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?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 46 by Danmark]

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

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

I'm not supporting the sexism of the bible. I'm challenging people that already have their minds pretty much made up that maybe if they looked a little bit closer they might see something different than what they've all along believed.

1) There are highly disruptive passages in scripture (especially given when written) including clear indications of a non-hierarchical relationship between man and woman in Genesis 1-2. i.e., "man and woman God created them, to rule over creation" - no hierarchy whatsoever between them!

2) There is a fall in Genesis 3 which introduces oppressive hierarchies into the world, including female subjugation among other thing. i.e., "man will now rule over you"

3) For the rest of the biblical narrative these hierarchies can be assumed - since we're in the context of a fallen world. So much so we even see key characters such as Jesus needing to be reminded of them, that he is giving power to them, like when he used racism as a reason not to help the Syrophonecian woman and she had to open his eyes to his meanness...

So maybe, just maybe, with these few points alone even, we can at least begin to see the possibility of what I'm suggesting. That there is a highly disruptive teaching in the beginning of what was supposed to be, i.e., equality of the sexes, and that there is a disruptive current throughout the rest of scripture that breaks through every now and again to remind us of and reorient us to the truth. Maybe we can open our eyes and minds and at least look a little bit closer into what is really going on...

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 51 by theophile]

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?

[logical thinking]

[Replying to post 42 by logical thinking]

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

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

Well, the Bible, with it's unforgivably bigoted and sexist remakrs, is definitely an example of us getting in deeper, not getting out.

Part of 'being in the shit' is the multiplication of oppressive hierarchies. Racist. Sexist. Classist.

Right, and the Bible made all of that worse.

Jesus himself, as I tried to show if you could read a passage, is subject to them and needs to have his eyes opened now and again

Well, thanks for admitting that Jesus is not the sinless and perfect Son of the creator of the universe. I agree that he's just a dude that messed up sometimes, like when he said the people alive at the same time as him, would witness Armageddon in their lifetime. He missed by a couple thousand years and counting, but no big deal.

A woman does that for him. (That, like it or not, is disruptive, and beyond feminist, for today let alone 2000 years ago...)

That's disruptive and beyond feminist today? Today? You think that a woman persuading a man of something is disruptive... today?

Well that explains a lot. No wonder you think that a woman being forced to marry her rapist is not that big a deal! To you a female persuading a male is somehow momentous!

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

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

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

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church

I don't even have to do anything other than cite Bible verses that say the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, but just for the heck of it, here goes:

In which Bible passage is the hebrew word for helper that is used to describe Eve in genesis, used to describe God?

The answer to that question is a book name, followed by a number, followed by another number.

If you do ANYTHING other than give me a Bible verse, we'll all know the story about the word "helper" just has zero basis.

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

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

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.

UPDATE: I looked up and in Answers in Genesis website. https://answersingenesis.org/family/gen ... r-or-equal, and in this extremely conservative christian website that as the name suggests specializes in genesis, it says this:

"[A woman is] a godly helpmate who entrusts herself to God, follows her husbands lead"

It clearly says that a HELPER is a person who follows the helpee's lead!

And the article isn't even arguing for women's inferiority! No! It's arguing for women's equality! Even in the context of trying to elevate women and trying to gloss over the sexism of the Bible, these Genesis experts cannot bring themselves to support your spectacularly counterfactual proposition that the word helper in any way signifies a position of superiority. No, in the context of trying to downplay man's primacy, they still portray the man as the leader and the woman as the follower, even before the fall!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 50 by JehovahsWitness]

False equivalency. No one argues ever that a reporter reporting x number of y people will have z happen to them is actually the fault of the reporter. No one says that because we recognise it is outside the reporters power, he never had any control over it.
However, in a universe that is created and designed by an all knowing, all powerful entity...why yes the blame CAN be laid at him. He does indeed have the power.
Explain to me please how a designed universe can have natural consequences.

[rikuoamero]

.
[Replying to post 51 by theophile]

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?

I've read accounts from Christian households where they say that the husband is the leader, he gets to make all the decisions precisely because of verse like this. If anyone is interested in can look them up later

[JehovahsWitness]

However, in a universe that is created and designed by an all knowing, all powerful entity...why yes the blame CAN be laid at him.

The issue of responsibility has already been address.

No counterargument for gender-specificity was provided.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

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

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 51 by theophile]

I agree that you have given many examples of why the Bible is not perfect and should not be considered a guide for how to live and that it does not come from God.

[theophile]

[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.

[KenRU]

[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.

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.


All the best!