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?

[Zzyzx]

.

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).

Correction: A&E did NOT suffer the same punishment. There was specific additional punishment for one gender " increased pain of childbirth " that was not balanced / equaled in the other. That is a very obvious and blatant favoritism of one sex " or, in other words, sexism.

Genesis 3:16 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.

What part of rule over thee is NOT sexist?

[Danmark]

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.

Men and women are not treated differently when they are convicted of drunk driving.
So that example of yours is inapposite.
Adam and Eve committed the SAME sin, disobedience to God,
yet God punished them unequally.

Both have to work hard after 'the fall,' but only woman has to have pain in fulfilling her role in the joint project of parenting.
For the same sin women are demoted to subservient status,
while men are rewarded by being named rulers.

This is obvious gender discrimination, prejudice, and sexism. I suggest that it is only the long tradition of this tripe, with its biblical justification, that makes it seem 'normal' and not sexist to some. In other words this rubbish has been accepted for so long by many religious folk that they think it normal and fair, not sexist and unfair.

Your efforts to call something black 'white' are doomed to failure. I am surprised anyone even tries.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 31 by Zzyzx]

I have already addressed the difference between "punishment" and "consequence". Feel free to counter argue that the two words mean the same thing if you wish. A dictionary would be most helpful to all concerned.

I have also addressed the difference betweeen prediction/report and approval.

JW

[1213]

...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,...

That is interesting claim, if one does not ignore what the Bible tells. For example, it is said:

Let the husband render to his wife the affection owed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife doesn't have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but the wife.
1 Cor, 7:3-4

How is wife subservient, if she has authority over husbands body?

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the assembly to himself gloriously, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly; Nevertheless each of you must also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Efe. 5:25-29, 33

Man is expected to love like Christ and be willing to even die for his wife. And for wife it is enough just to respect man that loves like Christ. Which is more demanding, to love like Christ, or to respect person who loves like Christ? And who is the servant? Man who is expected to do gave himself up for woman, or woman who just should respect that guy?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by JehovahsWitness]

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.

I love this interpretation of Genesis, the equating of the punishments God handed out as if they were natural consequences that no-one, NOT EVEN GOD, could override. It comes across to me like the person making this point is desperately trying to make sure God comes across as completely innocent, of not being involved in any wrong-doing.

Why do you not interpret the child birth pains etc as being punishments deliberately handed down by God? Surely, if they were, and they were handed down by God himself, they'd be perfectly just and moral (since this is God we're talking about)? I mean, I thought that anything and everything God does is just and moral by definition, just...automagically.

In fact, shall I post the text from Genesis 3?

So the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this,

Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.
16 To the woman he said,

I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.
17 To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, You must not eat from it,

Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

Genesis 3 NIV

Notice the bold. To the serpent and the woman, God says he will directly cause something. It isn't a natural consequence, no it is an action he takes, a change in reality that he causes with his magical divine God powers.

So what was that you were saying about this only being natural consequences being reported on, and not being caused by God?

Even if we didn't have the above text...how could it just be natural consequences being reported on? In a model of reality where God is the creator of everything, how could it NOT be 'God's fault' for what the 'natural' consequences are for doing X, Y and Z? In fact...how could there even BE natural consequences in such a model?

[JoeyKnothead]

Sexist or not, what cracks me up are the fundamentalist types who decry "intellectual elites", then pray to a god that was the ultimate one of 'em.

[JehovahsWitness]

I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Question: Why does the bible say God "caused"/made Eve's childbirth pains to increase if he was not directly responsible?

This expression is not being used in the absolute. In the bible God is sometimes spoken of as "causing" or "making" something happen when in fact He simply allows it.

Scripturally God is Almighty and nothing happens that he cannot stop should he so wish, so in an relative - not an absolute - sense, whatever happens he "makes" in that he doesn't step in to stop it. This does not imply He (God) was responsible for it happening or that what happened was according to his will or desire.

The example of Adam and Eve illustrates this. Since God had prohibited them from eating of the tree of knowledge and warned them of the consequences if they did, logically we can assume He didn't want them to disobey him nor did he force them to. Thus A&E sinned of their own free will and the suffering that entailed was caused by their actions. God neither wanted nor forced them to disobey. God did however, allow the drama to play out and in that relative sense he "made" or "caused" them to eventually see the full consequence of their actions.


JW

[Zzyzx]

.

I have already addressed the difference between "punishment" and "consequence". Feel free to counter argue that the two words mean the same thing if you wish. A dictionary would be most helpful to all concerned.

I have also addressed the difference betweeen prediction/report and approval.

Yes, there has been a lot of definition play / word play.

Now lets address the issue of sexism.

1) Additional unpleasant treatment of one gender (for the same offense)

2) One gender said to "rule over" another

Kindly show how that is not sexism (preferably without word play -- just straight talk).

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 31 by Zzyzx]

I have already addressed the difference between "punishment" and "consequence". Feel free to counter argue that the two words mean the same thing if you wish. A dictionary would be most helpful to all concerned.

You in particular could benefit from using a dictionary. It is clear in the passages of Genesis 3 that 'God' is punishing women. There is no mention of some logical consequence. How could having pain in childbirth possibly be a logical consequence of eating some unnamed fruit or for disobeying 'god?' How could women being denied leadership be a natural consequence of a man and a woman jointly disobeying this so called 'god?'

The story of Adam and Eve and 'the fall' are clearly mythological and have no basis in fact.

[bluethread]

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?

Ah, so the standard is intellectual egalitarianism. The problem here is that there are many very intelligent people who are not treated equally, because they do not have government certification. Not everything in leadership is based on intellect.

Why would a god be out of touch with the basic biology of his creation?

Is intellect the totality of basic biology?

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?

First you answered your own question then you fell back on a false equivalency. Why would your daughter have to do her job better than anybody else to be their top financial analyst? Why not just get a degree and have the job handed to her? Your one daughter has a Harvard Law Degree, and her twin is a top financial analyst. It appears that intellect is not the only factor. I am not saying that no organization should allow women to supervise men, or that all organizations should preclude all women from supervising men. I was asking if every organization must allow women to supervise men and no organization should exclude women from supervising men.