Equality

[Rose]

Ever since the dawn of civilizations, women have been treated unequally in male dominated societies, whereas in goddess cultures partnership is the standard. My guess is part of the reason is due to the fact that many men feel inferior because they can’t bear children, so to make up for their deficit men have suppressed women. Women constitute half of the human population and bear the other half, so the power to change cultures is available to women, but it must start in the home. If every mother taught her children to view male and females as equals, within one generation there would be a tremendous change!


The time is long overdue when the women of the world need to rise up as one voice demanding equality as humans. The same rights that are afforded men because they are members of the human race should equally be afforded women…no exceptions! Every woman has the power to speak out, even if it is only with one small voice teaching her children. One by one as women join together, an army of voices will be heard that cannot be silenced, for far to long men have played the role of the bully and used fear to oppress women and strip from them basic human rights…now is the time for change! Any religion or belief system that does not recognize human rights equally among both genders needs to be looked at long and hard…no 'God' who supposedly created women with the ability to bear children, would in turn cause her to suffer at the hands of men because she is the child bearer. It’s time for the hand that rocks the cradle to teach her children that all humans have equal rights.

Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

We are dealing with equality here and nothing to do with the fact that God created Adam (male) before Eve (female) or that God has operated in fulfilling His purpose through the male line. Debz (link here) (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2303-The-Male-Bias-of-the-Bible&p=37472#post37472) elsewhere has shown to you (and anyone reading HER brilliant explanation using the Bible) that there is no inequality between the man and woman who were designed to operate as a single unit through the association of marriage which is designed for the reproduction. There is no inequality between men and women with God; both have equal rights and opportunity to have eternal life in God's kingdom to come. Physical differences between men and women in the sight of God is not inequality. I think man has taken advantage of his greater strength to dominate women but this is not in accordance with God's will. Therefore what you are saying is correct and we are living in male dominated societies.

You bring a number of points into the discussion which will inevitably lead us down side trails. Everything you are saying regarding man's rule which is of man's making is correct; we live in a male dominated society which is not exclusively the case world-wide as was pointed out in another thread. There are tribes living today where women dominate the tribe. Goddess cultures are man-derived; you cannot blame God for these idolatrous practices which are an abomination to God. You are blaming God for what is a man-made problem.

You bring in the case of suffering. Women suffer at the hands of men but this suffering you cannot lay the blame on God. You can blame God for punishing Eve for her disobedience, but do you have the right? What righteousness do any of us have by which to accuse God of unrighteous behaviour in punishing Eve? The punishment to Eve (besides death) was that she should suffer pain in child-birth; this is woman's inheritance for which the blame rests with Eve.

The culture between men and women ought to be as it was first set out and to which Jesus refers us back to the beginning to the time of Adam and Eve and the marriage between one woman and one man. Antyhing else is a product of man. Men having more than one wife became an accpeted practice. God tolerated the kings of Israel to have more than one wife and we can see the consequences. We should not blame God for tolerating anything, otherwise we would all be dead and not having this discussion. Any time a king of Israel had sex with another woman they became his wife, though the king's love might have always been to his first wife; his first wife had pre-eminance over his other wives. This practice was not as God would have wanted it. God allowed somethings to take place as was the case of divorce when the people were descrinbed as "stiffnecked" and wanted divorce. Reluctantly, Moses had to write bill of divorcements. This is why Jesus takes us back to how it was at the beginning with Adam and Eve who were married for life (one man and one woman).

We should take into account where God tolerates the action of men and women; it is men and women who are really to blame. The consequences that follow are of men's and women's making. This has meant that God has had to deal with the problems caused and ensure His purpose is fulfilled despite what men and women have done. In all of the problems of life we are dealing with, when you go back to the source of the problem, you will find it is of men's and women's making and not God's making. Men might be more to blame than women for going astray from God, and now we are back with your argument. Men are to blame for the male doninated societies in which we live and men are to blame for the inequality of women in theses societies; the blame does not rest with God.

Talk about the submissiveness of women to tolerate such things, I know you are not one of them. Why did women accept belonging to hareems to have sex to a potentate? Was it not that they regarded themselves as privileged women? Blame the culture in which they belonged. You can argue that men dominated women and would have them put to death for their disobedience, this ought to make us put things into proper perspective considering our personal disobedience to God. Male dominated societies which are of men's making are nothing to do God; it is not how it was set up to be, so blame man instead.

God laid down the principles by which men and women should live. It is both men and women who are breaking God's laws and bringing the problems on themselves. By all means talk about male dominated societies but leave God out of the argument; the problems are not of God's making. Instead, we should be very thankful that despite all that men and women have done to break God's law, God is working to save men and women who believe in him and try to live lives in obedience to God's will; knowing the ultimate gift is eternal life and will be received when God has finally fulfilled His purpose and restored the earth to that which it was like before the fall of Adam and Eve. The inhabitants of the kingdom will enjoy the time as it would have been, had Adam and Eve not sinned. Therefore, just as Adam and Eve sinned in the first place, it is with man and woman you have to lay the blame for the evil that the inequality between men and women is.

Let's hope we can get some new contributers adding to this thread.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Hello Rose

We are dealing with equality here and nothing to do with the fact that God created Adam (male) before Eve (female) or that God has operated in fulfilling His purpose through the male line. Debz (link here) (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2303-The-Male-Bias-of-the-Bible&p=37472#post37472) elsewhere has shown to you (and anyone reading HER brilliant explanation using the Bible) that there is no inequality between the man and woman who were designed to operate as a single unit through the association of marriage which is designed for the reproduction. There is no inequality between men and women with God; both have equal rights and opportunity to have eternal life in God's kingdom to come. Physical differences between men and women in the sight of God is not inequality. I think man has taken advantage of his greater strength to dominate women but this is not in accordance with God's will. Therefore what you are saying is correct and we are living in male dominated societies.

Good morning David :yo: Glad you jumped over to this thread.

Yes, we are speaking of equality here and not about the myth of Adam and Eve which is what Debz spoke of in her post and I answered.

Men have definitely taken advantage of their strength to dominate women in most cultures, which is why the Bible is such a good example of a book being authored by men, reflecting the male perspective and male-bias of Bronze Age societies and mapping them on to the god they created.


You bring a number of points into the discussion which will inevitably lead us down side trails. Everything you are saying regarding man's rule which is of man's making is correct; we live in a male dominated society which is not exclusively the case world-wide as was pointed out in another thread. There are tribes living today where women dominate the tribe. Goddess cultures are man-derived; you cannot blame God for these idolatrous practices which are an abomination to God. You are blaming God for what is a man-made problem.

No, what I am really doing is showing you that the whole idea of God is a man-made problem. Men constructed a male warrior god in their own minds, who was extremely jealous of other make-believe gods and thought that men were superior to women. The book that reflects these ideas was authored solely by men and gives us detailed accounts of all the man-made problems they encountered.


You bring in the case of suffering. Women suffer at the hands of men but this suffering you cannot lay the blame on God. You can blame God for punishing Eve for her disobedience, but do you have the right? What righteousness do any of us have by which to accuse God of unrighteous behaviour in punishing Eve? The punishment to Eve (besides death) was that she should suffer pain in child-birth; this is woman's inheritance for which the blame rests with Eve.

Once again, I am not laying the blame on God, but rather on the men who made-up this god. Men made-up the story of Adam and Eve so they could blame the woman and dominate her. As I pointed out in goddess societies, even though the women ruled they didn't dominated the men, rather it was a partnership society. This again shows that in male dominated cultures like portrayed in the Bible, men suppress women and deny them the same human rights that they themselves enjoy.


The culture between men and women ought to be as it was first set out and to which Jesus refers us back to the beginning to the time of Adam and Eve and the marriage between one woman and one man. Antyhing else is a product of man. Men having more than one wife became an accpeted practice. God tolerated the kings of Israel to have more than one wife and we can see the consequences. We should not blame God for tolerating anything, otherwise we would all be dead and not having this discussion. Any time a king of Israel had sex with another woman they became his wife, though the king's love might have always been to his first wife; his first wife had pre-eminance over his other wives. This practice was not as God would have wanted it. God allowed somethings to take place as was the case of divorce when the people were descrinbed as "stiffnecked" and wanted divorce. Reluctantly, Moses had to write bill of divorcements. This is why Jesus takes us back to how it was at the beginning with Adam and Eve who were married for life (one man and one woman).

We should take into account where God tolerates the action of men and women; it is men and women who are really to blame. The consequences that follow are of men's and women's making. This has meant that God has had to deal with the problems caused and ensure His purpose is fulfilled despite what men and women have done. In all of the problems of life we are dealing with, when you go back to the source of the problem, you will find it is of men's and women's making and not God's making. Men might be more to blame than women for going astray from God, and now we are back with your argument. Men are to blame for the male doninated societies in which we live and men are to blame for the inequality of women in theses societies; the blame does not rest with God.

Absolutely! It is men and women who are to blame, because God was merely made up by them...that's my whole point.


Talk about the submissiveness of women to tolerate such things, I know you are not one of them. Why did women accept belonging to hareems to have sex to a potentate? Was it not that they regarded themselves as privileged women? Blame the culture in which they belonged. You can argue that men dominated women and would have them put to death for their disobedience, this ought to make us put things into proper perspective considering our personal disobedience to God. Male dominated societies which are of men's making are nothing to do God; it is not how it was set up to be, so blame man instead.

God laid down the principles by which men and women should live. It is both men and women who are breaking God's laws and bringing the problems on themselves. By all means talk about male dominated societies but leave God out of the argument; the problems are not of God's making. Instead, we should be very thankful that despite all that men and women have done to break God's law, God is working to save men and women who believe in him and try to live lives in obedience to God's will; knowing the ultimate gift is eternal life and will be received when God has finally fulfilled His purpose and restored the earth to that which it was like before the fall of Adam and Eve. The inhabitants of the kingdom will enjoy the time as it would have been, had Adam and Eve not sinned. Therefore, just as Adam and Eve sinned in the first place, it is with man and woman you have to lay the blame for the evil that the inequality between men and women is.

Let's hope we can get some new contributers adding to this thread.

All the best,

David

The principles laid down in the Bible are of mans making, just the same as the male dominated societies are of mans making. That is why both the Bible and the majority of cultures are male-biased and male dominated. Women have allowed this domination for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being because they bear the children. The only way women have ever gained rights is by joining together as one voice and forcing men to comply. Sad to say people rarely give up power willingly...look at the issue of slavery; this country had to fight a bloody civil war to free human beings from slavery.

I also hope we get some new contributors, but I think most people are very reluctant to touch these explosive issues.

Thanks for your input, :thumb:

Rose

[David M]

Good morning David :yo: Glad you jumped over to this thread.

Yes, we are speaking of equality here and not about the myth of Adam and Eve

No, what I am really doing is showing you that the whole idea of God is a man-made problem.

OK Rose, we just have to disagree on this.



Once again, I am not laying the blame on God,.
In a way Rose this is brilliant. All you have to do is re-examine the Bible so as to put the blame on man (where it belongs) and not on God who is only doing what he said He would do and is having to work around the man-made problems knowing how man will react to whatever He does.


Apart from who is the author of the Ancient Scriptures, we are agreed that the problem of equality is caused by men.

I will communicate again with you in another thread.


All the best

David

[Rose]

OK Rose, we just have to disagree on this.



In a way Rose this is brilliant. All you have to do is re-examine the Bible so as to put the blame on man (where it belongs) and not on God who is only doing what he said He would do and is having to work around the man-made problems knowing how man will react to whatever He does.


Apart from who is the author of the Ancient Scriptures, we are agreed that the problem of equality is caused by men.

I will communicate again with you in another thread.


All the best

David

Yes, the problem of equality, or the lack thereof is caused by men, and that is preciously why the only logical conclusion I could come to - given the fact that the Bible is filled with inequality of human rights for women - is that it is a male authored book.

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In a way Rose this is brilliant. All you have to do is re-examine the Bible so as to put the blame on man (where it belongs) and not on God who is only doing what he said He would do and is having to work around the man-made problems knowing how man will react to whatever He does.


Apart from who is the author of the Ancient Scriptures, we are agreed that the problem of equality is caused by men.

And so you agree with her conclusion that the Bible is authored by biased males and not God?

[David M]

Hello Richard


And so you agree with her conclusion that the Bible is authored by biased males and not God?

No!

I am objecting to the word "biased", not to the fact that the Bible appears to be male orientated. God is not treating women unfairly or more favorably as a the word bias suggests. It is man that is treating women unfairly.

God is not biased, God inspired men to write His word, therefore the authors were not biased because they simply wrote what they were inspired to write. They were not given licence to change that which had been inspired.

If God has revealed man's treatment of women to be unequal, God is pointing out the failing of man.

Elsewhere you agreed the blame rests on mens' shoulders and I agree with that.


David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard



No!

I am objecting to the word "biased", not to the fact that the Bible appears to be male orientated. God is not treating women unfairly or more favorably as a the word bias suggests. It is man that is treating women unfairly.

God is not biased, God inspired men to write His word, therefore the authors were not biased because they simply wrote what they were inspired to write. They were not given licence to change that which had been inspired.

If God has revealed man's treatment of women to be unequal, God is pointing out the failing of man.

Elsewhere you agreed the blame rests on mens' shoulders and I agree with that.


David
Your comment hits the heart of the matter. You said:

"God is not biased, God inspired men to write His word, therefore the authors were not biased because they simply wrote what they were inspired to write."

Excellent. This is the basis of my syllogism:

Minor Premise: God is not biased.
Major Premise: God inspired the Bible.
Conclusion: The Bible is not biased.

Now we can look at reality, and behold! The Bible is biased.

Therefore, one of the premises is false. Either God is biased, or God did not inspire the Bible.

Your solution, of course, is to deny that the Bible is biased. But I don't see how that is possible, since the Bible is plainly biased in many ways against women in favor of men.

So this is the one and only point we need to discuss. IS THE BIBLE BIASED AGAINST WOMEN IN FAVOR OF MEN?

Please don't confuse the issue with biases in the Bible that were not established by God. The only question is whether the Bible teaches a bias against women.

Here are the obvious points:

1) Woman is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments).
2) Women must be subject to men. (Man is the head of the woman.)
3) Women must not teach.
4) Women must be silent in church.
5) Women are "saved" through childbirth.
6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is twice that of a male child.
7) Women were owned by men (the penalty for rape depended on her marital status. The father of a virgin was PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was killed if he raped a married woman (owned by a man).
8) Women can't divorce men, but men can divorce women.
9) etc.

[CWH]

Your comment hits the heart of the matter. You said:

"God is not biased, God inspired men to write His word, therefore the authors were not biased because they simply wrote what they were inspired to write."

Excellent. This is the basis of my syllogism:

Minor Premise: God is not biased.
Major Premise: God inspired the Bible.
Conclusion: The Bible is not biased.

Now we can look at reality, and behold! The Bible is biased.

Therefore, one of the premises is false. Either God is biased, or God did not inspire the Bible.

Your solution, of course, is to deny that the Bible is biased. But I don't see how that is possible, since the Bible is plainly biased in many ways against women in favor of men.

So this is the one and only point we need to discuss. IS THE BIBLE BIASED AGAINST WOMEN IN FAVOR OF MEN?

Please don't confuse the issue with biases in the Bible that were not established by God. The only question is whether the Bible teaches a bias against women.

Here are the obvious points:

1) Woman is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments).
2) Women must be subject to men. (Man is the head of the woman.)
3) Women must not teach.
4) Women must be silent in church.
5) Women are "saved" through childbirth.
6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is twice that of a male child.
7) Women were owned by men (the penalty for rape depended on her marital status. The father of a virgin was PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was killed if he raped a married woman (owned by a man).
8) Women can't divorce men, but men can divorce women.
9) etc.

Using your logic that the Bible is biased against women, I would like to suggest using a different logic f which there are 4 possibilities i.e. 1. if the Bible is biased against women 2. if the Bible is biased against men and 3. if the Bible is biased against men and women and 4. if the Bible is not biased against men and women.

Let's itemized your logic as A, the rest B, C, D accordingly:

A: Using your logic if the Bible is biased against women:
1) Woman is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments). Absurd
2) Women must be subject to men. (Man is the head of the woman.)Absurd
3) Women must not teach. Absurd
4) Women must be silent in church. Absurd
5) Women are "saved" through childbirth. Absurd
6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is twice that of a male child.Absurd
7) Women were owned by men (the penalty for rape depended on her marital status. The father of a virgin was PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was killed if he raped a married woman (owned by a man). Absurd
8) Women can't divorce men, but men can divorce women. Absurd
9) etc


B: Using your logic in which the Bible is biased against men:
1) Man is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments). Absurd
2) Man must be subject to women. (Woman is the head of the man.) Absurd
3) Men must not teach. Absurd
4) Men must be silent in church. Absurd
5) Men are "saved" through childbirth. Absurd
6) The period of uncleanness for a male child is twice that of a female child.Absurd
7) Men were owned by women (the penalty for rape depended on his marital status. The mother of a virgin man was PAID MONEY whereas the female rapist was killed if she raped a married man (owned by a woman). Absurd
8) Men can't divorce women, but women can divorce men.Absurd
9) etc.


C. Based on your logic that the Bible is biased against men or women, it will read:
1) Both Man and Woman is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments). Sounds OK.
2) Both Men and Women must be subject to men i.e other people of both sexes. (Man is the head of the woman and woman is also the head of man.) Absurd
3) Both Men and Women must not teach. Absurd
4) Both Men and Women must be silent in church. Absurd
5) Both Men and Women are "saved" through childbirth.Sounds OK.
6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is twice that of a male child, same with the male child. Absurd
7) Both men and Women were owned by other people (the penalty for rape depended on marital status. The father or mother of a virgin man or woman was PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was killed if he or she raped a married man or woman (owned by a man or a woman). Absurd
8) Women can't divorce men, neither can men divorce women. Sounds OK unless infidelity.
9) etc.

D. Now based on your logic, if the Bible is not biased against men and women, it will read:
1) Man and Woman is not blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments). Absurd
2) Women must not be subject to men and neither Men subject to women. (Neither Man is the head of the woman or the woman head of man.)Sounds OK.
3) Both Men and Women must teach. Sounds OK.
4) Both Men and Women must not be silent in church. Sounds OK.
5) Both Men and Women are not "saved" through childbirth. Sounds OK.
6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is not twice that of a male child neither is the male uncleanliness twice of women Sounds OK.
7) Women were not owned by men or men owned by women (No penalty for rape is depended on the marital status. The father or mother of a virgin was not PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was not killed if he/she raped a married woman or woman ( not owned by a man or woman). Absurd
8) Women can divorce men and men can divorce women.Sounds OK (if based on infidelity).
9) etc.

I know you will call these absurd but what I am trying to see is which of all these make the most sense if we look in other directions. Now which do you think make better sense? Sounds more like item D is the best in which the Bible is not biased against men or women. This tends to show that your logic of the Bible biased against women (Item A) is false, item B in which the Bible is biased against men is also false, Item C in which the Bible is biased against men and women seems largely false and Item D in which the Bible is not biased against men or women seems largely correct.


God Blessed us all.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I know you will call these absurd but what I am trying to see is which of all these make the most sense if we look in other directions. Now which do you think make better sense? Sounds more like item D is the best in which the Bible is not biased against men or women. This tends to show that your logic of the Bible biased against women (Item A) is false, item B in which the Bible is biased against men is also false, Item C in which the Bible is biased against men and women seems largely false and Item D in which the Bible is not biased against men or women seems largely correct.

You are right, you post is totally absurd. It makes no sense at all. I can't even begin to guess what you think you are talking about.

For example, you merely labeled every point as "absurd" under your point "A." What is that supposed to mean? Every one of my points would make sense if the Bible were biased against women.

[CWH]

You are right, you post is totally absurd. It makes no sense at all. I can't even begin to guess what you think you are talking about.

For example, you merely labeled every point as "absurd" under your point "A." What is that supposed to mean? Every one of my points would make sense if the Bible were biased against women.

I have expected your usual answer in which everything is absurd if it is disagreeable to you. Now look carefully at Item D, does it sounds largely absurd to you?



D. Now based on your logic, if the Bible is not biased against men and women, it will read:
1) Man and Woman is not blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments). Absurd
2) Women must not be subject to men and neither Men subject to women. (Neither Man is the head of the woman or the woman head of man.)Sounds OK.
3) Both Men and Women must teach. Sounds OK.
4) Both Men and Women must not be silent in church. Sounds OK.
5) Both Men and Women are not "saved" through childbirth. Sounds OK.
6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is not twice that of a male child neither is the male uncleanliness twice of women Sounds OK.
7) Women were not owned by men or men owned by women (No penalty for rape is depended on the marital status. The father or mother of a virgin was not PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was not killed if he/she raped a married woman or woman ( not owned by a man or woman). Absurd
8) Women can divorce men and men can divorce women.Sounds OK (if based on infidelity).
9) etc

Are you saying that:
1) It is true that Man and Woman is not blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments).
2) It is Not ok that Women must not be subject to men and neither Men subject to women. (Neither Man is the head of the woman or the woman head of man.)
3) It is Not ok that Both Men and Women must teach.
4) It is Not ok that Both Men and Women must not be silent in church.
5) It is Not ok that Both Men and Women are not "saved" through childbirth.
6) It is Not ok that The period of uncleanness for a female child is not twice that of a male child neither is the male uncleanliness twice of women.
7) It is not right that Women were not owned by men or men owned by women (That is ok that No penalty for rape is depended on the marital status. The father or mother of a virgin was not PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was not killed if he/she raped a married woman or woman ( not owned by a man or woman).
8) It is not right that Women can divorce men and men can divorce women (if based on infidelity).

That certainly sounds absurd. Item D sounds more equal between men and women which is the topic of this thread.

God Bless. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have expected your usual answer in which everything is absurd if it is disagreeable to you.

That is false. Your post is not "disagreeable" to me. Your post simply makes no sense.

If you want to make some sense, tell me why you listed everything under point A as absurd.

[David M]

Hello Richard


Your comment hits the heart of the matter. You said:

"God is not biased, God inspired men to write His word, therefore the authors were not biased because they simply wrote what they were inspired to write."

Excellent. This is the basis of my syllogism:

Minor Premise: God is not biased.
Major Premise: God inspired the Bible.
Conclusion: The Bible is not biased.

Now we can look at reality, and behold! The Bible is biased.

Therefore, one of the premises is false. Either God is biased, or God did not inspire the Bible.
I think you might have missed one. The Bible gives accounts where men do not treat women equally. Therefore the Bible, is not biased by hiding the facts.



Your solution, of course, is to deny that the Bible is biased. But I don't see how that is possible, since the Bible is plainly biased in many ways against women in favor of men.
As above, the Bible can show bias but this is mens' behaviour and it this behaviour that is not in accordance with God's principles that were laid down from the beginning.


So this is the one and only point we need to discuss. IS THE BIBLE BIASED AGAINST WOMEN IN FAVOR OF MEN?
I was first of all bebutting the claim made by Rose that the Bible is authored by men who are biased against women. Are you in agreement with Rose?


Please don't confuse the issue with biases in the Bible that were not established by God.
The only question is whether the Bible teaches a bias against women..
This is the point I am trying to clear up. I seem to be countering both you and Rose. If the Bible gives an account where it mentions that a nation was practicing idolatry, the Bible is not teaching us that it is OK to practice idolatry. We have to apply the the principle we learn elsewhere thatidolatry is an abomination to God and so wherever we read of idolatry, it can be taken as fact that this is an abomination to God. If we read of case where men are not treating women with equal respect, we know that it is against the principle laid down by God.


Here are the obvious points:
My replies are in color
1) Woman is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments).
This is not bias as I see it, the Bible is reporting the fact. Did you want Adam tested first? If you wanted Adam tested first, this would be biased toward man using your argument. Had Adam been tested first, his guilt of eating the forbidden fruit would have been less, for Adam ate knowingly, not having been decived as Eve was. Adam was more culpable. Adam and Eve received separate punishments in addition to death, and it can be argued that Adam's punishment was the greater, so in this case, is not God biased against man, or is the punishment in proportion to Adam's and Eve's s separate culpability?

2) Women must be subject to men. (Man is the head of the woman.)
Equally, man must reverence his wife. The man bears the responsibility as the head. This means the woman does not bear the responsibility. This is favouring the woman who do not have the worry to go with the responsibility. Do you want women to have more worry?

3) Women must not teach.
As the head, the man was given the the responsibility to teach, in particular ceremonial worship. This is seen in the law of Moses. I see men having specific roles and more responsibility and as such, is not biased against women. Do you want women to shoulder more of the responsibility and worry?

4) Women must be silent in church.
I think this has to be taken in the context that it was the husbands responsibility to teach matters of doctrine and carry out formal worship and was not the woman's responsibility.Less burden on the woman is not bias against woman but is doing them a favor. You could argue that this is biased in favor or women

5) Women are "saved" through childbirth.
So what is your point? Women are saved, excellent; how is man saved?

6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is twice that of a male child.
This is only to do with ceremonial practice and does not in anyway change the value of the child. The role of the man has more importance to go with the extra responsibility placed on the man. The line of descendancy was traced through the male line. Some extra importance, was attached to a male as it ensured the family line of inheritance was maintained. I do not see this is as bias against women or that of the birth of a female child is of less importance in the sight of God. I would look for greater spiritual lessons rather than strain to make such points look like bias against woman. Thre role of the male was determined by God, hence Jesus was a man not a woman. I have said that the Bible shows male orientation, which is not bias in the terms of the definition of bias. Had the roles been reversed you would have to argue against bias against men. Alas, the roles had to be divided and considering the wife (female) was responsible for child rearing and education of the children (a highly responsible position and ffull-time job) the female could not be expected to have the responsibility for conducting formal worship (points 3 and 4).

7) Women were owned by men (the penalty for rape depended on her marital status. The father of a virgin was PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was killed if he raped a married woman (owned by a man).
A virgin who was raped was not guilty of fornication and was free to marry. Her dowry (the custom of the time) as a virgin was probably lost as a result of the rape and therefore the rapist had to make compensation. Blame the male rapist; this is not biased against the woman. You have put in brackets "owned by a man". Marriage was a life-long union, not a mutual ownership to be bought and sold like a possession

8) Women can't divorce men, but men can divorce women.
If a divorce takes place, neither is free to marry again so long as the other partner remains alive. Therefore, it makes no difference who asks for a divorce. Divorce does not stop the man or the woman from committing adultery if they marry again.
The man could not depend on the woman to provide for the family, but the woman could expect the man to provide for the family. A woman had more rights than the man in this case. A woman only need withold her services and the man could be forced to ask for a divorce, so why is it of any matter if the woman is not mentioned as asking for a divorce? Do you really want a specific law to say that women cannot ask for a divorce? That would add to your argument if that were the case.

9) etc.
Ditto

Any other points you have not listed (etc) I take it are less important and do not have to be considered. Therefore, having replied to your list, I am now finished with this thread and I am moving on to another. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer your questions. Others can decide who is the more correct.

All the best, I will chat with you in another thread.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your comment hits the heart of the matter. You said:

"God is not biased, God inspired men to write His word, therefore the authors were not biased because they simply wrote what they were inspired to write."

Excellent. This is the basis of my syllogism:

Minor Premise: God is not biased.
Major Premise: God inspired the Bible.
Conclusion: The Bible is not biased.

Now we can look at reality, and behold! The Bible is biased.

Therefore, one of the premises is false. Either God is biased, or God did not inspire the Bible.
I think you might have missed one. The Bible gives accounts where men do not treat women equally. Therefore the Bible, is not biased by hiding the facts.

Good morning David,

I'm mystified that you continue to miss the point. We are not, and never have been, talking about human shortcomings that just happen to be recorded in the Bible. We are talking about a male bias in the commands and actions attributed to God. I've repeated this two million times now. Why do you continue to miss the point?




Your solution, of course, is to deny that the Bible is biased. But I don't see how that is possible, since the Bible is plainly biased in many ways against women in favor of men.
As above, the Bible can show bias but this is mens' behaviour and it this behaviour that is not in accordance with God's principles that were laid down from the beginning.

Wrong again. When the Bible says that man is the head of the woman, and that the woman must be silent and in subjection to men and so forth, it is BIASED AGAINST WOMEN, and that bias was inspired by God (unless you deny those verses represent God's will).




So this is the one and only point we need to discuss. IS THE BIBLE BIASED AGAINST WOMEN IN FAVOR OF MEN?
I was first of all bebutting the claim made by Rose that the Bible is authored by men who are biased against women. Are you in agreement with Rose?

Of course I am in agreement with Rose on this point. The evidence is overwhelming. The Bible attributes a typical male bias to God, and so we know that it cannot be inspired by God. It's very simple stuff.




Please don't confuse the issue with biases in the Bible that were not established by God.
The only question is whether the Bible teaches a bias against women..
This is the point I am trying to clear up. I seem to be countering both you and Rose. If the Bible gives an account where it mentions that a nation was practicing idolatry, the Bible is not teaching us that it is OK to practice idolatry. We have to apply the the principle we learn elsewhere thatidolatry is an abomination to God and so wherever we read of idolatry, it can be taken as fact that this is an abomination to God. If we read of case where men are not treating women with equal respect, we know that it is against the principle laid down by God.

Neither Rose nor I have ever made the kind of mistake you are trying to "correct" so why do you keep repeating it? It looks like you are dodging the blatant biases attributed to God in the Bible. That is the only point that we are discussing.



My replies are in color

Great. I'm really glad you are finally addressing the points I actually have raised. I'll answer in black.

1) Woman is blamed for the fall (in both the Old and New Testaments).
This is not bias as I see it, the Bible is reporting the fact. Did you want Adam tested first? If you wanted Adam tested first, this would be biased toward man using your argument. Had Adam been tested first, his guilt of eating the forbidden fruit would have been less, for Adam ate knowingly, not having been decived as Eve was. Adam was more culpable. Adam and Eve received separate punishments in addition to death, and it can be argued that Adam's punishment was the greater, so in this case, is not God biased against man, or is the punishment in proportion to Adam's and Eve's s separate culpability?
I anticipated your response and agree that it would be valid if the creation story is true. But to those of us who do not accept the creation story as actual history, the fact that it puts the blame on woman does indeed constitute a strong male bias (which is spelled out in minute detail in the horrid commentaries on Genesis written by male church leaders throughout history). In hindsight I would not have included this point since it is ambiguous.

2) Women must be subject to men. (Man is the head of the woman.)
Equally, man must reverence his wife. The man bears the responsibility as the head. This means the woman does not bear the responsibility. This is favouring the woman who do not have the worry to go with the responsibility. Do you want women to have more worry?
That is not EQUAL so my point is proven. The Bible is strongly biased in favor of men whom God set up to rule over women. And you are wrong about how the responsibilities actually work out. Men typically "sit at the gate" discussing their stuff with other guys while the women do all the work raising the kids, running the household, doing the labor. Women are known as the "mules of the world" because they do most of the grinding work while the men who rule over them sit back drinking beer. This worldwide problems is due to the same male bias that we find in the Bible.

3) Women must not teach.
As the head, the man was given the the responsibility to teach, in particular ceremonial worship. This is seen in the law of Moses. I see men having specific roles and more responsibility and as such, is not biased against women. Do you want women to shoulder more of the responsibility and worry?
So you admit that women are excluded merely because they are women. That proves my point again. The laws in the Bible that were supposedly inspired by God are biased against women. Therefore, they are not really inspired by God.

4) Women must be silent in church.
I think this has to be taken in the context that it was the husbands responsibility to teach matters of doctrine and carry out formal worship and was not the woman's responsibility.Less burden on the woman is not bias against woman but is doing them a favor. You could argue that this is biased in favor or women
[/quote]
How nice. Doing the half-witted women a "favor" by treating them like mindless children and excluding them from full participation in worship. My point is proven again.

5) Women are "saved" through childbirth.
So what is your point? Women are saved, excellent; how is man saved?
[/quote]
My point is that the Bible is here treating women as mere "baby makers" as if that were their real "value." It is a typical view from a male biased perspective.

6) The period of uncleanness for a female child is twice that of a male child.
This is only to do with ceremonial practice and does not in anyway change the value of the child. The role of the man has more importance to go with the extra responsibility placed on the man. The line of descendancy was traced through the male line. Some extra importance, was attached to a male as it ensured the family line of inheritance was maintained. I do not see this is as bias against women or that of the birth of a female child is of less importance in the sight of God. I would look for greater spiritual lessons rather than strain to make such points look like bias against woman. Thre role of the male was determined by God, hence Jesus was a man not a woman. I have said that the Bible shows male orientation, which is not bias in the terms of the definition of bias. Had the roles been reversed you would have to argue against bias against men. Alas, the roles had to be divided and considering the wife (female) was responsible for child rearing and education of the children (a highly responsible position and ffull-time job) the female could not be expected to have the responsibility for conducting formal worship (points 3 and 4).
Oh my ... you are really exposing the fruit of the male bias of the Bible when you say things like "the role of man has more importance" and "some extra importance was attached to a male" and "hence Jesus was a man and not a women." You have raised the male bias to the level of divinity! You have fully incorporated the male bias of the Bible into your thinking!

As for different roles and responsibilities - that would not necessarily indicate bias if the women had equal rights and were not treated like children who had to be silent and in subjection to males, and if the roles were based on merit and not sex.

7) Women were owned by men (the penalty for rape depended on her marital status. The father of a virgin was PAID MONEY whereas the rapist was killed if he raped a married woman (owned by a man).
A virgin who was raped was not guilty of fornication and was free to marry. Her dowry (the custom of the time) as a virgin was probably lost as a result of the rape and therefore the rapist had to make compensation. Blame the male rapist; this is not biased against the woman. You have put in brackets "owned by a man". Marriage was a life-long union, not a mutual ownership to be bought and sold like a possession
You failed to answer my point. The penalty for rape differed according to who owned the woman. If she was owned by her father, he was to be paid the dowry because the rapist ruined his virgin and he couldn't sell her to another man. If she was already married, then the rapist was to be killed.

I believe me, I most certainly "blame the rapist" for the rape. But that has nothing to do with the bias built into this law which treats the women as someone's property and bases the penalty upon who owns her.

8) Women can't divorce men, but men can divorce women.
If a divorce takes place, neither is free to marry again so long as the other partner remains alive. Therefore, it makes no difference who asks for a divorce. Divorce does not stop the man or the woman from committing adultery if they marry again.
The man could not depend on the woman to provide for the family, but the woman could expect the man to provide for the family. A woman had more rights than the man in this case. A woman only need withold her services and the man could be forced to ask for a divorce, so why is it of any matter if the woman is not mentioned as asking for a divorce? Do you really want a specific law to say that women cannot ask for a divorce? That would add to your argument if that were the case.
[/quote]
The Bible does not say that! The OT clearly allows people to marry and divorce and marry again. You know this. If you think that contradicts the NT, then you have another problem to deal with.

But the point for our discussion is that the Bible is clearly biased in favor of the male who is allowed to divorce, whereas there is no such law allowing women to divorce their husbands.

And as for you suggestion that a woman could use her power to "withhold rights" to force a divorce, you forget two things. 1) The man could beat her into submission, or 2) he could throw her out and keep the kids. This is because the MEN have all the RIGHTS in the Bible!



Any other points you have not listed (etc) I take it are less important and do not have to be considered. Therefore, having replied to your list, I am now finished with this thread and I am moving on to another. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer your questions. Others can decide who is the more correct.

All the best, I will chat with you in another thread.

David
You missed the reason for the "etc." I cut the list short because it is so long! I wanted you to have a chance to begin answering without being overwhelmed.

Now before we move forward, it is important for you to let me know which points of bias you think I have successfully established. In my estimation, every point except the first remains unrefuted. Do you agree?

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Good morning David,

Now before we move forward, it is important for you to let me know which points of bias you think I have successfully established. In my estimation, every point except the first remains unrefuted. Do you agree?

All the best,

Richard

Sorry Richard, I do not think you have argued your case, merely stated what you already have without adding extra significant value. We have to let others comment on what we have said; we can counter our critics rather than each other.

The crux of this argument is understanding what is meant by the word; "bias". I understand bias to mean giving preferential treatment. Being partial to something is showing bias. Here is what I get from a dictionary: inclined to favor one party more than the other : biased

Now in the framework of men and women as I have tried to expain, one of the roles of the woman is childbirth. It is more natural for a woman to bring up the child. Present day life-styles are blurring the roles. It is better to bring up children by the father and the mother. How these roles have developed over time is of man's making. God never intended for us to be having these arguments. These are of man's making.

Based on your logic and reasoning, it is biassed towards man if God gives man a role the woman could do equally well. It is not biassed (in your opinion) towards women, if women have been given things to do that men cannot do.

In both cases you want to show bias against women in favor of men. You ignore any possibility of bias shown to women; not that I want to claim bias in any way. God did not show bias towards woman, because she was created (made) to produce children. Women are designed to provide nutrition which a man cannot provide. A baby bonds (and more so) with its mother first. In your world, you want men and women to be equal in all respects. Men and women in God's sight have equal rights; this is the most important point to understand. If you want to take the fact that there are more men in the Bible and men have more to do than women as bias towards man, then I think you are wrong. Others will have to decide who is the more correct and we have to allow that we are both wrong.

You consider a man given more responsibility (and worry) is biassed towards man than rather accept that not giving woman the responsibility and worry is biassed in her favor in tems of less stress maybe. This is bias under a different parameter. I wish I could shed all my responsibilites on to my wife. My wife and I know of our different strengths and weaknesses, and we share our troubles; this is what partnership is all about. I do not complain for the amount of work I have, my wife works equally and more so than I do. As a partnership, we do not make comparisons. Anyone observing the partnersip can make all sorts of claims as to what is biassed in favor of my wife and what is biassed in my favor, but in the partnership, we do not regard the same differences as bias. As I say, the word "bias" might be the wrong word to use.


All the best.

David

[Rose]

The crux of this argument is understanding what is meant by the word; "bias". I understand bias to mean giving preferential treatment. Being partial to something is showing bias. Here is what I get from a dictionary: inclined to favor one party more than the other : biased

Now in the framework of men and women as I have tried to expain, one of the roles of the woman is childbirth. It is more natural for a woman to bring up the child. Present day life-styles are blurring the roles. It is better to bring up children by the father and the mother. How these roles have developed over time is of man's making. God never intended for us to be having these arguments. These are of man's making.

Based on your logic and reasoning, it is biassed towards man if God gives man a role the woman could do equally well. It is not biassed (in your opinion) towards women, if women have been given things to do that men cannot do.

In both cases you want to show bias against women in favor of men. You ignore any possibility of bias shown to women; not that I want to claim bias in any way. God did not show bias towards woman, because she was created (made) to produce children. Women are designed to provide nutrition which a man cannot provide. A baby bonds (and more so) with its mother first. In your world, you want men and women to be equal in all respects. Men and women in God's sight have equal rights; this is the most important point to understand. If you want to take the fact that there are more men in the Bible and men have more to do than women as bias towards man, then I think you are wrong. Others will have to decide who is the more correct and we have to allow that we are both wrong.

You consider a man given more responsibility (and worry) is biassed towards man than rather accept that not giving woman the responsibility and worry is biassed in her favor in tems of less stress maybe. This is bias under a different parameter. I wish I could shed all my responsibilites on to my wife. My wife and I know of our different strengths and weaknesses, and we share our troubles; this is what partnership is all about. I do not complain for the amount of work I have, my wife works equally and more so than I do. As a partnership, we do not make comparisons. Anyone observing the partnersip can make all sorts of claims as to what is biassed in favor of my wife and what is biassed in my favor, but in the partnership, we do not regard the same differences as bias. As I say, the word "bias" might be the wrong word to use.


All the best.

David

Good Morning David :yo:

Neither Richard nor I are talking about the natural roles of women, like giving birth...that's not a right a woman is given, just like men aren't given the right be fathers. Biases are not differences...what we are speaking of is HUMAN RIGHTS, like the right to not be owned by another person, or the right to marry whom you choose...basically the right to become anything you choose if one is capable of it.

All the cases of male-bias that I have pointed out in the Bible, are rules imposed upon women by men in order to control them...rules which the men themselves are not subject to. In a free partnership society men and women enter into marriage as partners, each choosing the roles they are best suited for, unlike the Bible which dictates to the woman what men allow her to do. Responsibilities in marriage should not be a burden that one is saddled with, but rather a privilege that each person chooses because of their love for their partner. The same with child-bearing, if both partners choose to have children then they share the responsibility for raising them, unlike the Bible which views women as property that gives the man children as his inheritance.

All the best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry Richard, I do not think you have argued your case, merely stated what you already have without adding extra significant value. We have to let others comment on what we have said; we can counter our critics rather than each other.

I have no idea what you mean when you say I have not "argued my case." I gave solid reasons with facts and logic that have not been refuted. If you disagree, it would be good if you answered the points that I have made.



The crux of this argument is understanding what is meant by the word; "bias". I understand bias to mean giving preferential treatment. Being partial to something is showing bias. Here is what I get from a dictionary: inclined to favor one party more than the other : biased

That's a good definition, and that's exactly what we see in the Bible where women are treated as property, men are given rule over women, women are not allowed to teach, etc., etc., etc.



Now in the framework of men and women as I have tried to expain, one of the roles of the woman is childbirth. It is more natural for a woman to bring up the child. Present day life-styles are blurring the roles. It is better to bring up children by the father and the mother. How these roles have developed over time is of man's making. God never intended for us to be having these arguments. These are of man's making.

We are not talking about roles that are freely chosen by free women and men. We are talking about LAWS and RULES in the Bible that do not give EQUAL RIGHTS to women. This had been repeated dozens of times. Why do we have to keep repeating it?



Based on your logic and reasoning, it is biassed towards man if God gives man a role the woman could do equally well. It is not biassed (in your opinion) towards women, if women have been given things to do that men cannot do.

Yes, it is biased if God makes RULES that prohibit women from having equal rights. Simple as that.

The only thing that a woman could do that a man could not is childbirth and nursing. To make that the basis of institutionalized sexism is biased, by definition. This is very easy to prove. Just look at modern western society. Woman can play the role of mother if they want, but society doesn't tell them that they have to! Would you have it any other way? If the Bible is a true guide to the will of God, then I would think that you would want a society that follows biblical rules. So would you want to see sexism institutionalize again like the good old days when women couldn't even open a bank account? Do you think the Saudi's got it right when they banned women from driving? The social laws of the Bible are the primitive morals from over two thousand years ago when sexism was taken for granted. Is that the way you think our modern society should be structured? Personally, I think our modern freedoms and equalities are a vast improvement over the social structure taught in the Bible.



In both cases you want to show bias against women in favor of men. You ignore any possibility of bias shown to women; not that I want to claim bias in any way. God did not show bias towards woman, because she was created (made) to produce children. Women are designed to provide nutrition which a man cannot provide. A baby bonds (and more so) with its mother first. In your world, you want men and women to be equal in all respects. Men and women in God's sight have equal rights; this is the most important point to understand. If you want to take the fact that there are more men in the Bible and men have more to do than women as bias towards man, then I think you are wrong. Others will have to decide who is the more correct and we have to allow that we are both wrong.

I have never said that I want "men and women to be equal in all respects." That is absurd since men are different than women. But I do want EQUAL RIGHTS for men and women, and that's what we are talking about. I wish you would be more careful with your comments.

Your assertion that "men and women in God's sight have equal rights" seems absurd in light of the Biblical testimony. If women can't teach, if they must remain silent in church, if they are classed with donkeys and houses in the Tenth Commandment, how can you say that they have "equal rights in God's eyes?"

And for that matter, the Tenth Commandment doesn't even apply to women, since it is speaking to MEN about not coveting the property of other MEN.

I have not used the fact that the Bible speaks more about men than women in any argument as yet, though I think a circumstantial case could be based upon that fact. But it wouldn't be a strong argument so I'm focusing on the issues with more direct supporting evidence.



You consider a man given more responsibility (and worry) is biassed towards man than rather accept that not giving woman the responsibility and worry is biassed in her favor in tems of less stress maybe. This is bias under a different parameter. I wish I could shed all my responsibilites on to my wife. My wife and I know of our different strengths and weaknesses, and we share our troubles; this is what partnership is all about. I do not complain for the amount of work I have, my wife works equally and more so than I do. As a partnership, we do not make comparisons. Anyone observing the partnersip can make all sorts of claims as to what is biassed in favor of my wife and what is biassed in my favor, but in the partnership, we do not regard the same differences as bias. As I say, the word "bias" might be the wrong word to use.

That's not what I've been talking about. The problem is that women are denied freedom to exercise the same authority and responsibility as men even though they often are more qualified. That is the bias I am talking about. I'm talking about the institutionalized sexism. Have you seen Yentil? It's a movie about a Jewish woman who desired to study Torah, but she had to pretend to be male to be allowed to do it! I get the impression you have no knowledge of the history of institutionalized sexism and the women's movement that freed us from it. Only a hundred years ago, a women could not live independently of a man ruling over her. She couldn't open her own bank account. She couldn't vote! She was very limited in her occupational opportunities. All this was set up in CHRISTIAN AMERICA because they followed the institutionalized sexism of the Bible.

If you get tired of going in circles on this, the solution is simple. We need to focus on one point at a time and actually evaluate the merits of the arguments until we come to an agreement. I am a reasonable person and will admit when I am wrong. I have no choice if I want to be taken seriously since folks reading will know if I have answered well or merely dodged. We will, of course, come to some points where we must agree to disagree, and that's fine so long as we are clear about the point of disagreement. But this constant ping pong of just throwing words that fly past each other is tedious. You have rejected or ignored many points I have presented that were established with logic and facts. This makes it feel like we are just repeating ourselves. I think it would be great if we could really engage each other in serious discourse. Of course, this means we will have to admit when our arguments are weak, and this is much more dangerous for you than me because I am not defending any particular dogma. If I am successful on a single point, your fragile and brittle dogma of Biblical perfection will come crashing down. I have no such fears, so I can freely admit when an argument of mine fails. I have nothing to lose but the errors I hold! You have a dogma at stake.

All the best,

Richard