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?

[Danmark]

...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?

I agree, this passage alone, ignoring the rest, suggests equality:
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.
But this must be read in conjunction with the passages that say the husband rules the wife.

[logical thinking]

[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...

Right, so it's only after the first chapter of the first book that the Bible is sexist.

The first antisemetic passage doesn't appear in Hitler's book Mein Kampfe for more pages than the outrageously sexist stuff appears in the Bible!

Also, why on earth are you saying that the woman, as the man's "helper" is ABOVE him. A helper is someone like your maid or your cleaning lady. Right from the getgo, from even before she is accused of destroying humanity, woman is below man.

1 Corinthians 11: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

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.

Oh, I would LOVE for you to tell me in what ways the texts I cited are NOT sexist!

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?

What teaching could be more disruptive and feminist?

Mmmm, how about a teaching in which the son of the creator of the universe, and integral part of the trinity which is God himself said "Woman are not intrinsically inferior to men". How about that?

And how is your story in any way even remotely feminist? Because Jesus doesn't kill her for talking to him? Is this the MOST anti-sexist story in the Bible? It's not even about Jesus's interlocutor at all! It's more of a pro-animal-rights passage than an anti-sexist passage. The story would be no more and no less relevant if the person jesus was talking to was a man. The gender of the person in question is irrelevant to the parable. Come on! What are you going to say next, that the Bible is anti slavery???

[OnceConvinced]

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 implication comes from creation. He created the system and he designed the consequences. So any consequences that are there are a result of design. Thus he is responsible for it.

Let's say I was to design a cool toy for a child. I also designed it so that if the wrong button was pushed, it would cause the hair of everyone in the world to fall out. Then I make clear rules to my child never to press the button. However the inevitable happens (and I knew it was inevitable). The child presses the button and the hair of everyone in the world falls out.

I say to the kid, "That's the consequence of your actions! It's your fault".

Should I not be held responsible for designing those consequences?

The example of Adam and Eve illustrates this.

What it illustrates is that God designed the system to include consequences. The design was that if sin entered his creation, then childbirth would be painful. It was him that designed it this way. The consequences are his doing.

If I were to tell my child that if they steal from the cookie jar I will give them a spanking. Then they disobey me and steal from the cookie jar. I then say "Well you knew the consequences" and then spanked them. That's a punishment.

[OnceConvinced]

1. Are these religions sexist?

2. If so, what are the reasons?

Being only familiar with the bible, I will focus on that.

It's quite obvious it is sexist for the reasons that people have already mentioned.

The bible paints a picture of women being men's possessions. There were sold and traded like common cattle. If a man wanted to marry one they paid for her and/or raped her. The woman had no choice in the matter. They were even offered up to raging mobs to appease them.

However I see so more than just sexist biblical passages and practises. Just look at the bible as a whole. 66 books of the bible. Only 2 of them are about women and one of them was forced into marriage (purchased along with a whole lot of other property) That's 3% of all the books in the bible revolving around women.

One may argue that at least there are some stories about women in the bible, but what is revealing is that they are only a small minority. Most women were not even mentioned. We hear about all the brothers, but never the sisters. Even Lot's wife, a key player in the story was not given a name.

Here are a list of nameless characters in the bible. See how many are women! Just about all of them:

List of names for the biblical nameless on Wikipedia).

Here is a list of all men's names vs women's:

Girls (188):
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... phabetical

males (1792):
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... er-All-Men

Only 10% of characters with names mentioned in the bible are women!

Some theists may wish to downplay these figures but they speak volumes to me about the sexism of the bible writers.

[theophile]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

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

Ha! That's the debate, isn't it? Only recourse is to the texts themselves and reading them real close and careful. Being open to subtleties. Not being overconfident in what we think the truth of them is. (The bible, IMO, is not meant to be easy. It is meant to challenge us and make us work to discern its meaning.)

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?

The authority on the text is the text itself. It has to be. But that said, no text is perfect. Scripture was produced and refined in the crucible of history, and some scriptures are pithier and more perfect than others. But none is absolutely beyond reproach. Like any artifact, a text can only reveal so much, and few are truly iconic. And if we're not careful, as our traditions / churches have not been, even the most iconic text can become an idol to us, and be co-opted to contort the truth so that it in fact hinders our finding its truth. The text can be maligned, or we can take it too seriously, and hold on to it too tightly, with too narrow a view, and close off any light that it was once revealing. Thus, we always need to keep a loose hold, and be ready to toss the text or our ossified or too-hasty a reading aside, and trust above all in our own knowledge and insights together to find the way.

I think this more or less addresses your other comments: The text is authoritative on its own teaching. Its meaning is not subjective. But our own hearts and minds in mutual pursuit and love of wisdom are the real authorities in this world. The only ones that truly matter... Scriptures are difficult precisely in order to develop and shape us in this way. So that we become iconic ourselves. True images of God in this world as is our calling.

[Danmark]

no text is perfect. Scripture was produced and refined in the crucible of history, and some scriptures are pithier and more perfect than others. But none is absolutely beyond reproach.

Yes, the Bible is imperfect, its text is imperfect. It does not come from God. I agree with you, the Bible is not "beyond reproach."

Yet your arguments supporting the sexism of the Bible rest upon the assumption the Bible IS perfect, that it is from God. It is not. Its text is from imperfect, sexist men. This is obvious and you have supported this by your arguments that the Bible is not perfect and is written by men.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 42 by logical thinking]

Right, so it's only after the first chapter of the first book that the Bible is sexist.

We are in the shit. That is what happens in Genesis 3. So yeah, everything after is us trying to get out of it, or us getting ourselves in deeper. If you don't bring that context to subsequent scriptures, i.e., all of them, then you're not going to have a chance of understanding.

Part of 'being in the shit' is the multiplication of oppressive hierarchies. Racist. Sexist. Classist. Jesus himself, as I tried to show if you could read a passage, is subject to them and needs to have his eyes opened now and again (how much more you or I!). A woman does that for him. (That, like it or not, is disruptive, and beyond feminist, for today let alone 2000 years ago...)

Also, why on earth are you saying that the woman, as the man's "helper" is ABOVE him. A helper is someone like your maid or your cleaning lady. Right from the getgo, from even before she is accused of destroying humanity, woman is below man.

I've already said. To reiterate, look where the Hebrew word 'help' is used in scripture. It is used to describe God's relationship to humankind. Those types of things are important in biblical interpretation... It suggests there is something divine about Eve, or that she is in fact playing a role akin to God. i.e., above Adam, if we wanted to get hierarchical.

So no, to read 'helper' in the way that you do (as a "cleaning lady") would be blatantly wrong. A better reading would be companion (at minimum). Have you never been helped by someone superior to you? Why then are you imposing a sexist reading on a word that has no such necessary meaning? And that when compared to other occurrences would in fact suggest an elevated status for Eve?

Oh, I would LOVE for you to tell me in what ways the texts I cited are NOT sexist!

Let's start with Eve. If you can't even accept widely supported facts in biblical scholarship such as Eve's intended relationship to Adam, how it is not to be his "cleaning lady", there's no point going further.

[Zzyzx]

.

trust above all in our own knowledge and insights together to find the way.

In other words " every person is entitled to make a personal decision (purely subjective) based on their knowledge and insights (whatever those may be). Right?

Regarding other matters a person can seek actual verifying information from disconnected sources on which to base a reasoned decision. However, since Bible stories and claims cannot be verified with disconnected sources, its interpretation is just a matter of opinion. The product of this is 40,000 Christian denominations (and uncounted individuals) all claiming that they have the way.

Thus, anyone can believe whatever they choose to think the text means -- and consider themselves a REAL Christian.

[theophile]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

In other words " every person is entitled to make a personal decision (purely subjective) based on their knowledge and insights (whatever those may be). Right?

Key word in what I said: together. Sharing knowledge, growing in it together, challenging each other... That's the way to truth. So absolutely, each of us needs to bring our personal insight and knowledge to the table, that's a critical component. But the goal is not to leave with our views in tact, and the group as divided as before. The goal is to come closer and be transformed, made ever anew (and better than before).

The product of this is 40,000 Christian denominations (and uncounted individuals) all claiming that they have the way.

This is good and bad. Bad, in that many of these "ways" close down upon themselves through idolization of their views. The light that may once have been part of their way is blocked and these denominations become small-minded and mean.

Good because we need this difference and multitude for the way to wisdom that I'm suggesting together. Open, sharing, challenging, growing... It's in this generative 'arena' that truth is found, or that we have a much better chance of finding it, and making ourselves anew.

[JehovahsWitness]

sexism.

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

# 1 QUESTION: Does that fact that God mentioned mistreatement of women mean he approved or endorsed such treatement?

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"? No, reporting a fact (even if that fact effects only one sex) does not imply approval or endorsement. God said what would happen to Eve and all women subsequently, this doesn't imply he was happy or that he approved or endorsed those consequences.

# 2 QUESTION: Does the fact that God mentioned "childbirth pains" constitute "unfair" treatement of women? GOD wasn't treating Eve in any way by telling her what would happen to her, He was simply predicting what would happen to in the future. Predicting that someone, for example is going to have a car accident is not the same as running them over!

Furthermore, both sexes would physically "malfunction" and both sexes would be subject to sickness and disease, old age and eventual death. They would not however have identical sicknesses (there are a number sex-specific diseases or conditions which occur only in one sex or another), this is not "sexist" since I hazard a guess the balance of sex-speciic conditions is more or less evenly spread between men and women. That said, by virtue of the fact that they were created with a womb and were designed to be able to carry children and give birth, women would suffer in a way that men could not, and God saw fit to mention this particularity, namely increased childbirth pains.

It is not "sexist" to inform a woman of a condition that affects only women. 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 midwife to inform a woman of what to expect when her labour pains start. Evidently men were not shielded from the physical repurcussions of Adam's sin, they too would suffer physical illness (read: malfunction), but they could not suffer childbirth pains since they would never give birth.

# 3 QUESTION: Does God punish Eve with "additional unpleasant treatment of one gender (for the same offense)"?

Eve is not punished "additionally". God imposed a single and identical punishment for both sexes: DEATH. The consequences of their actions would effect both men and women but not necessarily in the same way and God saw fit to mention some particularities.

Adam and Eve's rebellion would result in both men and women suffering physical and emotional abnormalities. Human Society would be thrown off balance and develop in a skewed and perverted way that would result in suffering of one kind or another for both sexes. As the bible says "one man rules over another to his own hurt" (Ecc 8:9), "For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now." (Rom 8:22). Thus God predicted right at the dawn of human society that man's history would be marked by oppressive rulership and exploitation, causing inspeakable human suffering. Logically, however the more vulnerable of the sexes would suffer more.

Eve's rebellion would prove particularly harmful for women because they were created physically weaker (women generally smaller than men and about 10% less body strength), have a stronger nurturing instinct and are generally more emotional than men. God was predicting that certain men would exploit these differences; so of the two sexes, history would prove that women would suffer more.

CONCLUSION: Genesis 3:16 in no way fits paints God as a "sexist". Both Adam and Eve were to suffer the physical and emtional ills due to their altered (sinful) condition but God chose to forewarn (inform) Eve of one particular to her sex. God in reporting this was not voicing his desire or approval or endorsement.