Judeo-Christian Doctrine is Sexist

[Skullymund]

[font=Times New Roman]Religion has been the greatest oppressor of women's rights throughout the history of man. Judeo-Christian doctrine preaches that women are second rate to men: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) The old testament was much more gruesome: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

There are so many things wrong with the bible, it is often difficult to know where to begin when refuting or criticizing it. The subjugation of women has been one of the greatest detracting forces on society. The best way to cure poverty is the empowerment and education of women, and for too long have the religions of the world preached the madness that woman are property to men, on the level of cattle. People such as Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris write about a future in which we can be free of the shackles of wish thinking, of a more humanistic world in which we derive morals not from ancient religious texts, but from a discussion of the human condition as it exists in reality, and how we can improve lives and reduce suffering.

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred, but as barbaric, and at best written by the hands of man, not those of God. It is clear that any sort of faith that is so disgusted by a woman's vagina, and the sorts of things that relate to it, must be written not by a divine and loving creator, but by ignorant, iron-aged men.

Feel free to challenge my views.[/font]

[bluethread]

The definition is quite clear:

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Do you believe I am pushing an egalitarian agenda?

I am addressing the concepts, not making accusations against you. That said, I do think you are depending on casual usage and connotation, rather than clear definition to support your points.

Some definitions are more precise than others, more specific than others. Do you acknowledge this?

The more precise the definition, the clear and stronger the argument. Weak definitions that depend primarily on casual usage and connotation are rather weak and generate more heat than light.

The person using the term presumes ill intent on the part of the accused. Does that mean that the accused has ill intent, simply because one is presumed.

It might. It might not. The truth of the matter reveals ill intent or not. A specific example will be necessary to answer your question. But in short, if a person is being/acting sexist, yes, that will cause someone to feel ill intent - as the definition of Sexism intimates.

This all started with a specific example, i.e. the toilet bowl lid, yet that has been little help in determining the nature of sexism. I asked whether it was based on how the other person feels and you said, no, it is based on the intent of the one doing the act. So, is something sexist because it offends, is it sexist because it is intended to offend, or is it an action that meets an objective standard, whether or not there is offense or intent to offended?

Well, one is that it serves as a memorial to the story of Adam and Havah.

Which means all women can’t teach based upon the fact that they are women.

No, it means that women don't teach, as a memorial to Havah's deception. A proper memorial needs to have a correlation.

So this memorial likens all women (by virtue of being women) to a deceitful character, therefore they should not teach. The correlation is that all women are like Havah, deceitful? Do I have that right? If not, what IS the correlation you speak of?

No, it notes that Havah was deceived, which is more commonly a female defense than a male one.

No, it means that women play the role of followers.

Why? By virtue of what correlation must they be followers? What defining characteristic determines this?

They play the role of followers, in this scenario, because that is the common behavior. Men are more combative and women are more cooperative.

Physiologically, of course. And no, acknowledging the physical differences is not sexist. Psychologically, I’m not sure a blanket statement is applicable. But, I am not learned in that field to say.

We are talking about social standards and such standards do not speak to all cases, but to general tendencies.

Well then, when speaking of general tendencies, we should be easily able to acknowledge that it is unwise to make blanket rules when pigeon-holing the capacities for men and women. What is good for many women, may not be for all, correct?

It is you who is requiring pigeon-holing. The Scriptures speak to the standards of a particular community. It does not speak to behaviors outside that community, nor is it an identifier of the characteristics of a particular individual. It is about behavior in a particular social setting. It may not be a perfect fit for some, but it is not the purpose of a social standard to be a perfect fit for everyone.

Are you (by saying it is not circular) saying that the time period in question, was not biased towards man (over women)?

No, I am saying rules regarding conformity to general tendency are not circular, because the rules do not create the tendency, they merely reinforce it.

Again, I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

So, as I said, this decision is based entirely upon men being men and women being women.

How is that not the definition of Sexism?

No, in spite of efforts of late, societies do not determine who are men and who are women. In nearly every society, men naturally act one way and women naturally act another. Most societies acknowledge this and establish standards to reinforce it, because a certain degree of conformity is healthy. The problem with the term "Sexism" as with all "isms" is that it takes a singular issue and interprets all of society based on that single issue. In addition, throwing in the term "gender" in place of "sex" complicates things even more.

The fact that male physiology and psychology are more well adapted to living in the confrontational society of the time.

Is this an across the board rule, or are you making an assumption and placing all women under that assumption? Some women were probably quite well adapted to such an environment, or are you arguing that it is not possible?

No, I am arguing that all societies recognize general tendencies and establish rules to reinforce them. Devorah is a perfect example of that. She was clearly more forceful than Barak, but she recognized the importance of requiring him to fulfill his social responsibility.

You are taking one restriction, ie teaching in a theological setting, and making it the full measure of a man or a woman.

You’ve just moved the goalposts. We are talking about whether the act of restricting women from teaching men is sexist. For the aspect of women teaching men, in ANY setting or environment, restricting it based upon the fact that a woman is a woman is sexist.

“full measure of a man or woman� is irrelevant. It is clearly a condition applied to women and not men.

No, you moved the goal posts by stating that this one standard makes women "less" than men. A Levite was not greater than any other Israelite, even though only a Levite could serve in the Temple. Of course, there are more factors that support differentiating men from women than differentiating Levites from other Israelites. However, placing a value on that difference is not inherent in the difference.

I also view them as human beings, with potential subject to their physiology and psychology, just as I see men.

Do you agree that this “potential� you refer to is not 100% applicable? That this “potential� may vary depending on the very much varying attributes of men and women?

They don't vary that much, otherwise there would not be a LPGA or a WNBA. Is it sexist that women do not play in the NBA and men don't play in the WNBA? Are the LPGA and WNBA less than the PGA and NBA?

As I said, below is not the term I would use. Below has a connotation of value. Social standards are rarely, if ever, inclusive of all possible circumstances. As stated, there are commemorative, physiological and psychological consideration involved in this standard. There are clear differences between men and women. Not all of these differences are manifest in every man and woman. However, social standards based on those differences is not proof of ill intent.

Your continual avoidance of the word Below speaks volumes. You speak in one breath that the order is Jesus, man than woman, yet refuse to admit levels.

Is man equal to Jesus in this order? Or is he below Jesus?

This is what Yeshua says, (Mk. 10:44-45) "(W)hosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto , but to minister , and to give his life a ransom for many." Is the servant equal to or below the one served?

Secondly, we disagree on the ill-intent, so we’re going to have to move on from that. You don’t see creating a rule (based upon generalities) for all women to adhere to as having any ill-intent. I do.

I guess you just believe it is just a coincidence that men continuously seem to come out on top with all of these divinely inspired rules.

I would think a god who is passing down wisdom might see that generalizing all women is a bad idea.

Again, "come out on top" is your value judgment.

So, are you saying that societies should only have standards that are a perfect fit for all citizens? What about today? Is nearly ever society sexist, today?

I’m saying that society should strive for being as fair and as unbiased as possible, and we have improved dramatically since biblical times. Wouldn’t you agree?

Or, do you believe that society is less fair today than in biblical times (with respect to the topic at hand)?

There are many things that I think are better in modern societies, however, has the introduction of the concepts of "gender", "sexism" and "fair" made them better. I am not so sure about that. Different, yes, better, not so much.

[KenRU]

bluethread,

Sorry for the incredibly late reply. Been very busy of late.

The following best sums up, I believe, our disagreement so I will focus on that exchange.

The fact that male physiology and psychology are more well adapted to living in the confrontational society of the time.

Is this an across the board rule, or are you making an assumption and placing all women under that assumption? Some women were probably quite well adapted to such an environment, or are you arguing that it is not possible?

No, I am arguing that all societies recognize general tendencies and establish rules to reinforce them.

Exactly. Reinforcing rules despite them only being "general tendencies" is sexist. There are some women who are better teachers then men. There are some women who are stronger then men. Acknowledging these differences does not mean they should be enforced across the board. That is unfair. To both sexes. and it is also exactly what the definition is Sexism is describing.

Devorah is a perfect example of that. She was clearly more forceful than Barak, but she recognized the importance of requiring him to fulfill his social responsibility.

A social responsibility created based upon a general tendency. There is no reason that this responsibility needed to be done by a male only. It should be done by whoever is best qualified.

-all the best

[OpenYourEyes]

[font=Times New Roman]Religion has been the greatest oppressor of women's rights throughout the history of man. Judeo-Christian doctrine preaches that women are second rate to men: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) The old testament was much more gruesome: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

There are so many things wrong with the bible, it is often difficult to know where to begin when refuting or criticizing it. The subjugation of women has been one of the greatest detracting forces on society. The best way to cure poverty is the empowerment and education of women, and for too long have the religions of the world preached the madness that woman are property to men, on the level of cattle. People such as Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris write about a future in which we can be free of the shackles of wish thinking, of a more humanistic world in which we derive morals not from ancient religious texts, but from a discussion of the human condition as it exists in reality, and how we can improve lives and reduce suffering.

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred, but as barbaric, and at best written by the hands of man, not those of God. It is clear that any sort of faith that is so disgusted by a woman's vagina, and the sorts of things that relate to it, must be written not by a divine and loving creator, but by ignorant, iron-aged men.

Feel free to challenge my views.[/font]

I noticed that you've quoted the atheistic/non-Christian interpretation but have you taken any time to research the responses to your objection from the field of Christian apologetics?

How long did you spend?

Did you look at the qualifications of the author (not to say that non-PhD folks can't come up with good explanations but credentialed Christians should be obviously be included at the least)?

What was the best or most common explanation that you encountered and why did you find it inadequate to answer some or all of your objections?

I ask these questions because I tend to find that many forum/internet/blog atheists really do little to no serious research into Christianity in general and into Christian apologetics. This lack of biblical understanding is usually reflected in the type of objections that atheists tend to bring up.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 101 by OpenYourEyes]

I ask these questions because I tend to find that many forum/internet/blog atheists really do little to no serious research into Christianity in general and into Christian apologetics.

Or, it could be that we are former Christians ourselves. I myself was Roman Catholic, and I remember asking a priest why no women priests, and I think the answer I got was something about since Jesus was okay with all of his apostles being male, therefore it's obvious that no priest should be a woman.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 101 by OpenYourEyes]

I ask these questions because I tend to find that many forum/internet/blog atheists really do little to no serious research into Christianity in general and into Christian apologetics.

Or, it could be that we are former Christians ourselves. I myself was Roman Catholic, and I remember asking a priest why no women priests, and I think the answer I got was something about since Jesus was okay with all of his apostles being male, therefore it's obvious that no priest should be a woman.

This actually confirms my point about how many atheists don't do much research into these things. I've even found this lack of research even amongst the most veteran of atheists. Perhaps your priest was not a real good Christian apologist if an apologist at all? Maybe he did not study much on the matter of how to respond?

So far, out of the many Christian apologist and apologetics published online, books, radio, etc, all you bring up is one priest?!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 103 by OpenYourEyes]

This was back in my school days and the priest was my religious studies teacher. You will note that I said both he and I were roman Catholic and that that church has no female priests.
If you disagree with the priests response then maybe that is one reason why you yourself are not RCC?

[Zzyzx]

.

This actually confirms my point about how many atheists don't do much research into these things. I've even found this lack of research even amongst the most veteran of atheists.

Is this said as one who has done a lot of research, scholarly research, perhaps as a divinity school graduate?

Notice that many, if not most, "Atheists" (Theist term for all Non-Believers, including Agnostics and Ignostics) are former Christians -- many of them for decades (perhaps longer than the REAL Christians who debate here). Many were also divinity school graduates and long-term ministers as indicated by www.clergyproject.org.

Assuming that such people "don't do much research" would be a great blunder.

Perhaps your priest was not a real good Christian apologist if an apologist at all? Maybe he did not study much on the matter of how to respond?

Of course, if someone disagrees with your position they must have not studied much and/or they are not a good Apologist. Right?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 103 by OpenYourEyes]

This was back in my school days and the priest was my religious studies teacher. You will note that I said both he and I were roman Catholic and that that church has no female priests.
If you disagree with the priests response then maybe that is one reason why you yourself are not RCC?

Without elaboration, I can't completely agree nor disagree with your religious studies teacher. What I see and disagree with are the people who drop out of Christianity for what they call reasonable reasons, just to find out that their search for answers was less than critical. I'm not sure why you left Christianity, but on this issue it seems that you didn't research much since you've only referred to one professor and his general explanation.

I asked the author of this thread to cite the best or most common explanation that I "assume" that he's gotten from research and why he disagrees. This is just one way to see what research someone has done.

[OpenYourEyes]

This actually confirms my point about how many atheists don't do much research into these things. I've even found this lack of research even amongst the most veteran of atheists.

Is this said as one who has done a lot of research, scholarly research, perhaps as a divinity school graduate?

I am a recent graduate working in healthcare (I'd rather not say which healthcare field). I've never gone to school for any biblical studies but I have read a lot of Christian apologetics and have read up on Christianity from scholarly sources. I research it seriously like I would if I were writing a research paper.

From reading about Christian apologetics not only did I pick up on facts/arguments but also about how to respond, how or where to start the debate, etc. This is where I begin to notice not only the flaws in atheists' arguments but also the weaknesses in their approach and information gathering that led them to their conclusions.

Notice that many, if not most, "Atheists" (Theist term for all Non-Believers, including Agnostics and Ignostics) are former Christians -- many of them for decades (perhaps longer than the REAL Christians who debate here). Many were also divinity school graduates and long-term ministers as indicated by www.clergyproject.org.

Assuming that such people "don't do much research" would be a great blunder.

I usually don't make that judgement until I encounter a viewpoint. Keep in mind, I'm not claiming that people who have left Christianity are not smart because I know some of them can still be very smart, brilliant even. However, being smart does not mean that you don't make mistakes or that all of your conclusions will be correct.

Whenever, I encounter an atheist that's always requesting key things, like "empirical verification", "scientific evidence", that triggers alarms in my mind that this person lacks understanding or has faulty expectations of science and theology.

Perhaps your priest was not a real good Christian apologist if an apologist at all? Maybe he did not study much on the matter of how to respond?

Of course, if someone disagrees with your position they must have not studied much and/or they are not a good Apologist. Right?

It depends on the type of objections they bring up. If their objections are derived from the "popular" understanding of Christianity, the type that even some Christians are guilty of spreading, then I can only presume that they haven't critically searched for answers.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 106 by OpenYourEyes]

I didn't research much prior to my dropping the religion? Oh how little you know of me.
Please do not speculate on my level of knowledge of religion simply based on a reason that my former religion teacher opined well over a decade ago.
I will say this though... I was not as educated at the time I dropped Christianity as I am now.
I expect an apology.