Times today. Doesn't make my main point per se about the equality of the sexes but it is HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE that the main argument of this thread, and all you supporters of it, are wrong.

You need to read more closely to see what's really going on.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 92 by Bust Nak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opini ... egion&_r=0

Interesting article in the Times today. Doesn't make my main point per se about the equality of the sexes but it is HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE that the main argument of this thread, and all you supporters of it, are wrong.

You need to read more closely to see what's really going on.

Is what is written in the article you link to actually being taught in the Abrahamic religions? Does the average Jewish rabbi, Christian priest or Islamic imam say of God 'she'? Does the average follower of these religions?
Since I can't read Hebrew, I can't verify what your article says, about the gender fluidity of the language of the Hebrew scriptures. However, to my knowledge, even if the Hebrew is that fluid, that isn't what is being taught in the vast majority of Jewish schools. God is almost universally (in the Abrahamic religions) referred to as male.

[Danmark]

[quote="theophile"]
[Replying to post 92 by Bust Nak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opini ... egion&_r=0

Interesting article in the Times today. Doesn't make my main point per se about the equality of the sexes but it is HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE that the main argument of this thread, and all you supporters of it, are wrong.

You're right, this particular Rabbi does not 'make your point.' He does not speak to it at all. He's making the case for not using your religion as an excuse for denying rights to transgender people.

Im a rabbi, and so Im particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices " as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as he. In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to her tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a young man. And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as them.

He writes nothing about the sexism of the Bible or Paul's obvious sexism. He's trying to make the case that some passages which are ambiguous about gender show that ancient cultures revered people with ambiguous genders as godlike.

In the ancient world, well-expressed gender fluidity was the mark of a civilized person. Such a person was considered more godlike.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opini ... ender.html

The more I read posts from some apologists, the more I question their ability to read and understand either scripture or the written word in general.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 94 by theophile]

Don't see how that changes anything. "the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender" therefore all the sexist stuff in the Bible is no longer sexist, how? Besides he gave 6 examples, how many example did he found in total, in contrast where the view of gender is rigid?