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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to bjs]

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.

God is a concept that exists in the minds of those individuals who subscribe to a belief in the existence of God. If you have any evidence that God exists in any actual physical way, other than a concept entirely constructed within the minds of those that subscribe to a belief in His existence, please present it. And if you can NOT present any physical evidence of God's physical existence, other than as a mental construct within the minds of those that subscribe to some belief that God exists, in what way can you establish that your belief in the existence of God is in any way different from make believe and wishful thinking?

[Danmark]

[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?...)

I don't need to "Chew on that for a while." The meaning of the statement is clear and not original. Good leadership, at least in a democracy, has always involved the platitude you recite. The problem you are apparently overlooking is that the Bible AND the 'New Testament'* both apply not 'leadership' but the verb 'to rule' AND they do so unilaterally, reserving this privilege solely to men while denying it to women.

This is a perfect example of sexism in both the Jewish and Christian Bibles.




________________________
* Let's be clear that the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are chauvinist and ethnocentric terms used to debase Judaism and view scripture from a purely 'Christian' point of view.

[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.'

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.

You are simply engaging in contradiction, not argument or analysis. I made a clear exposition of why your use of 'head' is wrong, and explained why it is wrong and why 'head' clearly refers to a position of leadership.

If you have an actual logical argument to advance about my analysis then do so. Asking that the 'rhetoric be toned down' is a personal observation, not a substitute for logical linguistic analysis.

[theophile]

[Replying to Danmark]

Now you're differentiating between "leadership" and "rule"? They are pretty closely related, no? Can you clarify the terms?

You need to elaborate more and you never answered my question.

For an outsider looking in, who would appear on top in hierarchical terms if we accept this subversive logic that rulers now serve? Would it be the man who rules the woman or the woman who is ruled by the man?

Isn't a key point of Jesus' teaching - here and more broadly - to subvert these hierarchies wherever we find them? To eliminate hierarchies altogether?

[bjs]

You are simply engaging in contradiction, not argument or analysis. I made a clear exposition of why your use of 'head' is wrong, and explained why it is wrong and why 'head' clearly refers to a position of leadership.

If you have an actual logical argument to advance about my analysis then do so. Asking that the 'rhetoric be toned down' is a personal observation, not a substitute for logical linguistic analysis.

This statement is interesting to me. Having looked back through your posts I find little to support your claim of providing analysis or argument. You have stated what your interpretation is repeatedly, but given little in way of justification for that interpretation. You have said, It is obvious, without telling us why it is obvious. You have said, there nothing ambiguous about this without justifying why your position is correct. You have said, Are you seriously suggesting without explain why someone should not seriously suggest something. What exactly is the exposition you have provided?

On the other hand, your suggestion that I am engaging in contradiction make little sense. I have provided the context of the passage, explained how I am consistent in applying that context, and described why my understanding of what Paul meant by head is the more likely explanation. I am at a loss as to why you would call this engaging in contradiction.

If you are just going to accuse me of engaging in contradiction again then I think we can let this go and agree to disagree. I understand your position, but find it untenable on closer inspection of the passage. If you genuinely do not understand how I came to my position and are only going to insult those who disagree with you " saying I am obtuse or that Ive made [the Bible] even sillier " then I see no point in continuing down this line of discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Now you're differentiating between "leadership" and "rule"? They are pretty closely related, no? Can you clarify the terms?

In my thinking to rule is to command and to lead is to guide

A ruler has subjects who are coerced to obey

A leader has followers who are convinced to follow.

For an outsider looking in, who would appear on top in hierarchical terms if we accept this subversive logic that rulers now serve?

Rulers often pay lip service to serving when their actions indicate the opposite.

Would it be the man who rules the woman or the woman who is ruled by the man?

If the woman is commanded to obey the husband he is the ruler. If the husband is commanded to rule over his wife he is designated a ruler. That IS a hierarchy. Christian literature extends the hierarchy beyond the husband to Jesus or God " a chain of command.

[Danmark]

You are simply engaging in contradiction, not argument or analysis. I made a clear exposition of why your use of 'head' is wrong, and explained why it is wrong and why 'head' clearly refers to a position of leadership.

If you have an actual logical argument to advance about my analysis then do so. Asking that the 'rhetoric be toned down' is a personal observation, not a substitute for logical linguistic analysis.

This statement is interesting to me. Having looked back through your posts I find little to support your claim of providing analysis or argument. You have stated what your interpretation is repeatedly, but given little in way of justification for that interpretation. You have said, It is obvious, without telling us why it is obvious. You have said, there nothing ambiguous about this without justifying why your position is correct. You have said, Are you seriously suggesting without explain why someone should not seriously suggest something. What exactly is the exposition you have provided?

On the other hand, your suggestion that I am engaging in contradiction make little sense. I have provided the context of the passage, explained how I am consistent in applying that context, and described why my understanding of what Paul meant by head is the more likely explanation. I am at a loss as to why you would call this engaging in contradiction.

If you are just going to accuse me of engaging in contradiction again then I think we can let this go and agree to disagree. I understand your position, but find it untenable on closer inspection of the passage. If you genuinely do not understand how I came to my position and are only going to insult those who disagree with you " saying I am obtuse or that Ive made [the Bible] even sillier " then I see no point in continuing down this line of discussion.

Again, I see no analysis here, merely a version of 'no it's not.' 'Z' has just given actual analysis for why Paul sets out a hierarchy as well as the difference between leading and ruling. Somethings really are so obvious they need no further explication. Examples are the statement in Genesis about the man is to rule over the woman, and Paul saying the 'man' is the 'head' of his wife. Such obvious sexism needs no further explanation. Paul's words speak for themselves.

[OnceConvinced]

Yet more evidence of the extreme sexism in the bible:

Almost the entire book of 1st Chronicles.

Just take a look through it. A genealogy, but how often are women even mentioned? It's all about the sons and fathers. SOME wives mentioned...some concubines (sex-slaves) mentioned... no daughters mentioned... oh wait there is one. She was given away to somebody apparently (1st Chr 2:35).

Let's say the occasional daughter is mentioned, but there surely must have been way way more.

Surely no one can possibly argue the bible isn't sexist after reading 1st Chronicles. (if you can stay awake long enough... I somehow managed to do it twice as a Christian).

It's...

sons
sons
sons
sons
sons
father
father
father
father
sons
sons
sons
sons
etc
etc

Ok, I've done scanning through it. It really does make me sick now when i see blatant favouritism when it comes to men and the women being so insignificant they don't even get mentioned in the family tree.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 88 by OnceConvinced]

This comment reminds me of the first time I read J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion (or was it the appendices at the end of Lord of the Rings? Can't remember which). Basically, there's family trees given for the Kings of Numenor, Gondor and Arnor.
Each and every king is listed, one right after the other, but no women are listed. If I recall correctly, the only women who show up in the family trees are women who are relevant to the plot, who feature in the histories and stories.
However, is this an outright example of sexism? Plenty of other people don't get mentioned. Are the family trees saying that each and every king of Gondor had only the one child, a son, one right after the other?
While arguments can be made that for both "Tolkien was sexist/Tolkien was not sexist", I think the sexist argument is a little stronger in that the only women who do get mentioned are those who are relevant to the stories. Of what relevance are the names of all one hundred plus king ancestors of Aragon?

[KenRU]

Isn't a key point of Jesus' teaching - here and more broadly - to subvert these hierarchies wherever we find them? To eliminate hierarchies altogether?

And yet the OT and the NT both clearly and explicitly use hierarchy - consistently. And never once do you see a passage saying that a woman should rule the man, or is "the head of" the man.

Why?

All the best,