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?

[ttruscott]

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.

Long time no posts...good to see you back

Know with what proofs if I may ask though I bet you are just advancing the current modern OPINION of equality.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

I fully agree that the Abrahamic religions are sexist. I also agree that in most respects women should be treated as equals to mean. However, I definitely don't agree that men and women are equal in every way and I'm sick of the political correctness that seems to try and define us as completely equal in all respects.

[puts on asbestos underwear, even though they are carcinogenic]

Everyone knows that men and women are physically different and we are each better suited for some tasks. I believe we should celebrate and understand our differences, not try to pretend they don't exist.

For example, some jobs naturally have more men doing them due to the physical strength requirements (like firefighters). Note I'm not saying women should be excluded from these types of jobs. What I am saying is that due to the requirements of the job, most women will have a hard time fulfilling some of the prerequisites to do the job safely and adequately. So, in respects to becoming a firefighter, yes we should treat the applicants as equals in that they must meet the requirements regardless of sex. However, in then end, more men will naturally get the job due to the lack of women who are interested or able to do it. We should not force legislation that there must be a 50/50 split of men and women in every job. That is the type of equality I find ludicrous.

And thus ends my probably off topic rant Sorry if I derailed anything, it's just a hot button for me.

[theophile]

[Replying to Danmark]

Is it sexist? I'm not a student of the Koran, but here's some biblical evidence to the contrary.

Let's just look at Eve for a second - I know it looks bad for her on the surface, but I think we need to read deeper than usual... She's the one who talks to the serpent. She's the one who decides to eat the fruit. She's the one who was made to 'help' Adam - a word typically used to characterize God in scripture, thus associating her closely to the divine / lady wisdom and, if we read it properly, making her a superior adviser to Adam versus an inferior servant...

All of this indicates leadership, not subordination. Now whether or not we can now blame her for the fall due to poor leadership is irrelevant: blameworthy or not, we already have in the story of Eve and the inception of humankind the revelation of a woman in charge.

Could go into other signs of anti-sexism as well which, at the very least, should make the truth far more complicated than what is being suggested here.

Let's be clear: the bible was written in a sexist world, and taken over by a sexist church, but that doesn't mean the faith itself is sexist, and that there is not extremely disruptive teachings within its stories.

[KenRU]

Know with what proofs if I may ask though I bet you are just advancing the current modern OPINION of equality.

Seems to me the following favors men over women in a quite obvious manner:

Bible: Doesnt get clearer than this. Man is in charge of women.

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

Torah: Leviticus is full of sexist positions (favoring men over women). But here is a particularly salient one for you:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Koran: Equating women's body with that of land speaks for itself.

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will 2:223

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's be clear: the bible was written in a sexist world, and taken over by a sexist church, but that doesn't mean the faith itself is sexist, and that there is not extremely disruptive teachings within its stories.

Yes, Christianity and its parent Judaism were developed within a sexist / male chauvinistic environment, by sexist / chauvinistic males who wrote many sexist / chauvinistic tales and made sexist / chauvinistic rules that became known as the Bible.

The tradition has been carried forward by sexist / chauvinistic males who dominate Christian hierarchy. The condition still exists today and the ancient attitudes are still taught.

HOW, then, can one claim that the "faith itself" is anything but sexist / chauvinistic?

What is "the faith itself" other than its teachings, its structure, its leadership, its practices?

[logical thinking]

[Replying to Danmark]

Is it sexist? I'm not a student of the Koran, but here's some biblical evidence to the contrary.

Let's just look at Eve for a second - I know it looks bad for her on the surface, but I think we need to read deeper than usual... She's the one who talks to the serpent. She's the one who decides to eat the fruit. She's the one who was made to 'help' Adam - a word typically used to characterize God in scripture, thus associating her closely to the divine / lady wisdom and, if we read it properly, making her a superior adviser to Adam versus an inferior servant...

All of this indicates leadership, not subordination. Now whether or not we can now blame her for the fall due to poor leadership is irrelevant: blameworthy or not, we already have in the story of Eve and the inception of humankind the revelation of a woman in charge.

Could go into other signs of anti-sexism as well which, at the very least, should make the truth far more complicated than what is being suggested here.

Let's be clear: the bible was written in a sexist world, and taken over by a sexist church, but that doesn't mean the faith itself is sexist, and that there is not extremely disruptive teachings within its stories.

What are you talking about!?

The whole apple incident is the REASON for the belittling of women throughout Biblical history. The woman is the cause of the fall. THAT'S why she is reviled and put down thereafter - at least according to the Bible fairy tales.

1 Timothy 2:12-14 "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

In other words: "The woman messed up, plus she was by definition a second class citizen to begin with, so her role is to shut up and to let men have the authority.

It couldn't be clearer.

Women shouldn't usurp authority from men BECAUSE when she did the whole original sin debacle went down.

That's what the Bible says.

How you can say that the faith itself is not sexist is beyond me. How you can say that the theological justification (eating the apple) for the sexism is somehow an example of the Bible not being sexist, is utterly and completely shocking.


"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God" 1 Corinthians 11:3

the Bible spells it out so clearly it's astounding. It says that to the same degree that a regular guy is inferior to Jesus Christ HIMSELF, to that same degree a regular woman is inferior to a regular guy.

So, imagine the attitude you'd adopt if you were to stand face to face with Jesus. The Bible expects women to have that same attitude towards men.

"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" Ephesians 5:22

How could it possibly be any clearer? To the same degree that the church is defined by worshiping and serving Jesus, women are defined by worshiping men.

And this is all in the new testament. We don't even need to get to the Old Testament part where it says that if a man rapes a woman, then she is forced to marry him. Or that if a man rapes a women she will be stoned to death. Depending on the circumstances of the rape.

The Bible's stance towards women is irredeemably evil, no position other than total and complete condemnation of the Bible is acceptable by anybody today.

[theophile]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Yes, Christianity and its parent Judaism were developed within a sexist / male chauvinistic environment, by sexist / chauvinistic males who wrote many sexist / chauvinistic tales and made sexist / chauvinistic rules that became known as the Bible.

Slow down! Developed within a sexist environment, yes. But that doesn't mean its writers were sexist.

Is the world today still sexist? Yes. Pretty strongly in a lot of places. Does that mean there aren't writers in those places that seek to disrupt the status quo? Of course not. So why not back then as well?

The tradition has been carried forward by sexist / chauvinistic males who dominate Christian hierarchy. The condition still exists today and the ancient attitudes are still taught.

Agree with that. But an ignorant or corrupt tradition that co-opts texts and infuses their teachings with sexism, or privileges sexist interpretations of those texts and glosses over the disruptive teachings that may flip such a hierarchy on its head, is not what I'm talking about.

HOW, then, can one claim that the "faith itself" is anything but sexist / chauvinistic?

My only point is regarding the source texts. That there are disruptive teachings there. I don't mean 'faith' as the tradition that picked up those texts, and I don't mean to defend those traditions.

What is "the faith itself" other than its teachings, its structure, its leadership, its practices?

It's what is revealed in the source texts through deep and careful consideration and discernment (the only way they can be approached with hope of arriving at their meaning and the faith they call for). It is not what is handed down to us by a corrupted elite that would keep us from the truth.

[logical thinking]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Yes, Christianity and its parent Judaism were developed within a sexist / male chauvinistic environment, by sexist / chauvinistic males who wrote many sexist / chauvinistic tales and made sexist / chauvinistic rules that became known as the Bible.

Slow down! Developed within a sexist environment, yes. But that doesn't mean its writers were sexist.

No. The fact that the environment was sexist doesn't necessarily mean the authors of the Bible were sexist.

The fact that the authors of the Bible wrote sexist things means that they were sexist.

Is the world today still sexist? Yes. Pretty strongly in a lot of places. Does that mean there aren't writers in those places that seek to disrupt the status quo? Of course not. So why not back then as well?

It's totally possible that there were non sexist people in biblical times.

But not the authors of the Bible. How do we know they were sexist? Because they wrote sexist things.

How is this even remotely confusing to you?

What is "the faith itself" other than its teachings, its structure, its leadership, its practices?

It's what is revealed in the source texts through deep and careful consideration and discernment (the only way they can be approached with hope of arriving at their meaning and the faith they call for). It is not what is handed down to us by a corrupted elite that would keep us from the truth.

What you're saying is that "true faith" is when you ignore what the Bible actually says, gloss over the horrible parts about rape, murder, sexism, genocide, homophobia and incest, and make up your own religion vaguely inspired by a highly selective reading of small fragments of the Bible.

Guess what, apply the same process to any book, even Mein Kampf, and you'll be able to extract delightful pearls of wisdom from there too.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 7 by logical thinking]

Guess what, apply the same process to any book, even Mein Kampf, and you'll be able to extract delightful pearls of wisdom from there too.

I understand where you're coming from. And there are times when I wonder if I'm doing exactly what you say here.

There are some texts that are extremely hard to handle or reconcile.

But look, that doesn't revoke the only point I made: that there are disruptive teachings to male hierarchy in the bible if we look for them.

Genesis 1: "So God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

No mention of hierarchy whatsoever here, not until after the fall, as if female oppression was a consequence and aspect of a fallen world along with the other hardships God proclaims:

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

And that's a key point... This is in stark contrast to Genesis 2 and the points I've already raised: that Eve is created and described in terms that make her if not equal, in fact above Adam as his 'helper'... It is only after the fall, and in a fallen world, where this sexist worldview comes into being...

But anyways. I'm not saying there aren't difficult texts. Some may be sexist. But even the ones you cite have more complication than you're letting on based on how we translate and interpret certain key words.

I'm also not the first to make claims that the bible contains teachings that disrupt the sexist hierarchy of its times. This doesn't mean all the texts do, or that some writers were more disruptive than others, but that I have a valid point. There is a strong tradition of feminist biblical scholarship devoted to showing it...

A great feminist story that I'll end with, where Jesus is teaching against tradition but is shown to have his own traditional biases as well, and has his own hierarchical thinking disrupted. The one and only time Jesus is put in his place, and it is by a woman:

From Mark 7:

After hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the childrens bread and throw it to the dogs. 28 But she answered and said to Him, Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the childrens crumbs. 29 And He said to her, Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter. 30 And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left.

Not even Jesus was free of the effects of living in a fallen world, and the hierarchical and oppressive worldview that comes with it. We all need to check ourselves - what could be more clear from this story? What teaching could be more disruptive and feminist?