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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

There is nothing in the bible that is sexist.

sexism
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Well... let's look at some passages that certainly appear to fit the definition you've offered:

There are many passages that reflect sexism, starting at the beginning all the way thru to the New Testament.

Genesis 3:16:

To the woman he said,

I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[f] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.

1 Corinthians chapter 14:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 11:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. . . .For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

These verses certainly do not appear to fit the definition I offered:

There are no passages that reflect sexism, starting at the beginning all the way thru to the New Testament.



JW*




* I replied in like to your post since evidently this has enough debate content to fully make a point. I don't need to add anything because you didn't need to add anything to fully make your point. We have both made fully developed points- ie we quoted the scripture and said "this appears/does not appear" to prove the point made.

I think if you reread my post and consider it was in response to your claim you will understand the passages develop the argument without further explanation.


JW

[Danmark]

[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.

What?! The authors of sexist text are somehow not sexist? The whole point (and title of this thread) is that the Bible and Quran do not come from God, but from men, sexist men who preach sexism, that only men should be leaders, that women should be subordinate to them and that women are of less value then men. Thus these 'holy scriptures' reflect not a universal god, but a male dominated culture and male writers who enforce this belief of male dominance.

[Danmark]

These verses certainly appear do not to fit the definition I offered:

There are no passages that reflect sexism, starting at the beginning all the way thru to the New Testament.

They fit perfectly. You offer no counter argument, just contradiction without supporting argument or explanation.
If only men are allowed to speak in church and are told men should rule over their wives, how is this not sexist? The sole criterion for leadership is being male. So a woman with an IQ of 140 and who has a college education is to be subservient to her uneducated husband who has an IQ of 90, simply because he is a man? If these Biblical commands are not sexist, than nothing is.

[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.

If (since) the writings are sexist that gives some indication that the writers were sexist (unless they misrepresented their personal position)

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?

Agreed. There were probably non-sexist writers around thousands of years ago. However, they evidently didn't write Bible stories.

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.

Is this to say that church tradition has corrupted Bible stories? If so, I do not disagree.

However, WHERE does one find an uncorrupted interpretation? Is it just a matter of personal preference and opinion? If not, who is appointed as authoritative and by whom?

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.

If there is sexism in the source texts, what is being defended?

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).

This seems to confirm that the whole matter is one of personal opinion and preference.

It is not what is handed down to us by a corrupted elite that would keep us from the truth.

Are the uncorrupted those who distance themselves from organized religion and pursue their own version of Christianity?

Are there any sects / denominations that do not preach corrupted versions?

[bluethread]

It should be pointed out that modern Judaism, (Reform and Orthodox) and modern Christianity, (non-Fundamentalist) do not practice institutionalized sexism.

But even in Evangelical circles, women preach, teach and are ordained as pastors. This in contradiction to the dictates of Paul.

That is an interesting observation. However, it is my experience that though positions of theological authority are generally reserved for males, women, on the local level, actually run the organization. It is also my experience that women tend to prefer a male theological leader and decry the fact that men are not more involved in actually running the organization. One the other hand, for whatever reason, if a man does follow a women's lead, it is generally begrudgingly, or because he does not wish to be bothered with such things.

Danmark:

It is obvious men and women are different, tho' we are learning that there is more of a continuum than an absolute divide. Nature does not seem to follow our categories precisely. Equality should, of course, not be confused with sameness. We are all different. When we speak of sexism we are talking about inequality of opportunity. Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender. Men should not be given better opportunities ONLY because the are men. Yet this is taught in scripture and practiced today by Christians who use the Bible to justify their beliefs.

I have seen this argument made many times on this site. So, regardless of the merits of the argument, let me ask a base question. What is your justification for why "Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender."? What makes this a universal principle?

[JehovahsWitness]

These verses certainly appear do not to fit the definition I offered:

There are no passages that reflect sexism, starting at the beginning all the way thru to the New Testament.

They fit perfectly. You offer no counter argument, just contradiction without supporting argument or explanation.

I offer no counter argument because you offered no argument for me to counter. You made a statement, quoted a scripture and offered no explanation as to how the scripture fitted your statement - explaining that it was self evident and no explanation was necessary.

I simply did exactly what you had done: ie My counter argument will follow the same form as your argument. ie a scritpure, a statment of "fact" and no explanation because (to quote you) it is self evident that my point is correct, just as (without your offering any explanation, it was self evident that YOUR point is correct).

Or are you suggesting you can offer no explanation (ie you don't need to explain how the scripture demonstrates the point) but I do?


JW

[Elijah John]

It should be pointed out that modern Judaism, (Reform and Orthodox) and modern Christianity, (non-Fundamentalist) do not practice institutionalized sexism. Except for It is obvious men and women are different, tho' we are learning that there is more of a continuum than an absolute divide. Nature does not seem to follow our categories precisely.
Equality should, of course, not be confused with sameness. We are all different. When we speak of sexism we are talking about inequality of opportunity. Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender. Men should not be given better opportunities ONLY because the are men. Yet this is taught in scripture and practiced today by Christians who use the Bible to justify their beliefs.the prohibition of women-priests.

But even in Evangelical circles, women preach, teach and are ordained as pastors. This in contradiction to the dictates of Paul.

That is an interesting observation. However, it is my experience that though positions of theological authority are generally reserved for males, women, on the local level, actually run the organization. In is also my experience that women tend to prefer a male theological leader and decry the fact that men are not more involved in actually running the organization. One the other hand, for whatever reason, if man does follow a women's lead, it is generally begrudgingly, or because he does not wish to be bothered with such things.

Danmark:

It is obvious men and women are different, tho' we are learning that there is more of a continuum than an absolute divide. Nature does not seem to follow our categories precisely. Equality should, of course, not be confused with sameness. We are all different. When we speak of sexism we are talking about inequality of opportunity. Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender. Men should not be given better opportunities ONLY because the are men. Yet this is taught in scripture and practiced today by Christians who use the Bible to justify their beliefs.

I have seen this argument made many times on this site. So, regardless of the merits of the argument, let me ask a base question. What is your justification for why "Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender."? What makes this a universal principle?

I think there was an error in the quote process here, I only said the first and last sentences of the quote attrbuted to me. I think it was Danmark who said the middle part:

Except for It is obvious men and women are different, tho' we are learning that there is more of a continuum than an absolute divide. Nature does not seem to follow our categories precisely.
Equality should, of course, not be confused with sameness. We are all different. When we speak of sexism we are talking about inequality of opportunity. Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender. Men should not be given better opportunities ONLY because the are men. Yet this is taught in scripture and practiced today by Christians who use the Bible to justify their beliefs.the prohibition of women-priests.

[bluethread]

I think there was an error in the quote process here, I only said the first and last sentences of the quote attrbuted to me. I think it was Danmark who said the middle part.

That is correct. I have edited it. Sorry for any problems that might have caused.

[Danmark]

I have seen this argument made many times on this site. So, regardless of the merits of the argument, let me ask a base question. What is your justification for why "Women should not be denied leadership positions SOLELY because of their gender."? What makes this a universal principle?

That's a fair question.
Let's start with basic biology. Embryonically males and females are identical except for a single chromosome and the effect of hormones.*

Tho sex differences in intelligence are hard to measure and controversial, there is general agreement that:
The average IQ scores between men and women have little variation. However, the variability of male scores is greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.
Deary, Ian J.; Irwing, Paul; Der, Geoff; Bates, Timothy C. (2007). "Brother"sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979". Intelligence 35 (5): 451"6.
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_diffe ... telligence

Given their apparent intellectual equality, the question should be:
Why shouldn't they be treated equally? Why would a god be out of touch with the basic biology of his creation? What basis exists for denying equality of opportunity to my Harvard Law educated daughter? Her identical twin rose swiftly in a major company to be their top financial analyst. She simply did her job better than anyone else in the company and since the company is profit driven they wanted the best talent in key positions. Can anyone seriously argue she should not supervise men and that they should supervise her simply because they have penises and she does not?



_______________________________________
*Sex is usually determined by the sex chromosomes: The XX pattern causes female development, and the XY pattern causes male development. The key player in male development is the gene SRY, on the Y chromosome, which induces the embryos genital ridges to become testes. In female embryos, which lack SRY, other genes direct the genital ridges to become ovaries. Anomalous sex chromosome patterns include XXY, which causes Klinefelter syndrome, and XO, which causes Turner syndrome.
The male and female internal reproductive tracts develop from different precursors"the Wolffian and Mllerian ducts. In XY embryos (normal males), the testes secrete anti-Mllerian hormone (AMH), which causes the Mllerian ducts to regress, and androgens, which cause the Wolffian ducts to develop further and produce the male internal anatomy. In XY embryos lacking functional androgen receptors (androgen insensitivity syndrome [AIS]), neither the male nor the female reproductive tract develops. In XX embryos (normal females), the lack of AMH allows the Mllerian ducts to develop further, and the lack of androgens allows the Wolffian ducts to regress, producing the female internal anatomy.
The external genitalia of the two sexes develop from common precursors. The urethral folds give rise to the labia minora in females and to the shaft of the penis in males. The genital swellings give rise to the labia majora in females and the scrotum in males. The genital tubercle forms the external portion of the clitoris in females and the glans of the penis in males. Male-typical development of the external genitalia requires the presence of testosterone and its conversion to 5-dihydrotestosterone (DHT). In genetically female fetuses that are exposed to high levels of androgens (as in congenital adrenal hyperplasia [CAH]), and in genetically male fetuses that lack androgen receptors (androgen insensitivity syndrome) or that cannot convert testosterone to DHT (5-reductase deficiency), the external genitalia will be sex-atypical to a variable degree.
http://sites.sinauer.com/levay4e/summary06.html

[JehovahsWitness]

There are many passages that reflect sexism, starting at the beginning all the way thru to the New Testament.

Genesis 3:16:

To the woman he said,

I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[f] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.

# QUESTION: Are God's words in Genesis 3:16 (see above) evident that the God of the bible is "sexist"?

sexism has been defined as: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex". Critics suggest that God's words to Eve were "sexist" however nothing he pronounced fit the above definition.

Adam and Eve had disobeyed God, God has previously warned that the punishment for that act would be death. The same punishment was stipulated for both the male and the female, in other words the law made no distinction between the sexes. God spoke of no other punishment for their act but he did highlight the consequences (the repercussions) of what they had done. It is said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - a repurcussion. Repurcussion and punishment are not the same thing.

To illustrate, the "punshment" for drinking and driving may be a fine or even imprisonment. If however a driver gets drunk, goes behind the wheel and crashes his car resulting in serious injury to himself or even death, can we rightly say that "the punishment for drink driving is serious injury or death"? No, the punishment is that which a duly appointed judge pronounces in accord with a previously stated law. The repurcussion is the uninted CONSEQUENCE of his reckless actions.

When Eve sinned she lost her physical and emotional perfection, like crashing a car, there would be physical emotional consequences and God simply informed Eve of what those were. One consequence would be a physical malfunction that would result in greatly increased birth pains and the other would be an emotional disfunction (both for the woman, an disproportionate (read: unhealthy) obsession to please her husband, and for Adam an unnatural tendance to abuse that power).



It should be noted that reporting or even predicting is not the same as causing. If the New York Times reports that 3 in 10 women will suffer violence at the hands of their partners, does this mean that it is being "sexist"? Does reporting this fact imply approval or even supporting this eventuality? If a maladie or condition effects only women is that a "sexist" illness? God informed Eve of the consequences of her actions particular to her sex, it was no more "sexist" for him to do this than it would be for a doctor to tell a woman there is a great chance she will get cervical cancer but that no man in the history of mankind ever got cancer in his cervix.

CONCLUSION: Genesis 3:16 in no way fits the definition of being "sexist" or demonstrating prejudice based on sex. Indeed both Adam and Eve were told (and indeed) suffered the same punishment for their sin (old age and ultimate death). Their altered (sinful) condition would result in a physical and emotional inbalance and God in reporting this was not voicing his desire or approval simply warning of the consequences of their actions.




JW




RELATED POSTS

Was it reasonable that Eve BELIEVE the snake?
viewtopic.php?p=1040358#p1040358

Who sinned first? Adam or Eve?[Gen 3:6]
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Would God not EXPECT his law to be broken ? ("set up To fail")
viewtopic.php?p=390066#p390066

Does Genesis indicate Adam and Eve literally had no way of grasping what the Word "good" meant?
viewtopic.php?p=1040394#p1040394

Did Adam and Eve understand the punishment (notion of death)?
viewtopic.php?p=849053#p849053

Why did Eves punishment involve increased birth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p801703

For more details please go to other posts related to...

SATAN THE DEVIL , THE GARDEN OF EDEN and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE