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]

[Replying to Zzyzx]
[Replying to Logical Thinking]

How does what you suggest square with Genesis 3:16 . . . your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

How can two people be in a non-hierarchical relationship (equals) if one rules over the other?

Let me cite at length a respected scholar on Genesis, and another respected theologian that he cites, since I lack credibility. And this goes for others as well on this thread, namely Logical Thinking, who cited a) a non scholarly source in his/her last post and b) completely missed a key point in that cited source that declared man and woman as equal according to the Bible. But hey, amateurs aside, let's look to a professional. Brueggemann nailed it on this.

From Walter Brueggemann's Genesis (pgs. 50-51, bolding mine, italics his):

"Trible points out that that the creation of woman is a second full creation story which is necessary to the completion of creation (see God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, Chap 4). Woman is the crowning event in the narrative and the fulfillment of humanity. Moreover, there is mutuality in the second scene (2:18-25). It is only in the fourth scene (3:8-24), the sentencing of distorted human community, where there is trouble and inequity between the two earthlings. In that scene, there is distorted desire (3:16) and a gesture by which man controls woman in pronouncing her name (3:20). But none of that is urged by the narrator as normative. The contrast between the faithful work of God in Scene II and the result of human distrust in Scene IV is an eloquent comment on the relation of the man and the woman. In God's garden now, permeated by distrust, there is control and distortion. But that distortion is not for one moment accepted as the will of [God]."

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Genesis 1-2, there is clear equality between the sexes. That is God's plan. In Genesis 3, and in post fall texts, oppressive hierarchies (including sexist) are introduced. But this is counter to what was meant to be, and we can see disruptive challenges to these hierarchies throughout the narrative.

This idea that you are promoting (apparently Brueggemann's) destroys the authority of the Bible in a strange, stretched, and bungling effort to save it. If the nonsense of Genesis needed any more examples of how it is clearly the work of men, this twisted logic fits the bill in its effort to claim 'down' really means 'up,' 'stop' means 'go,' and 'black means 'white.'

This argument is as confused as the misuse of the word "bolding" as a substitute for 'emphasis.' "Bolding" in the context you use it, is not even a word.

[rikuoamero]

Explain to me please how a designed universe can have natural consequences.

If you explain what exactly you mean by this and upon what biblical basis you make the assumption that this applies I will certainly consider doing so.


JW

In my view, a natural universe (i.e. one that was not designed, there is no creator deity or deities), things X that happen after doing Y have no-one declaring X to be the result. They simply are natural consequences.
For example - if I walk off the edge of a cliff, the effect is gravity, the result being that I fall (presumably to my death). In my naturalistic universe view, no-one designed gravity, no-one caused it to be there, there is no god to 'blame'.
Now imagine I am a programmer for the 'Civilisation' PC video game series. I program in weather and climate. I program in what happens if a player has too many factories. My program, because of what I design it to do, looks at how much pollution the player is generating, and if it is high enough, it triggers a global warming effect, melting the ice caps and flooding land areas. Without my programming that in, that wouldn't have happened. There are other games where players can have as many factories as they want and not worry about climate or global warming, because such systems have not been designed and programmed in.
The same is how I look at the God of the Bible. God, to use this analogy, is the 'computer programmer' of the universe (assuming he exists, of course). Since he is (supposedly) the creator of the universe, he is therefore the one who 'programmed' what X happens when Y is done.

[bjs]

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

.........

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.)

I know that the debate has already moved on from this point, but this particular misuse of scripture has always bothered me. It is a common example of cutting a passage out of its context. If we continue reading in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul wrote, In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Danmark quotes verse 9, which says that woman was created for (Greek: dia) man. Then in verse 12 Paul wrote that just as woman came from (dia) man, so also man came from (dia) woman. After saying that woman is from or for man, Paul then used the same word to say that man is from or for woman.

Since Paul was talking about woman coming from man and man coming from woman, this strongly suggests that his use of the word head was meant more like how we might say the head of a river as opposed to the head of a company. The dual use of the word head is accurate is both English and Greek. Head can mean authority or it can mean source. In the context of this passage it almost certainly meant source. Paul was not saying that one is above the other, but that one comes from the other. He then went on to say that the other also comes from the one. Women come from men and men come from women.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul was saying that men and women are different, but not independent. We are not the same, but we are for each other and need each other. Paul encourages us not to ignore our differences, perhaps even to celebrate our differences, but not to let our differences divide us. Avoiding division is probably the most important theme of 1 Corinthians. Paul said that all things come from God, and saw that Divine creative act reflected in mundane life.

To say that this passage puts men over women is taking the passage out of context.

[theophile]

[Replying to bjs]

Finally some sense on this thread!

[theophile]

[Replying to post 61 by Danmark]

This idea that you are promoting (apparently Brueggemann's)...

"Apparently Brueggemann's"? I gave you the author, title and page numbers. You want a full bibliographic reference? I'm sure it's not his alone. He tends to build on pretty reputable sources.

This idea that you are promoting (apparently Brueggemann's) destroys the authority of the Bible in a strange, stretched, and bungling effort to save it.

I don't know what this means. Destroys what authority? You go on to say that "man wrote it". Is the authority that God wrote it? I've never suggested that so I don't know why you're arguing it. I've said all along that the men wrote it.

Why do we care about the authority of the bible anyways when the question here is about sexism in the bible? Whether or not we take the bible as authoritative is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it teaches sexism.

This argument is as confused as the misuse of the word "bolding" as a substitute for 'emphasis.' "Bolding" in the context you use it, is not even a word.

Really? Is that the best you've got? Sorry, "bolded" text! And I didn't say "emphasis", as if it matters, because there was emphasized text already (italicized) by the author.

How about you actually debate something. I believe you started it. I now have a leading biblical scholar on my side. What have you got?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 60 by KenRU]

So, god is ... a poor planner? And couldn't foresee sexism or prevent it? Not much of a god then is he/she/it? There is no logical consequence from Eve's sin to all women should be subject to man's rule, nor is there a path from the Fall to all women suffering long pains during childbirth. But god should have seen it though, right? He is god after all. Would've thought a benevolent god would have straightened that stuff out right from the get go.

Or, if it was his plan (should the Fall happen), then that still makes him sexist.

Seems like an A or B choice to me.

I've explained what I think the connection between the fall and greater suffering in childbirth elsewhere on this site. Brueggemann does the same in the text I cited. There is a logical connection once you understand the nature of sin. Simple explanation that I disagree with, just to show the possibility? God is punishing them for disobedience. See? Clear, logical connection...

As for "God as poor planner", I think it depends what you think the nature of God's plan is, and what God's relationship to the world and history is. I tend towards open theology that sees chaotic forces and a God that wants to work with humankind toward the envisioned end. But where history is essentially open, versus closed and preordained and following a set course.

[JehovahsWitness]

The same is how I look at the God of the Bible. God, to use this analogy, is the 'computer programmer' of the universe (assuming he exists, of course). Since he is (supposedly) the creator of the universe, he is therefore the one who 'programmed' what X happens when Y is done.

Yes, but the analogy is faulty, people are not computers, they are not intelligent self willed self directed independent beings. God created humans like himself, with the ability to make independent decisions and He (God) chose to respect that by not forcing (programming) them to only choose what is to his liking.

It was a wild card thrown in the mix for sure but much more interesting.

JW

[rikuoamero]

The same is how I look at the God of the Bible. God, to use this analogy, is the 'computer programmer' of the universe (assuming he exists, of course). Since he is (supposedly) the creator of the universe, he is therefore the one who 'programmed' what X happens when Y is done.

Yes, but the analogy is faulty, people are not computers, they are not intelligent self willed self directed independent beings. God created humans like himself, with the ability to make independent decisions and He (God) chose to respect that by not forcing (programming) them to only choose what is to his liking.

It was a wild card thrown in the mix for sure but much more interesting.

JW

What happens if I am a computer programmer for the 'The Sims' series of games? In that series, the Sims can have 'free will' (or a facsimile of it). In that series, I can program what happens if a Sim, for example, piddles on the floor. I program in the effects; the Sim gets upset, his hygiene score goes down and other Sims will walk away from him.
Again, without my having programmed it in, the nasty effects, the 'consequences' if you will, wouldn't happen.
Remember, what I'm talking about isn't merely whether or not humans can 'choose' (I'm still on the fence about the whole 'free will' issue, but that's a discussion for a different thread). I'm talking about what happened to Adam and Eve in the story of Genesis; the story quite literally has God saying to Eve he will cause her to feel pain in childbirth. That in and of itself has nothing to do with Eve's choices or lack thereof; just the same as a criminal's sentence in and of itself has nothing to do with his choice to rob that liquor store.
In both cases, an intelligent entity (God and a judge) declare, or cause what is to happen with the perpetrator.

To try and see things from my point of view, re-read Genesis 3, but this time, imagine that it makes NO reference to God coming back from his walk and talking to Adam and Eve.
What happens to them? Do they still get kicked out of the garden? Does Eve (and her descendants) still suffer pains in childbirth?

[Danmark]

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

.........

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.)

I know that the debate has already moved on from this point, but this particular misuse of scripture has always bothered me. It is a common example of cutting a passage out of its context. If we continue reading in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul wrote, In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Danmark quotes verse 9, which says that woman was created for (Greek: dia) man. Then in verse 12 Paul wrote that just as woman came from (dia) man, so also man came from (dia) woman. After saying that woman is from or for man, Paul then used the same word to say that man is from or for woman.

Since Paul was talking about woman coming from man and man coming from woman, this strongly suggests that his use of the word head was meant more like how we might say the head of a river as opposed to the head of a company. The dual use of the word head is accurate is both English and Greek. Head can mean authority or it can mean source. In the context of this passage it almost certainly meant source. Paul was not saying that one is above the other, but that one comes from the other. He then went on to say that the other also comes from the one. Women come from men and men come from women.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul was saying that men and women are different, but not independent. We are not the same, but we are for each other and need each other. Paul encourages us not to ignore our differences, perhaps even to celebrate our differences, but not to let our differences divide us. Avoiding division is probably the most important theme of 1 Corinthians. Paul said that all things come from God, and saw that Divine creative act reflected in mundane life.

To say that this passage puts men over women is taking the passage out of context.

You are getting back to the main point of the thread. Thank-you. However, your analysis misses the mark by a mile. Let's look at the entire heart of the passage starting at verse 3. We will look at it in context, but not with your erroneous interpretation which tries to turn Paul's words upside down:

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

I don't know how Paul could be any clearer. He sets up a hierarchy with God at the top, woman at the bottom.

Then Paul goes into an absurd bit of blather where he acts as if purely cultural, man made customs are from the supreme being, creator of the universe, who couldn't possible care whether or not people wear hats or how long their hair is. How anyone could believe such nonsense comes from 'God' truly baffles me.

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 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.

Then Paul is back at being his sexist best, intoning that woman is a mere afterthought, a helper for God's best creation, man:

8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ['angels?' ]
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

No where here does Paul undo any of his claim that man is to rule over women, that they shouldn't even talk in church, and that man is the 'head' of the woman, just as God is the 'head' of Christ. Then Paul is back to his trivial silliness about hair fashions.

How anyone can take any of this seriously amazes me, but to claim without analysis that it means the opposite of what it says, is even more mysterious. The Bible certainly needs many apologists to try to make some sense out of it, but here, you've made it even sillier.

[theophile]

[Replying to logical thinking]

Oh! It's a widely supported in biblical scholarship? Then I'm sure you can provide some reputable sources! The answer to that request is a list of weblinks

Here's a good one. From another Genesis scholar (not some random website). EMPHASIS mine.

John H. Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), pg 176:

The word helper is common enough as a description of someone who comes to the aid of or provides a service for someone. It carries no implications regarding the relationship or relative status of the individuals involved. In fact, the noun form of the word found in this verse as used elsewhere refers almost exclusively to God as the One who helps his people. If we expand our investigation to verbal forms, we find a continuing predominance of God as the subject, though there are a handful of occurrences where people help people. In this latter category we find people helping their neighbors or relatives (Isa. 41:6), people helping in a political alliance or coalition (Ezra 10:15), and military reinforcements (Josh. 10:4; 2 Sam. 8:5). Nothing suggests a subservient status of the one helping; in fact, the opposite is more likely. Certainly helper cannot be understood as the opposite/complement of leader."

My point exactly.