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?

[KenRU]

[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.

You and I disagree then on what is considered logical.

Simple explanation that I disagree with, just to show the possibility? God is punishing them for disobedience. See? Clear, logical connection...

No, I don't see. For example, is it logical then for the punishments to be unequal? Is it logical for all women to bear the punishment for the mistake of one?

But I'd rather not discuss ideas you do not support. How about telling me what you do believe? I have read this thread, but perhaps I missed your earlier explanation. Could you elaborate?

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.

Which is completely and unequivocally unknowable. At this point, my guesses are as good as yours, or anyone else's. Correct? After all, the ONLY source for what think may be god's plans or motives is the bible. Correct?

I tend towards open theology that sees chaotic forces and a God that wants to work with humankind toward the envisioned end.

An end with men in charge of women, apparently.

But where history is essentially open, versus closed and preordained and following a set course.

Do you mean the future is open? IE: Free Will and no predestination?

-all the best

[Danmark]

[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.

You and I disagree then on what is considered logical.

Simple explanation that I disagree with, just to show the possibility? God is punishing them for disobedience. See? Clear, logical connection...

No, I don't see. For example, is it logical then for the punishments to be unequal? Is it logical for all women to bear the punishment for the mistake of one?

But I'd rather not discuss ideas you do not support. How about telling me what you do believe? I have read this thread, but perhaps I missed your earlier explanation. Could you elaborate?

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.

Which is completely and unequivocally unknowable. At this point, my guesses are as good as yours, or anyone else's. Correct? After all, the ONLY source for what think may be god's plans or motives is the bible. Correct?

I tend towards open theology that sees chaotic forces and a God that wants to work with humankind toward the envisioned end.

An end with men in charge of women, apparently.
....

[Emphasis mine]
This is something that has bothered me for at least 50 years; what IS that 'envisioned end?' Religion in general and Christianity in particular are supposed to answer fundamental questions and to give purpose and meaning to life. But I don't see that it has accomplished that task. It merely puts a label on that quest by saying "God." This is admittedly not strictly on topic, so I'll raise it in a 'New Topic: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 069#802069

[theophile]

[Replying to KenRU]

No, I don't see. For example, is it logical then for the punishments to be unequal? Is it logical for all women to bear the punishment for the mistake of one?

These are just asking for more detailed logic. It's not denying the logic of what I said... To deny the logic of crime and punishment is to deny the logic of retributive justice, which is a powerful motivation in this world and key to understanding what is really happening in Genesis 3...

But I'd rather not discuss ideas you do not support. How about telling me what you do believe? I have read this thread, but perhaps I missed your earlier explanation. Could you elaborate?

It's on another thread. Summary version: I see sin not in separation from God through disobedience but rather separation from God through running and hiding from God out of fear, shame, etc. Sin is when we put up barriers between us and God and close down our relationship, which means putting our trust in other things - the things that we hide behind or turn to instead of God, even when, or especially when, we disobey God, and fear the consequences -- better that we own what we did. Sin is isolating ourselves from God and in doing so fostering an isolationist approach and worldview.

Now, this 'openness' that is the opposite of sin is not just required before God. It is, I think, a general posture that we need to adopt. The movement from nakedness to clothing in Genesis is above all what captures the fall for me and is the initiating event of the 'logic' that increases pain, hardship, oppression, etc, in the world.

This theme is REALLY strong in the world today (to give a real sense of what I mean). Just look at Brexit, where we see a nation that chose to run and hide because of fear of being exposed, just as Adam and Eve did (and hardship likely to ensue because of it). If you're in the US, and watched the RNC and DNC, you see it loud and clear. Clinton is pushing exactly what I am right now, where the question above all being posed in the election is between open and closed. Go to the economist.com. The image that hits you (right now at least) for the cover story of the current issue - on Divided Politics - illustrates my view perfectly of a world divided between open and closed...

Now, that's a little bit about what I think sin is, and how we need to reorient our concept away from disobedience to isolationism. What you have in Adam and Eve's movement of seeking cover, putting up barriers, hiding, etc, is isolationism, and the emergence of an "I" or "me against you" approach and worldview that is the true sin... Interestingly, after the fall, Adam and Eve start talking in terms of "I" versus "we" or "us"... (Just look at Genesis 1, it was always "Let us"...) (Again, I am clearly a Democrat )

To your question then, the logic of Genesis 3 is that the world responds in kind - it is the very logic of retribution that is so motivating of our thoughts and actions. Just as Adam and Eve isolate themselves, and hold themselves back from the world, so the world, or everything in the world, isolates and holds back from them. Things become harder because of this. Enmities start to form due to historic accusations ("Her fault!", "Snake's fault!"). Moves are made to take control in this "I" environment, i.e., a husband starts to rule over his wife, who he ultimately blames for his hardship in this fallen world... BABIES hold themselves back from the world, causing greater pain in childbirth, and the EARTH holds back its produce, requiring greater effort to cultivate it -- two perfect images of the isolationist mentality that Adam and Eve introduce...

So the logic that you have to accept, to sum up, is that if I push you, you will likely push me back. If I take your eye, you will want to take mine. If I hold back my stuff from you (cover up and hide), you will probably hold your stuff back from me.

God knows this (hence why God declares it as the repercussions of Adam and Eve's action, i.e., their covering up and hiding). God also knew that in gaining knowledge of evil, Adam and Eve would not be able to handle their nakedness. (Just think of how they would react: "Holy shit! There's evil in this world. And look, we're totally exposed!"...) Hence why God wanted to keep them from this knowledge until they were more mature...

But that's just my two cents. Hopefully gives you some view of the very strong logic I see there.

Quote:

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.

Which is completely and unequivocally unknowable. At this point, my guesses are as good as yours, or anyone else's. Correct? After all, the ONLY source for what think may be god's plans or motives is the bible. Correct?

Religious texts, by their very nature, endeavor to reveal God. Whether or not they are successful, or if any text is successful, we need, I think, to understand and compare its revelation to our expectations and, as best we can, to reality (and this requires work, even step one, as most religious texts, at least the big ones, are not superficial, and the deepest fault of most antagonists is treating them as such and hitting nothing but gross caricatures in their arguments - that, or they target the sins of traditions versus the text itself, which is assumed equivalent).

So we can read, for instance, Genesis 1 closely, and try to understand God's plan there, and how God brings it about. But what we ultimately need to do is compare that to our expectations of God and reality, to see if it fits.

Quick analysis? We see some key things in Genesis 1 (to limit focus):

--We see a fairly reasonable creation order, starting from a barren, chaotic landscape to a world populated with plants, animals, and human beings.

--We see a collaborative, vocational approach to creation: "Let us...", not "I"... God is not forcing things to God's will; rather, God is calling and collaborating with the elements, and God's own plural nature (Elohim), to produce... The land and the sea become agents in creation, moving creation in the direction God calls for...

--We see God working together with creation toward greater life and flourishing, and God calling this creation that is increasingly able to support life "good". The sea teams with life... The earth brings forth produce... And all of this is good. The multitude and flourishing of life in a world able to support life of ever diversifying kinds...

--We see humankind, male and female - no hierarchy! - created to image God's own plural nature and continue the rule that God has demonstrated: the collaborative, vocational approach to creation...

--We see God resting, and giving up the reigns, so to speak, to humankind...

So back to the two questions.

Does this fit our expectations of God? Or what we would want God to be? What we see is a God that is collaborative / with us (redefining omnipresence...), empowering (redefining omnipotence...), and working toward the good (redefining omnibenevolence). That's a God I can affirm.

But does this fit reality? 1) It sure feels like God has left us on our own to complete the work and 2) I can only see, based on my experiences in this world, one way toward a world where all life can flourish, and be itself, and that's through the collaborative, vocational approach that I think God shows us in Genesis 1, and that lines up perfectly with my notion of sin as isolationism that would grind this creative effort to a halt by turning the creative elements against each other instead of working together towards mutual betterment and a better environment for future generations...

An end with men in charge of women, apparently.

No. Again, look at the plan. Humankind in the image of God: man and woman... No hierarchy, but rather a complementary pair in the very image of God who works in partnership, and has partnership as a core nature, not an 'over and against' hierarchical nature that seeks and imposes control...

I explained above how this equality of the sexes gets twisted through sin...

Quote:

But where history is essentially open, versus closed and preordained and following a set course.

Do you mean the future is open? IE: Free Will and no predestination?

Absolutely. Working towards a vision where all life can flourish and every creature can be itself in open sharing with the world (no fear or shame). But there is no guarantee we'll ever get there. The way to get there is by working together, and by taking the hard path that avoids the easiness of sin, i.e., protecting ourselves, putting up barriers, turning against each other, increasing enmities...

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

No, I don't see. For example, is it logical then for the punishments to be unequal? Is it logical for all women to bear the punishment for the mistake of one?

These are just asking for more detailed logic.

You say Detailed, I say Circuitous.

It's not denying the logic of what I said...

In the most basic and childlike of logic, sure. Punishment follows crime.

But my response still applies. Punishment is not logical if it is not warranted, just or measured. And here's the kicker. Sure, for us, this is a very subjective discussion. But for an all-powerful deity, it should be plain as day to us mere mortals how the punishment from god is logical, predictable and FAIR.

It clearly is not. Even by your own response - as it needs a "more detailed logic[al] " explanation.

To deny the logic of crime and punishment is to deny the logic of retributive justice,

Which I did not do.

which is a powerful motivation in this world and key to understanding what is really happening in Genesis 3...

Yes, what is really happening? One person breaks god's commandment (by eating an apple suggested to them by a talking snake), now every generation that follows lives with "death" in all of its nuanced and biblical forms.

My son gets to be born with Type 1 Diabetes and Celiac Disease, because Eve at an apple?????????????????????? God thought this was just and logical? Do you think that is just and logical punishment?

Any answer that begins with or ends with, "we know not what god intends" just admits exactly that. You do not have a clue what the logic is. Therefore, it is indistinguishable from him not existing in the first place.

Apologies, but the thought that all of this "death" from the fall is predictable and a natural, logical outcome is insulting, both logically, and to the concept of what a truly "benevolent god" should be.

But I'd rather not discuss ideas you do not support. How about telling me what you do believe? I have read this thread, but perhaps I missed your earlier explanation. Could you elaborate?

It's on another thread. Summary version: I see sin not in separation from God through disobedience but rather separation from God through running and hiding from God out of fear, shame, etc. Sin is when we put up barriers between us and God and close down our relationship, which means putting our trust in other things - the things that we hide behind or turn to instead of God, even when, or especially when, we disobey God, and fear the consequences -- better that we own what we did. Sin is isolating ourselves from God and in doing so fostering an isolationist approach and worldview.

Now, this 'openness' that is the opposite of sin is not just required before God. It is, I think, a general posture that we need to adopt. The movement from nakedness to clothing in Genesis is above all what captures the fall for me and is the initiating event of the 'logic' that increases pain, hardship, oppression, etc, in the world.

This theme is REALLY strong in the world today (to give a real sense of what I mean). Just look at Brexit, where we see a nation that chose to run and hide because of fear of being exposed, just as Adam and Eve did (and hardship likely to ensue because of it). If you're in the US, and watched the RNC and DNC, you see it loud and clear. Clinton is pushing exactly what I am right now, where the question above all being posed in the election is between open and closed. Go to the economist.com. The image that hits you (right now at least) for the cover story of the current issue - on Divided Politics - illustrates my view perfectly of a world divided between open and closed...

Now, that's a little bit about what I think sin is, and how we need to reorient our concept away from disobedience to isolationism. What you have in Adam and Eve's movement of seeking cover, putting up barriers, hiding, etc, is isolationism, and the emergence of an "I" or "me against you" approach and worldview that is the true sin... Interestingly, after the fall, Adam and Eve start talking in terms of "I" versus "we" or "us"... (Just look at Genesis 1, it was always "Let us"...) (Again, I am clearly a Democrat )

Lol, though I am a registered Democrat, I vote 3rd party more often than not lately.

To your question then, the logic of Genesis 3 is that the world responds in kind - it is the very logic of retribution that is so motivating of our thoughts and actions. Just as Adam and Eve isolate themselves, and hold themselves back from the world, so the world, or everything in the world, isolates and holds back from them. Things become harder because of this. Enmities start to form due to historic accusations ("Her fault!", "Snake's fault!"). Moves are made to take control in this "I" environment, i.e., a husband starts to rule over his wife, who he ultimately blames for his hardship in this fallen world... BABIES hold themselves back from the world, causing greater pain in childbirth, and the EARTH holds back its produce, requiring greater effort to cultivate it -- two perfect images of the isolationist mentality that Adam and Eve introduce...

So the logic that you have to accept, to sum up, is that if I push you, you will likely push me back. If I take your eye, you will want to take mine. If I hold back my stuff from you (cover up and hide), you will probably hold your stuff back from me.

God knows this (hence why God declares it as the repercussions of Adam and Eve's action, i.e., their covering up and hiding). God also knew that in gaining knowledge of evil, Adam and Eve would not be able to handle their nakedness. (Just think of how they would react: "Holy shit! There's evil in this world. And look, we're totally exposed!"...) Hence why God wanted to keep them from this knowledge until they were more mature...

Thank you for the explanation.

But that's just my two cents. Hopefully gives you some view of the very strong logic I see there.

It does. Thanks.

Quote:

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.

Which is completely and unequivocally unknowable. At this point, my guesses are as good as yours, or anyone else's. Correct? After all, the ONLY source for what think may be god's plans or motives is the bible. Correct?

Religious texts, by their very nature, endeavor to reveal God. Whether or not they are successful, or if any text is successful, we need, I think, to understand and compare its revelation to our expectations and, as best we can, to reality (and this requires work, even step one, as most religious texts, at least the big ones, are not superficial, and the deepest fault of most antagonists is treating them as such and hitting nothing but gross caricatures in their arguments - that, or they target the sins of traditions versus the text itself, which is assumed equivalent).

So we can read, for instance, Genesis 1 closely, and try to understand God's plan there, and how God brings it about. But what we ultimately need to do is compare that to our expectations of God and reality, to see if it fits.

Quick analysis? We see some key things in Genesis 1 (to limit focus):

--We see a fairly reasonable creation order, starting from a barren, chaotic landscape to a world populated with plants, animals, and human beings.

--We see a collaborative, vocational approach to creation: "Let us...", not "I"... God is not forcing things to God's will; rather, God is calling and collaborating with the elements, and God's own plural nature (Elohim), to produce... The land and the sea become agents in creation, moving creation in the direction God calls for...

--We see God working together with creation toward greater life and flourishing, and God calling this creation that is increasingly able to support life "good". The sea teams with life... The earth brings forth produce... And all of this is good. The multitude and flourishing of life in a world able to support life of ever diversifying kinds...

--We see humankind, male and female - no hierarchy! - created to image God's own plural nature and continue the rule that God has demonstrated: the collaborative, vocational approach to creation...

--We see God resting, and giving up the reigns, so to speak, to humankind...

So back to the two questions. Does this fit our expectations of God? Or what we would want God to be? What we see is a God that is collaborative (redefining omnipresence...), empowering (redefining omnipotence...), and working toward the good (redefining omnibenevolence). That's a God I can affirm.

This is an expectation that you derive from the bible. Isnt that circular logic? Its not, I see god working this way, so the bible must be true. Its completely, the bible says this, so I must make my expectation of gods design fit what the bible says.

You have your answer before you know the question.

But does this fit reality? 1) It sure feels like God has left us on our own to complete the work and 2) I can only see, based on my experiences in this world, one way toward a world where all life can flourish, and be itself, and that's through the collaborative, vocational approach that I think God shows us in Genesis 1, and that lines up perfectly with my notion of sin that increases isolationism...

In essence, each religion and denomination can draw the same conclusion by whatever circuitous (or not) logic they can employ " and they do.

Basically, as I said, Gods plans are unknowable by you or I except through the holy book, so anyones interpretation is just as good as the next.

An end with men in charge of women, apparently.

No. Again, look at the plan. Humankind in the image of God: man and woman... No hierarchy, but rather a complementary pair in the very image of God who works in partnership, and has partnership as a core nature, not an 'over and against' hierarchical nature that seeks and imposes control...

I explained above how this equality of the sexes gets twisted through sin...

I meant the end of a human life. Or, if you will, all human (mortal) life has this hierarchy until we are joined with god in heaven.

Still unfair. The massive amount of suffering, servile treatment of women and the not-so-silent endorsement of slavery that was the result of this Fall all point to an unjust punishment. No matter how you slice it. And, imo, the logical conclusion to draw from this is that the whole concept is man made.

Quote:

But where history is essentially open, versus closed and preordained and following a set course.

Do you mean the future is open? IE: Free Will and no predestination?

Absolutely. Working towards a vision where all life can flourish and every creature can be itself in open sharing with the world (no fear or shame). But there is no guarantee we'll ever get there. The way to get there is by working together, and by taking the hard path that avoids the easiness of sin, i.e., protecting ourselves, putting up barriers, turning against each other, increasing enmities...

I agree with most of what you say here, that it is (mostly) a noble sentiment. Though I suspect you and I may disagree on what we consider sin, but, nonetheless it is a nice thought.

Comity, amity and love are aspects of our humanity everyone should strive to be better at.

-all the best

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

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]Satan actually a competing god

And yet, one of them will most probably be the next president of the United States of America. I wonder if you are telling us that situation is only due to political correctness, as well.

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.

Sexism is something that we are all of us still burdened with. Strong conservative views such as what I am responding to reflect an outmoded and self-defeating sexist rhetoric that I usually associate with misogynists and The American Republican Party. That's why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are so appreciated for what is called "breaking the glass ceiling". But of course, more conservative people don't seem to like that kind of progressive liberation.

[bjs]

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:

.....

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.

It seems that both Danmark and I are amazed. Danmark is seriously amazed by my conclusions, and I am seriously amazed how this could be considered a response to my post. At no point does there appear to be any effort to respond to anything I wrote. Instead, a pre-existing bias is repeated despite considerable evidence that it is an inaccurate interpretation. Lets take a look.

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.

Paul does not set up hierarchy, and does not use such language. What Paul actual wrote was head. So what does head mean? Setting aside slang and jargon, in both Greek and Hebrew there are three general meanings for the word head.

1. The part of the body above the neck, as in, Ow! You just hit me in the back of the head!

2. A position of authority, as in, She is the head of this company.

3. The source or starting place, as in, This is the head of the Mississippi River.

So in which way does Paul use the word? I think we can all agree that is not the first possibility. We are not talking about a physical head.

The unambiguous context of the passage is that of source. Paul explicitly wrote about the women coming from men, men coming from women, and everything coming from God. The context of the passage clearly points to the idea of head meaning source as opposed to authority. Other than a pre-existing desire to make the Bible sexist I can see no rational reason to suggest that Paul use the word head to mean authority or to set up any kind of hierarchy.

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.

Nowhere in this passage has Paul claimed that man is to rule over woman or that that women shouldnt talk in church. He did write that women came from men, and Paul does not undo that claim. However, he does add the statement that men came from women.

To say that Paul was writing about a male over female hierarchy in this passage is to ignore the context and try fit the words into what someone wants them to say, not what they actually say.

[Danmark]

Paul does not set up hierarchy, and does not use such language. What Paul actual wrote was head. So what does head mean? Setting aside slang and jargon, in both Greek and Hebrew there are three general meanings for the word head.

1. The part of the body above the neck, as in, Ow! You just hit me in the back of the head!

2. A position of authority, as in, She is the head of this company.

3. The source or starting place, as in, This is the head of the Mississippi River.

Of course Paul is talking about a hierarchy and it should be obvious he is discussing your definition #2. There is nothing ambiguous about this to a student of the English language. Paul uses the word 'head' in relation to the physical body when he talks of hair and head covering. Then he practices something that is very common in Hebrew if not also in Greek and English. He uses 'head' as 'in charge of,' or 'master of.'

"3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God."
God is neither a river, nor does he have a physical body. But God is the 'head' of Christ' in terms of leadership. Christ is the 'head' of man, in terms of leadership. Obviously Paul is used 'head' in this way when he writes, "the head of the woman is man."
This is also consistent with Genesis 3 when God clearly says man shall rule over his wife. Are you seriously suggesting Paul is claiming the cranium of man, or 'the headwaters of a river of man' is Christ?

Let me correct myself. I am not amazed (or shouldn't be) that an apologist would make such an obtuse suggestion. It should no longer amaze or surprise me. Rather, it would amaze me if did not engage in this sort of obvious obfuscation and abuse of language to make an untenable argument in support of your erroneous belief.

[theophile]

[Replying to KenRU]

This is an expectation that you derive from the bible. Isnt that circular logic? Its not, I see god working this way, so the bible must be true. Its completely, the bible says this, so I must make my expectation of gods design fit what the bible says.

You have your answer before you know the question.

I'm suggesting we determine what the bible says about God, then compare that view to our expectations (not suggesting we derive our expectations from the bible...). It's a strange relationship between us and God though to be fair. And there is a circularity to it. Surely we create God in our image as much as God creates us...

This is obviously pure fantasy, but I see the writers of the bible, or any theologians when writing, trying to illuminate what God must be through their writing. They write in order to reveal what God ought to be by their judgment, a God that can truly be believed in, versus what anything tells them God actually is... (That's how I would write about God anyways, drawing on tradition, sure, but working the God-character closer to my expectations of what is truly belief-worthy.)

Part of the beauty of the biblical God is that this God creates us in God's image and then empowers us to fulfill our calling. In essence, God reveals what God ought to be and then tells us to be it, thereby un-necessitating God's own existence (and creating the circularity...).

Completely unorthodox, I know, but I love this aspect of the bible. From the very beginning God makes it clear that we don't need God. That we are enough. The human empowerment in the bible is astounding...

I agree with most of what you say here, that it is (mostly) a noble sentiment. Though I suspect you and I may disagree on what we consider sin, but, nonetheless it is a nice thought.

I hear you. I struggle myself sometimes how to live without thinking of my own self-preservation, for example. But then I remember our call to work. I think of Paul working in the gardens with the earliest Christian communities for his daily bread for instance, and remember that what we do is never just in the service of others. No doubt you have other similar concerns. What I expressed flies in the face of a lot of common sense.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 77 by Danmark]

Of course Paul is talking about a hierarchy and it should be obvious he is discussing your definition

Let's say for a second you're right, and refocus the question. What does it mean to truly rule, according to the bible?

Luke 22:26:

"The greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."

Chew on that for a while. It turns everything upside down and should have you rethinking any of the sexist verses you claim to have found in the bible.

(If Jesus is to man as man is to woman, and Jesus did nothing but serve man as 'head', shouldn't man do nothing but serve woman if he is head? What would this look like to someone looking in, trying to define a hierarchy? Who would be on top?...)

[bjs]

Paul does not set up hierarchy, and does not use such language. What Paul actual wrote was head. So what does head mean? Setting aside slang and jargon, in both Greek and Hebrew there are three general meanings for the word head.

1. The part of the body above the neck, as in, Ow! You just hit me in the back of the head!

2. A position of authority, as in, She is the head of this company.

3. The source or starting place, as in, This is the head of the Mississippi River.

Of course Paul is talking about a hierarchy and it should be obvious he is discussing your definition #2. There is nothing ambiguous about this to a student of the English language. Paul uses the word 'head' in relation to the physical body when he talks of hair and head covering. Then he practices something that is very common in Hebrew if not also in Greek and English. He uses 'head' as 'in charge of,' or 'master of.'

Why?

You have not provided any reason to suggest that Paul is talking about hierarchy in this passage. Surely you can accept that just saying, it should be obvious is not an explanation, especially to someone as obtuse as me.

"3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God."
God is neither a river, nor does he have a physical body. But God is the 'head' of Christ' in terms of leadership. Christ is the 'head' of man, in terms of leadership. Obviously Paul is used 'head' in this way when he writes, "the head of the woman is man."

You seem to insist that, God is neither a river, nor does he have a physical body, and reject these ideas because they are not literal statements. Then you accept God as head of Christ in terms of leadership even though it is also not a literal statement. You have not given us any reason to reject the first two figurative statements but then accept the third figurative statement.

This is also consistent with Genesis 3 when God clearly says man shall rule over his wife.

While I think you have again taken the passage out of context, lets try to stick to one argument at a time.

Are you seriously suggesting Paul is claiming the cranium of man, or 'the headwaters of a river of man' is Christ?

None of the statements make sense if taken in an absolutely literal sense. We have a figurative use of the word head and must determine in what way we should apply the meaning. The text itself provides a context of source, not authority. We have to add the context of authority from our own imaginations, because it is not in the text itself. If we understand the word head to refer to source then we are keeping with the context of the passage. If we understand the word head to refer to authority then we are writing in our own ideas that are not found in the context of the passage.

Let me correct myself. I am not amazed (or shouldn't be) that an apologist would make such an obtuse suggestion. It should no longer amaze or surprise me. Rather, it would amaze me if did not engage in this sort of obvious obfuscation and abuse of language to make an untenable argument in support of your erroneous belief.

Please tone down the rhetoric. My apologies if I contributed to it.