The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible

Richard Amiel McGough

10-18-2012, 07:25 PM

This is a copy of a post on the old blog section of this website which I no longer update (see here (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?32-The-Inextricable-Sexism-of-the-Bible)). I copied it here, along with the comments, so the conversation can continue in the regular section of the forum.
================================================== ===============

THE INEXTRICABLE SEXISM OF THE BIBLE

The Theological Sexism of the Bible
The Bible is an ancient book written by primitive men with primitive morals, chief amongst them being a thoroughly sexist view of women. Sexism saturates the Bible from beginning to end. It is inextricable because it is entwined with the fundamental theological understanding of God himself who is not only male but a Trinity of males consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This male God stands at the head of a hierarchy of male authority that puts women at the bottom:
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

The sexism of the Bible cannot be denied without attacking its fundamental theological view of God and his relation to humans:

[*=1]Male Ruler: God
[*=1]Male Ruler: Christ
[*=1]Male Ruler: Man
[*=1]Female Subject: Woman

This view is confirmed and amplified in many passages. It is the basis of the fundamental analogical relationship between God (Husband) and the Church (Wife):
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Eph 5:22-24)

Wives are to be subject to their husbands in the same way as their husbands are subject to God and this is the biblical image of the relation between God and his people. Peter confirms this view when he says that wives should submit to their husbands and call them "lord" -
For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)

Wives, children, and slaves are all told to submit and obey in a parallel set of commands:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them. 20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart. 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. (Col 3:18-22)

The Bible commands women to be subject to their husbands, children to obey their parents, and slaves to obey their earthly masters. This is the fundamental and inextricable teaching of the Bible supported by an integrated network of mutually confirming verses that span the entire text from beginning to end.

The Bible begins with sexism. The creation myth blames the woman for all the sin in the world and says God himself placed two curses upon her: 1) the pain of childbirth and 2) male domination:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

This verse cannot be explained away because its plain meaning is confirmed and applied in the New Testament where it is used as a justification for why women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in Christian churches:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2:11-15)

Women are not allowed to teach because 1) males have primacy because Adam was created first and 2) women are not reliable teachers because they are easily deceived, like Eve. And it completes the picture of the creation myth when it says "woman will be saved through childbearing" (which is the only value they had according to some church fathers, see below). That women must be silent and in submission to men is confirmed and explained as being "in the law" in 1 Corinthians:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Paul appealed to the creation myth again to justify the male hierarchy of authority described above:
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (1 Cor 11:3-9)

This verse gave rise to the abominable doctrine that women do not even share in the image of God because Paul said man is "the image and glory of God" whereas woman is merely "the glory of man." Here is how the highly influential seventeenth century commentator Matthew Henry explained this verse:
The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made.

His interpretation is entirely consistent with the male domination and sexism that saturates the Bible. It is the mainstream view held by most preachers and teachers throughout the Christian millennia. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry), "Famous evangelical preachers such as George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon used and heartily commended" Henry's work, "with Whitefield reading it through four times - the last time on his knees" and notes that Charles Spurgeon said "Every minister ought to read it entirely and carefully through once at least." This view dominates church history because it is what the Bible undeniably teaches, as shown below in the section reviewing the sexism of prominent Christian teachers throughout the ages.

The Divine Institution of Sexism of the Bible
There are many examples of explicit and egregious sexism in the laws which are presented as being directly dictated by God himself. The very core of the Old Testament law classes women along with property in the Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house [property], thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife [property], nor his manservant [property], nor his maidservant [property], nor his ox [property], nor his ass [property], nor any thing [property] that is thy neighbour's. (Exo 20:17)

After noting this fact in his article The Marginalization of Women (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-rollston/the-marginalization-of-women-biblical-value-we-dont-like-to-talk-about_b_1833648.html), Christopher Rollston explains that "Ten Commandments were written to men, not women. There's even more evidence, linguistic in nature. Hebrew has four distinct forms of the word 'you' and these are gender and number specific. The form of 'you' in every single commandment is masculine singular. The text assumes its readers are men." We see the same presumption throughout the Bible, as in for example the book of Proverbs in which the reader is addressed as "my son" and is repeatedly warned of the dangers of evil, strange women. The book never addresses the reader as "my daughter."

Many gross gender-based asymmetries exist in the Biblical laws. The right to divorce is given only to the man, whereas the women is "bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives" (Rom 7:2). Indeed, a man could divorce his wife if he merely found some "indecency" in her (Deut 24:1). And if she fails to bleed on her wedding night, she is presumed guilty of having illicit sexual relations and is stoned to death (Deut 22:13). If a woman intervenes in a fight between males and grabs a man's testicles, her hand is to be cut off (Deut 25:11). If the "spirit of jealousy" comes over a man, his wife is put through a gruesome trial by ordeal in which she is forced to drink a potion made of septic "dust" from the floor of the tabernacle (which was a blood-soaked slaughter house, Num 5:14). On and on it goes. The Biblical laws are utterly barbaric, irrational, and fundamentally biased against women.

The treatment of virgins captured in war is particularly disturbing. If an Israelite man saw a beautiful woman amongst the captives, he could take her, have sex with her, and discard her like a used rag if she did not please him (Deut 21:11). But he could not sell her for money, because he took the only thing of value a women of that time had, her virginity. This also is the basis of the law that says a rapist must pay the father fifty shekels and take the damaged goods off the father's hands. Virginity was greatly prized, so if a man's property was damaged by another there was a price to pay:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. (Deut 22:28-29)

I can't imagine the horror of being a woman living under the laws of the Bible.

The bias against women manifests in all aspects of the text. Females are literally devalued, in monetary terms, relative to males. When consecrating a person with a vow, the price schedule is as follows (Lev 27:2-7):

Monetary Devaluation of Females compared to Males

Age

Male

Female

% Value

20 - 60 years
50 shekels
30 shekels
60%

5 - 20 years
20 shekels
10 shekels
50%

60 years and above
15 shekels
10 shekels
67%

1 month - 5 years
5 shekels
3 shekels
60%

Likewise, when a female child is born the mother is unclean twice as long as when giving birth to a male (Lev 12:1-5). Space prohibits reviewing more of the evidence here. An extensive analysis is given in my wife's article The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/).

The Fruit of this Sexist Tree
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matt 7:18-20)

The sexism of the Bible saturates everything from its fundamental theological view of God to the most mundane laws governing society. It forms an inextricable fully integrated network of mutually confirming texts that teach that women are inferior to men, that women are of less value than men, that women are the source of sin and deception, and that women must be in constant subjugation under male rule. It was therefore inevitable that the men who believed these words and carried this tradition down through the ages would be corrupted in their view of women. It is impossible that they would not manifest this corruption in their own commentaries on the Bible. Here is a brief sampling of the fruit this tree has produced:

Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?) "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
Tertullian (2nd-3rd c. Church father) In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell.
Tertullian "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."
John Chrysostom (349-407): "Amongst all the savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman."
Saint Augustine of Hippo, Church Father and Bishop (354–430) "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."
Augustine "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."
Jerome (345?-420): "If it is good for a man not to touch a woman, then it is bad for him to touch one, for bad, and bad only, is the opposite of good."
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, Doctor of the Church (13th c.) As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.
St. Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian and Doctor of the Church (13th c.) Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.
Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546) "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."
Luther "The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."
Luther "God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God's will. 'Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error."
Luther "Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
Martin Luther, Reformer "No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise."
John Calvin (1509-64): "Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude."
John Wesley (1703-91): "Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."

And for a modern example, watch this fundamentalist preacher man who says that he would "never get his theology from a woman" because "it was a woman who damned the whole world to hell. The reason your sorry soul is going to hell is because a women told Adam what God thinks about things."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N_sS_EELWyQ

An endless river of such citations could be given. The time has come to reject sexism absolutely without any kind of reservation or caveat. It is part of the collective nightmare from which all humanity is striving to awake. The time is now.
History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake. ~ James Joyce

Richard Amiel McGough

10-18-2012, 07:27 PM

Chris Stuber

10-18-2012, 08:08 PM

I am wondering if the Qur'an is any different when describing the divine pecking order??
This is, of course a hot topic in the political arena, but I don't think the problem will be resolved by politicians. I have seen more executive level women since the '90s but in the last 5 years, I have seen many men asked to work for less money. Any new jobs are paying less regardless of gender. There is a reason why most big companies have moved their manufacturing plants to China (or some other country). They can hire children to do the work much cheaper than the US. We could say, equal pay regardless of gender.. but if there are no jobs... nobody has income. I have no beef with women making big bucks, but there are many women who are perfectly content doing trivial work for trivial pay. (Same is true for men).

Historically the men were the bread winners, and the soldiers, etc. and the women's job was that of homemaker. In these days, the stereo-typical roles are re-defined.

Don't you think the bible was divisive, manipulative in a way to control? Not only for the role of women, but men, and slaves, etc. It is written to teach people to be submissive to authority. It is easy to speak of this as a man, but I'd be curious to know what women think of the blog you wrote.

sylvius

10-19-2012, 11:30 AM

Genesis 1:27, "male and female He created them"

Was that already sexist?

Male and female are not equal.

When Adam was alone in paradise he didn't find satisfaction, although he tried to find with all the animals. (Which can be read from Genesis 2:23: "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh".
After having sexual intercourse Adam was satisfied and fell asleep. But Eve was not, and then the snake came in, making use of the opportunity.

Of Ruth the Moabitess on the contrary is said that she was satisfied (Ruth 2:14). That's why she became mother of the Messiah.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-20-2012, 04:30 PM

I am wondering if the Qur'an is any different when describing the divine pecking order??

Hey there Chris,

The sexism in the Quran is at least as bad, if not worse, than that in the Bible. Of course, this is to be expected since most of the content in the Quran was lifted directly or indirectly from the Bible. And the sexism of Islamic societies is much worse than the Western Christian societies with the body bags they keep their women confined in. Islamic countries generally have no equal rights for women.

Sexism is a planetary problem that is seen in all cultures. Religion is an expression of male bias, not its cause. This is how we know that all religions are false. They all incorporate gross sexism that marginalizes half the human population and so cannot be an expression of divine truth. They may contain glimpses of the divine, but that's something that each person would have to judge for themselves. They certainly are not trustworthy as divine revelations.

This is, of course a hot topic in the political arena, but I don't think the problem will be resolved by politicians. I have seen more executive level women since the '90s but in the last 5 years, I have seen many men asked to work for less money. Any new jobs are paying less regardless of gender. There is a reason why most big companies have moved their manufacturing plants to China (or some other country). They can hire children to do the work much cheaper than the US. We could say, equal pay regardless of gender.. but if there are no jobs... nobody has income. I have no beef with women making big bucks, but there are many women who are perfectly content doing trivial work for trivial pay. (Same is true for men).

I don't expect politicians to do much, though things like equal rights bills help a lot. We need a grassroots transformation that will come by properly educating our children. We need to expose the error of sexism which is fundamentally immoral because it violates the Golden Rule.

Historically the men were the bread winners, and the soldiers, etc. and the women's job was that of homemaker. In these days, the stereo-typical roles are re-defined.

I think the root of sexism can be understood by our history. We were ignorant, brutal, primitive people. But now we are waking up from the nightmare that was our history.

Don't you think the bible was divisive, manipulative in a way to control? Not only for the role of women, but men, and slaves, etc. It is written to teach people to be submissive to authority. It is easy to speak of this as a man, but I'd be curious to know what women think of the blog you wrote.
Yes, I think the Bible has been used as a tool for social control for nearly 2000 years. Women began to get rights only after the Bible was knocked off its pedestal as an unquestionable divine authority. You put your finger on the key - religion teaches people to submit to male human authority. It teaches people that blind faith is a virtue and to question is the greatest sin that could result in the eternal damnation of your soul.

If you are curious about a woman's view, you can check out my wife's blog. For example, check out her post called Rose's Long Overdue Rant (http://godandbutterfly.net/2010/05/12/roses-long-overdue-rant/).

Dispensational Truth

11-26-2012, 08:13 AM

My first post:

I don't understand this. You write a book showing the Divine Origin of the Bible with amazing facts and parallels, and then you write an article like this attacking the Bible and MISREPRESENTING what it teaches? Are you a Bible believer or an infidel? How can Paul telling men to LOVE THEIR WIVES as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, to cherish their wives be sexist? You sound like many of the demon-possessed feminists I have spoken with. There is a Divine Order. Men are to lead. Women are not. This is righteous and instituted by God.

Sure people have abused and perverted things, but to compare the Bible's teachings to Islam reveals to me you are ignorant of the contents of both books! Mohammed was a true misogynistic, lying, murdering pedophile and adulterer. His unholy Koran reflects his demented life and lies. Mohammed said women are stupid and like domesticated animals, and that husbands can beat them, just not too severely.

The Bible is holy and righteous and elevates all people. I have studied Islam and witness to them outside their own Mosques.

What brought me to this site was the Preterist issue, and I may chime in on a thread that hasn't had a post since 2009. I find Preterism to be preposterous, and the whole structure hangs upon the date of Revelation, which preterists MUST MAKE prior to 70ad, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Once the obvious is admitted, that Revelation was written in the 90s, your whole theory collapses and futurism becomes the only rational, consistent view.

jce

11-26-2012, 09:07 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2012, 10:37 AM

My first post:

I don't understand this. You write a book showing the Divine Origin of the Bible with amazing facts and parallels, and then you write and article like this attacking the Bible and MISREPRESENTING what it teaches? Are you a Bible believer or an infidel? How can Paul telling men to LOVE THEIR WIVES as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, to cherish their wives be sexist? You sound like many of the demon-possessed feminists I have spoken with. Their is a Divine Order. Men are to lead. Women are not. This is righteous and instituted by God.

Hey there Dispensational Truth,

I really appreciate your plain speech, thank you! It makes for fruitful discourse. I will follow suit.

I understand why you are confused since I did indeed write about book about amazing patterns in the Bible which I strongly believed was proof of its divine inspiration. I lived and breathed the Bible day and night for well over a decade. And the evidence in Bible Wheel book (http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/About.php) stands as far as I can tell. I've been presenting this information for over ten years on the internet and no one has been able to refute it despite much vehement opposition by both Christians and skeptics. I wrote the book when I was a convinced Christian who described himself as a "born again, blood bought, Bible believing, Trinitarian Christian." So how is it I now can now see and admit that the Bible is not perfect or even moral in many of its aspects? The answer is simple - the same integrity of mind that enabled me to discover the patterns compels me to speak the truth to the best of my ability, no matter where it leads. There is a great irony here - the folks least likely to admit what the Bible really says are those who claim most strongly to believe it is the very Word of God!

You can read my article Why I Quit Christianity (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?15-Why-I-Quit-Christianity) to understand what happened when I honestly admitted what I saw in the Bible. If you are interested in my personal bio, you can read Why I became a Christian (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?19-Why-I-became-a-Christian).

I don't understand why you say that I "misrepresented" anything. You yourself have confirmed that the Bible is sexist when you say "Men are to lead. Women are not." Our primary disagreement appears to be only that you don't think that there is anything wrong with sexism because it is a "divine institution." So please, if you want your charge to stand you will need to quote the exact words I wrote and show how they "misrepresented" something in the Bible. Until you do that, there is no way for me to know what you are talking about, let alone answer.

Case in point: I never said that "telling men to love their wives" is sexist. But in context the sexism is clearly seen because that exhortation is immediately followed by telling women to "submit" to their husbands and Paul based this on the fundamentally sexist male hierarchy of authority that begins with a male Trinity (God) who rules over men who rule over women (and children, and slaves). This male hierarchy of authority is based on the story of the Fall which blames the woman and makes her subject to men. Paul used this as the reason woman are not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim 2:11-15). I explained all this in the article. If there is something I misrepresented, you need only quote what I wrote and show my error. I then will be in your debt.

Sure people have abused and perverted things, but to compare the Bible's teachings to Islam reveals to me you are ignorant of the contents of both books! Mohammed was a true misogynistic, lying, murdering pedophile and adulterer. His unholy Koran reflects his demented life and lies.

The Bible is holy and righteous and elevates all people. I have studied Islam and witness to them outside their own Mosques.

Where did I compare the Bible to Islam? I didn't even mention Islam in my article, but I did say this in a comment above:
The sexism in the Quran is at least as bad, if not worse, than that in the Bible. Of course, this is to be expected since most of the content in the Quran was lifted directly or indirectly from the Bible. And the sexism of Islamic societies is much worse than the Western Christian societies with the body bags they keep their women confined in. Islamic countries generally have no equal rights for women.

Your comment that I must be "ignorant of the contents of both books" seems to reflect more on you than on me. If you had ever read the Quran you would know how much it has in common with the Bible. I wrote about this in a post called A Common Confession of Faith for Christians and Muslims (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3179-A-Common-Confession-of-Faith-for-Christians-and-Muslims) where I list 19 points of agreement, including such fundamental points as:

There is only one God
God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, gracious, very forgiving.
God gave the Torah to Israel and the Gospel to Jesus
Adam was the first man, Noah built the ark, Moses was a prophet of God.
Mary was a virgin, Jesus had miraculous powers to heal.
Sinners must repent of their sins.
God will raise the dead and there will be a day of judgment.
etc., etc., etc.

Now don't get me wrong - there is no real comparison of the Bible to the Koran since the Koran is a confused mish-mash of Bible stories dictated by one man whereas the Bible was composed by many people over a millennium and it presents a profoundly coherent (despite many inconsistencies) "Big Picture" from Creation through the Fall to the Restoration of all Creation. But still, there are a billion people who take the Koran as the "Word of God" just as you take the Bible. So you must ask yourself, what makes your beliefs different from theirs? If you were born in Iran, would you be a Muslim fundamentalist? Your dismissal of the Koran as entirely "unholy" while the Bible is "holy and righteous" makes no sense in light of how much they have in common. Your comment sounds like mere bravado with no content since the Bible attributes many things to God that most certainly are neither right nor holy. The most obvious example is the command to kill every man, woman, and child of the Midianites, except for 32,000 virgins that were then distributed to the soldiers that had just murdered every person those poor girls ever loved (Numbers 31). And this returns us to the ultimate irony - the folks least likely to admit what the Bible really says are those who claim most strongly to believe it is the very Word of God!

What brought me to this site was the Preterist issue, and I may chime in on a thread that hasn't had a post since 2009. I find Preterism to be preposterous, and the whole structure hangs upon the date of Revelation, which preterists MUST MAKE prior to 70ad, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Once the obvious is admitted, that Revelation was written in the 90s, your whole theory collapses and futurism becomes the only rational, consistent view.
If Revelation was written in the 90s then it is simply false because the events did not happen "quickly" for the time was NOT "at hand" (Rev 1:1-3). Your argument therefore destroys not only Preterism, but the Bible itself. This is because Preterism is the only eschatological system that generally fits what the Bible says. Sure, there are some problematic passages, but every eschatological system has verses that must be "explained away." This is why I ultimately concluded that the Bible is logically incoherent on this question. But when I was a Christian who believed the Bible to be true, I concluded that Preterism was the only possible option since Futurism is entirely unbiblical.

I have been discussing Futurism with folks on this forum for over five years, and I have never seen a truly Biblical Futurist. Dispensationalism is entirely unbiblical and the hermeneutics it is based upon are entirely incoherent. I would be delighted to discuss this with you in detail in another thread.

Thanks for taking time to comment. I look forward to further discussion.

All the best,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-26-2012, 10:40 AM

This article reveals the inextricable sexism of the Bible. It shows how it forms a fully integrated network of mutually confirming verses, and so cannot be extricated from the Bible without shredding the text itself.
I take note that you [as other times] lift specific verses from their context and intention in order to make your point. AS Dispytruth has noted, in the same context as wives submitting to their husbands, Paul instructs husbands to submit to their wives and to love them [give themselves up for them] as Christ did the chruch. And the greater context appeals to a consideration for the unbelieving atomoshpere in which they lived. It is additionally subordinate to the previous verse 21.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

In the 1 Cor 11 passage you exclude vs's 11,12 from the context.

1 Cor 11:11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

And you read these things as 'command' and not encouragement and helps. Paul says in 2 cor that his words are not dominion and command but instruction and encouragement to those who believe, and I believe they are partly instruction and encouragement to that particular time period of leaving the law of Moses and how it would effect their culture and lives. And I believe that there may be further considerastion needed that Pauls instructions were tempered with intercovanental considerations until the open revelation of the fulfilled kingdom embodied relatively equally by both genders, though each gender may have strengths and weaknesses.
Ezekiel 14:22...Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, [both] sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, [even] concerning all that I have brought upon it.

When you quote from the OT, we need to take note that these instructions are given while mankind was still under temporary condemation and seperation from God's spirit until the seed promised through Eve [the woman] would come. AND, many of those were given as part of the temporary national covenant. Christ had not come yet, which coming was exclusively through the WOMAN to redeem and equate [generally speaking] both genders. Gnosis [experiential Knowledge] of God through Christ [John 17:3] nor the indwelling of the Spirit of the Creator had not yet freed them from that law and the curse.

Thus, though some 'churches' might even teach your perspectives, your arguments and accusations fail for your lack of understanding and comprehension of these and other factors. One cannot be justified by attempting to keep the encouragements, clarifications and instructions of Paul as command any more than they could be justified by keeping the law of moses as command.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2012, 10:42 AM

Be prepared for a rather detailed reply from RAM. He can be a little feisty at times.

I resemble that remark! :fencing:

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2012, 11:49 AM

I take note that you [as other times] lift specific verses from their context in order to make your point. AS Dispytruth has noted, in the same context as wives submitting to their husbands, Paul instructs husbands to submit to their wives and to love them [give themselves up for them] as Christ did the chruch. And the greater context appeals to a consideration of the unbelieving atomoshpere in which they lived. It is additionally subordinate to the previous verse 21.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

In the 1 Cor 11 passage you exclude vs's 11,12 from the context.

1 Cor 11:11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

And you read these things as 'command' and not instruction and encouragement. Paul says in 2 cor that his words are not dominion and command but instruction and encouragement to those who believe, and I believe they are partly instruction and encouragement to that particular time period of leaving the law of Moses and how it would effect their culture and lives. And there may be further considerastion that Pauls instructions were tempered with intercovanental considerations until the open revelation of the fulfilled kingdom embodied by both genders.

When you quote from the OT, we need to take note that these instructions are given while mankind was still under temporary condemation and seperation from God's spirit due to the condemnation of the garden law. AND, many of those were given as part of the temporary national covenant. Christ had not come yet, which coming was exclusively through the WOMAN to redeem and equate [generally speaking] both genders. Gnosis [experiential Knowledge] of God through Christ [John 17:3] nor the indwelling of the Spirit of the Creator had not yet freed them from that law and the curse.

Thus, your arguments and accusations fail for your lack of understanding and comprehension of these and other factors.
I find it quite ironic that you charge me with "taking things out of context" when in fact the purpose of my article was to show that the context of the entire Bible demands my conclusion. Can you deny a word I wrote? Here is the "Big Picture" -

1) The Bible presents a male hierarchy of authority: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This is, by definition, sexist:

[*=1]Male Ruler: God
[*=1]Male Ruler: Christ
[*=1]Male Ruler: Man
[*=1]Female Subject: Woman

Do you agree or disagree with this fact? DispyTruth said that it represents the hierarchy "instituted by God."

2) Paul appealed to this male hierarchy when he said women must submit to their husbands: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:22). The same hierarchy of men over women is confirmed in many passages. For example, Peter said:
For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 [I]as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)

You challenge this point by asserting that men were supposed to "submit" themselves to their wives. But the verse is not symmetric at all. Women, children, and slaves are all told to submit to the males that rule over them. There is no equivalence between male and female in those contexts. Paul explicitly based his exhortation on the male hierarchy of authority. If your assertion were true, Paul would be saying that men must submit themselves to their wives and call them lord! You know that can't be correct. So obviously, you are the one playing games with "context" to avoid an unpleasant truth. The interpretation of the "mutual submission" passage is subject to much controversy in modern times because it contradicts our modern morals, but not so much in the old days when sexism was taken for granted. All you need to do is review how Christian leaders have historically interpreted these passages. For example, here are a few quotes from my article:

Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?) "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
Tertullian (2nd-3rd c. Church father) In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell.
Tertullian "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."
John Chrysostom (349-407): "Amongst all the savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman."
Saint Augustine of Hippo, Church Father and Bishop (354–430) "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."
Augustine "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."

I don't see how there could be any honest interpretation that would contradict the plain message taught from Genesis to Revelation that women are to be subject to men and not in authority over men. This is what the Bible teaches in both the Old and New Testaments.

3) Paul appealed to the story of the Fall to justify male authority over women:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2:11-15).

This shows that your challenge to my OT quotes fails because Paul used them to justify the subjugation of women in the NT. Therefore, they cannot be dismissed as "part of the temporary national covenant" that was given before Christ came. Paul used those OT verses to support his teachings after Christ came.

4) You appealed to these verses:
1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1 Cor 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The fact that men are physical born of women says nothing about the sexism of the Bible and does not contradict a word I wrote.

5) The real issue is this: The Bible is fundamentally sexist from beginning to end. It classes women with property in the Tenth Commandment. Men could divorce women, but women could not divorce men. Women were literally devalued monetarily at an average of about 60% relative to men. Women were unclean twice as long when giving birth to a girl as opposed to a boy. These facts cannot be denied by an appeal to context, because it is the context that supports them.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-26-2012, 02:39 PM

I'll acknowledge your response and let my original reply be a counter to your response.

Additionally,
I don't rely on the ECF's interpretations and understandings.

Pauls letter to Timothy has context of the people to whom Timothy was to minister. These were particularly pagan in nature and had previously practiced rituals to keep them 'safe' during childbirth. That is the instruction to Timothy in vs 15. The proper wording is 'kept safe', not be 'saved'. There is nothing salvatory through childbirth implied in the text. It's your accusative and judgmental spirit that misinterprets and fails to do the inductive research necessary. The fact openly represents itself as you again refer to Eph 5:22 without noting that in the same context Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives out of reverence for Christ's love to them.

It's the same accusative and judgmental spirit in your appeal and usage of the OT law which was written to a particular, temporal people who were still under condemnation of the law of sin/death before the coming of the seed promised through the woman who had previously failed. They were [generally speaking] with blackened hearts and still in condemnation of the law of sin/ spiritual death from the garden until the coming of that seed.

Recall how God said to Moses.... Oh, that there were such a heart in you that they would do all these commands. Now get back in your tents. Recall that this was God's "BACK SIDE".

No, I do not agree that there is an overt male dominion/female subordination in the everlasting covenant. The male gender may be gifted with some logical attributes and characteristics and may be intended to be a 'leader' and headship due to those attributes, but the overt lord/submission; Master/slave relationship which you imply is not only not there, but is spoken against. You need to do a complete survey of all applicable information, including those which refer to the believing women as SISTERS; not just refer to selective ones which support your claims.

I'll not do this for you to attempt to 'contradict' or reprove you. It's your accusative spirit which is devoid of understanding and comprehension which needs adjusted.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2012, 05:20 PM

I'll acknowledge your response and let my original reply be a counter to your response.

It is not legitimate to offer a refuted post as a "reply" to the refutation. Sorry. You must address the facts that refute your response otherwise you are simply letting the refutation stand.

Additionally,
I don't rely on the ECF's interpretations and understandings.

I don't rely on those things either. I offered them as evidence of how the Bible has been interpreted historically. They represent the "fruit" of the Biblical teachings about women.

Pauls letter to Timothy has context of the people to whom Timothy was to minister. These were particularly pagan in nature and had previously practiced rituals to keep them 'safe' during childbirth. That is the instruction to Timothy in vs 15. The proper wording is 'kept safe', not be 'saved'. There is nothing salvatory through childbirth implied in the text. It's your accusative and judgmental spirit that misinterprets and fails to do the inductive research necessary. The fact openly represents itself as you again refer to Eph 5:22 without noting that in the same context Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives out of reverence for Christ's love to them.

There is no evidence in the Bible for you assertions about the "context" of the book of Timothy. Upon what are you relying for that information? Not the "ECF" I presume.

I said nothing about the meaning of keeping them "safe" during childbirth. I didn't say it had anything to do with salvation, so your comment does not address anything I actually wrote.

It is rude, logically fallacious, and false for you to say I have an "accusative and judgmental spirit." And even if I did, it would not affect the validity of the facts I present - that's why such ad hominem is a logical fallacy. You need to show some error in something I have written if you want to refute my argument.

You assertion that I cited Ephesians 5:22 again without noting the command of "mutual submission" is false. It appears you did not read my post. Here is what I wrote:

2) Paul appealed to this male hierarchy when he said women must submit to their husbands: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:22). The same hierarchy of men over women is confirmed in many passages. For example, Peter said:
For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)

You challenge this point by asserting that men were supposed to "submit" themselves to their wives. But the verse is not symmetric at all. Women, children, and slaves are all told to submit to the males that rule over them. There is no equivalence between male and female in those contexts. Paul explicitly based his exhortation on the male hierarchy of authority. If your assertion were true, Paul would be saying that men must submit themselves to their wives and call them lord! You know that can't be correct. So obviously, you are the one playing games with "context" to avoid an unpleasant truth. The interpretation of the "mutual submission" passage is subject to much controversy in modern times because it contradicts our modern morals, but not so much in the old days when sexism was taken for granted. All you need to do is review how Christian leaders have historically interpreted these passages. For example, here are a few quotes from my article:

But now that I look more closely at your assertion, I see you have changed the words to say "Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives." The asymmetry of your comment shows that you are judging by an unequal and unrighteous scale. You have a double standard. Women are told to submit TO their husbands themselves, whereas you say that the men are told to submit to "loving their wives." That is a world of difference, and a very deceptive style of thinking. You will never find truth by trying to justify your preconceived beliefs through such tricky rhetoric.

Furthermore, your explanation does not refute any of the facts I presented. The book of Timothy used the OT teachings about the Fall to justify the idea that women must be silent in submission to men and not allowed to teach or have authority over men. It is interesting that this issue is currently being hotly debated in the Anglican Church which just voted down a change that would have allowed women to become priests. Here is one take (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/church-england-continue-arm-state) on the issue published in the Gardian:
It is worth understanding what the objection to women as bishops is based on. Evangelicals believe that women cannot exercise authority over men. They use scripture (St Paul's letters) to justify this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Thus a man could never swear a canonical oath to a woman bishop. Other objections rest on the fact that Jesus chose only male disciples. Was Jesus sexist?

Are you arguing that the vast majority of Christian leaders over a span of two millennia have been consistently misinterpreted Paul? Or that the church policies are not sexist? Neither of those arguments will stand.

It's the same accusative and judgmental spirit in your appeal and usage of the OT law which was written to a particular, temporal people who were still under condemnation of the law of sin/death before the coming of the seed promised through the woman who had previously failed. They were [generally speaking] with blackened hearts and still in condemnation of the law of sin/ spiritual death from the garden until the coming of that seed.

I already refuted this point. Paul appealed to the OT to justify his teachings about women. He applied and explained them. You cannot reject them without rejecting the teachings of Paul in the NT.

I understand that the truth is frustrating, but accusing me of being "accusative and judgmental" does not strengthen your case. On the contrary, it makes it look like you know you have lost. And it is rather ironic that you have twice accused me of having an "accusative spirit" - since you are the one doing the accusing! I think we need a little refresher course in symmetric relationships and how they prohibit such accusations:
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

It is impossible to attack another as an "accuser" without becoming one yourself.

No, I do not agree that there is an overt male dominion/female subordination in the everlasting covenant. The male gender may be gifted with some logical attributes and characteristics and may be intended to be a 'leader' and headship due to those attributes, but the overt lord/submission; Master/slave relationship which you imply is not only not there, but is spoken against. You need to do a complete survey of all applicable information, including those which refer to the believing women as SISTERS; not just refer to selective ones which support your claims.

You have offered noting but empty assertion in response to the facts I have provided. The male hierarchy of authority, which you say is "not there" saturates the Bible from beginning to end. I laid it out in my post, and you have not touched, let alone refuted, the primary facts that prove my case. You need to address these facts:

1) The Bible presents a male hierarchy of authority: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This is, by definition, sexist:

[*=1]Male Ruler: God
[*=1]Male Ruler: Christ
[*=1]Male Ruler: Man
[*=1]Female Subject: Woman

This hierarchy is confirmed and appealed to in many places in the Bible. You say you can't see? What do I have to do, use bold red font? It's right there. You have not addressed. How then can you say it is not there or that I am misinterpreting what it says?

I'll not do this for you to attempt to 'contradict' or reprove you. It's your accusative spirit which is devoid of understanding and comprehension which needs adjusted.
There you go again. You know you cannot refute a word I write, so you descend to accusing me of having an "accusative spirit which is devoid of understanding and comprehension." I wish there were a way for me to tell you how pathetic such comments are without descending to your level.

Let's stick to logic and facts, eh? It's no fun receiving false accusations from you, and I doubt you really enjoy writing such crap.

All the best,

Richard

Dispensational Truth

11-26-2012, 09:45 PM

Sexism according to Merriam Webster

: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women

Your accusation that the Bible is sexist is a lie. It is an attack on the morality of the Author and writers, and it is false, since nothing resembling the above definition is in Scripture. Its in the Diabolical Koran, which is a PERVERSION of dozens of Bible stories, borrowed Jewish legends and errors from other heretical groups. I have read more than the Koran, I have studied the Sunna of Mohammed and the Hadiths, which reveal all the truth about Islam, and without which the jumbled mess of the Koran cannot be understood. Islam makes people insane. Islam is misogynistic and sexist. Islam, like its founder, is of the devil.

The Bible is heavenly, righteous and true.

You compared the two, and you are totally wrong.

The Bible does not teach women are stupid, like domesticated animals and are to be beaten by their husbands. The Bible does not teach that Hell is mostly populated by women who were ungrateful to their husbands. Mohammed the pedophile taught such things as "divine revelation"

Your denigration of the Bible by calling it sexist is FALSE. It is not. Your agruments to support it are rather absurd.

So, what pejorative term do you use for the Bible's teaching that children are to obey their parents??? Is that bad as well? What liberal slander will you use for that?

Or you will admit that IT IS RIGHT for children to submit to and obey and honor their parents? Nothing wrong there. Your arguments are anarchy and would seek to overthrow any order in family or life. I call your position REBELLION.

Simple physiology proves what the Bible says is true--men are STRONGER and designed for hard labor. Men excel in Math, logic and philosophy. The best chefs are men. Almost all inventions were by men. I can go on and on. Men CANNOT mother children like women can, nor can they give birth. We are different. Men are clearly designed to lead, guide and protect. Women are natural followers. ITS OBVIOUS. I may not be really old, by I have lived a very full, well-read and observant 47 years of life and I KNOW WHAT I SEE. And what I see comports exactly with Scripture.

Paul did not blame Eve. This Feminist chestnut is unworthy of response, as anyone reading the Bible can see what Paul taught. Paul said he did not allow women to teach or USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN, like Eve did because Adam was created first, and had the firstborn priviledge and pre-eminence, and that Eve was actually deceived, and anyone knows that women can be played emotionally and led into error by some sweet-talk.

But Paul BLAMES ADAM-Rom 5. Adam DISOBEYED AND REBELLED. In Adam all die, not Eve. This means He sinned, its his fault, but also that He plunged humanity into this mess because he was the head and representative. So what are you talking about? Adam knew what he was doing. Eve was used to get him to disobey.

You have a probem with Order in family and society. So, is it wrong for Employees to obey their boss? Should they be at work as an asset and good Christian witness, or is that some kind of oppression in your view?

Is giving the kind of submission to governing authorities per Rom 13 wrong as well? Do you have some pejorative term for that as well?

If God made men to lead, and gave them the responsibility to lead, WORK AND PROVIDE FOR their wives and children, doesn't it make sense that the wife should HELP her husband, support and obey him? Women do that best, and I can tell you, when my wife is in my corner like that, I am high as a kite and will do anything(not sinful of course) for her! She defers to me for final decisions about things, and trusts God with that, and prays for me that if I am wrong, I will hear the Lord and correct-course. This works. Always has.

So you call sexism something that by definition is not. You see, I have submitted myself to people in my life that didn't know what they were talking about, but since they were in authority, and what they were saying was not sinful for me to obey, I humbly did so and trusted God. Submission is not sexism. It is divine order as spelled out in Scripture. Even Christ submitted to DEATH, something horrible, and death on a Cross for a noble, glorious purpose. A wife submitting to her husband is not a cross like that! The spirit of the age we live in is a REBELLIOUS, WICKED spirit, and the worst one is the FEMINIST SPIRIT. That spirit has wrought more destruction to the West than any other. The Devil knew if he could destroy the family unit, he could destroy nations and churches in those nations by turning everything on its head.

Feminism is wickedness. The spirit behind feminism is the Sodomite-spirit, because that was always the goal. Once the woman left her proper sphere from home and family, and sought to be like a man and seek careers, the destruction of the family via divorce and adultery ensued, children were wounded and confused, and now what have we here??? THE HOMOSEXUAL PLAGUE HAS COME UPON OUR NATION AS A RESULT OF THIS SPIRIT. It is the same spirit that lied to you and said the Bible is sexist. Look at the fruit of those who rebelled against the Bible and hold your mindsets! We are literally becoming Sodom and Gomorrah!

So I appeal to you to recant this foolishness. You can say you don't agree with what Scripture says, but calling it sexist is false by definition and NONE of your examples demonstrate this. I would further encourage you to go on a prolonged fast, humble yourself and seek the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you out of sin and delusion, and back to faith in Him and His word.

Dispensational Truth

11-26-2012, 10:09 PM

Also, may I recommend two books? One is by Paul Copan called IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER? It deals with some of the stories in the OT you find so objectionable, and I think you totally misunderstand.

And another is UNDER THE INFLUENCE by Alvin Schmidt. Here is a review that ought to help you:

It is common today for the church to be on the receiving end of much criticism. The church is blamed for many of the ills in the world, but is seldom given credit for any good it has done. Indeed, many argue that it is the church that is blocking progress to a more enlightened and peaceable world.

One gets the impression from these secular critics that Christianity has been a negative force in the world, while non-Christian and non-religious alternatives are somehow superior. However, those conversant with the historical record know better. While Christendom has had its dark moments in history, over all, it can be credibly argued that it has been a force for good in the world.

Buy this from Amazon: How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt Click Here

In Kenneth Scott Latourette’s massive 7-volume history of the expansion of the Christian Church, the Yale historian concluded by noting just how much good this expansion had contributed to the world. More recently D. James Kennedy wrote a brief volume entitled What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? The world would be much worse off, he argued, if it weren’t for this man Jesus.

The most recent and perhaps most thorough examination of the historical record is that of Alvin Schmidt. The American professor of sociology has assembled evidence from various quarters to demonstrate what a powerful influence Christianity has had on Western Civilization. In every area, be it law, government, economics, the fine arts, science, education or health care, the Christian faith has contributed enormously to the overall well-being of mankind.

In this well-documented volume of over 400 pages, Schmidt marshals the evidence for the transforming power of the Christian faith. He shows how Jesus has the power to transform men, who in turn are able to transform society. And on every level, that is exactly what has happened. Several specific examples can be mentioned.

In spite the claims of some today that Christianity oppresses women, the historical record shows just the opposite. Women were oppressed in almost every culture prior to the coming of Christianity. By elevating sexual morality, and by conferring upon women a much higher status, the Christian religion revolutionised the place and prestige of women.

For example, the great importance given to marriage meant that women were spared much of the abuse and mistreatment that they were accustomed to. By rejecting polygyny, prostitution, homosexuality and bestiality – all common during the time – the early Christians not only sheltered women but protected children and family.

The way Jesus treated women was in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. In Roman law a man’s wife and children were little more than slaves, often treated like animals. Women had no property rights and faced severe social restrictions. Jesus of course changed all that. The way he treated the Samaritan woman was one remarkable example. And this was not lost on the early disciples. We know from the New Testament documents that many women exercised various leadership roles in the early church. Indeed, during this period Christian women actually outnumbered Christian men.

Admittedly there were some anomalies later in the church’s history, when chauvinistic and anti-feminine views were allowed to re-enter parts of the church. But such aberrations must not detract from the truly revolutionary elevation of the status of women achieved by Christianity.

Consider also the issue of health care. Prior to Christianity, the Greeks and Romans had little or no interest in the poor, the sick and the dying. But the early Christians, following the example of their master, ministered to the needs of the whole person. During the first three centuries of the church they could only care for the sick where they found them, as believers were then a persecuted people. Once the persecutions subsided, however, the institutionalisation of health care began in earnest.

For example, the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 directed bishops to establish hospices in every city that had a cathedral. The first hospital was built by St Basil in Caesarea in 369. By the Middle Ages hospitals covered all of Europe and even beyond. In fact, “Christian hospitals were the world’s first voluntary charitable institutions”.

Care for the mentally ill was also a Christian initiative. Nursing also sprang from Christian concerns for the sick, and many Christians have given their lives to such tasks. One thinks of Florence Nightingale, for example, and the formation of the Red Cross.

Education, while important in Greek and Roman culture, really took off institutionally under the influence of Christianity. The early Greeks and Romans had no public libraries or educational institutions – it was Christianity that established these. As discipleship was important for the first believers (and those to follow), early formal education arose from Christian catechetical schools. Unique to Christian education was the teaching of both sexes.

Also a Christian distinctive, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included. There was no bias based on ethnicity or class. And the concept of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers. Moreover, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian educational endeavours.

As another example of the Christian influence, consider the issue of work and economic life. The Greeks and Romans had a very low view of manual labour, and so it was mainly the slaves and lower classes that were forced to toil with their hands. The non-slave population lived chiefly for personal pleasure. In these early cultures slaves usually greatly outnumbered freemen.

Thus there was no such thing as the dignity of labour in these cultures, and economic freedom was only for a select few. The early church changed all this. Jesus of course was a carpenter’s son. Paul was a tentmaker. And the early admonition, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” was taken seriously by the early believers. Thus work was seen as an honorable and God-given calling. Laziness and idleness were seen as sinful.

The idea of labor as a calling, and the idea spoken by Jesus that the laborer is worthy of his wages, revolutionised the workplace. The dignity of labor, the value of hard work, and the sense of vocation, soon changed the surrounding society; the development of a middle class being one of the outcomes. The development of unions is another result. Indeed, the works of Weber and Tawney, among others, records the profound effect the Protestant Reformation has had on work and modern capitalism.

More impacts can be noted. The commandment against stealing of course redefined the concept of private property and property rights. And the protection of workers and workers’ rights also flows directly from the biblical worldview. The early unionists were Christians, and concerns for social justice in the workplace and beyond derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Other great achievements might be mentioned. The Western political experience, including genuine democracy at all levels of society, equality, human rights and various freedoms, all stem from the Christian religion, along with its Hebrew forebear. The rise of modern science has been directly linked with the biblical understanding of the world. The many great achievements in art, literature and music also deserve mention. For example, how much poorer would the world be without the Christian artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Brahms, Dante, Milton, Bunyan, and countless others?

The bottom line, as Schmidt notes, is that if Jesus Christ had never been born, to speak of Western civilisation would be incomprehensible. Indeed, there may never have been such a civilisation. The freedoms and benefits we enjoy in many modern cultures are directly due to the influence of this one man. And besides all the institutional, cultural, social, political and artistic benefits, there is one last benefit: the countless millions of changed lives due to a liberating encounter with the risen Christ. It is this benefit, first and foremost, which of course accounts for all the institutional benefits.

One could argue that changed lives alone are a sufficient testimony to this unique man. But of course changed lives result in changed families, changed neighborhoods, changed societies. The transformation of individuals and nations for the better can all be attributed to this one man, born in a manger but soon to return as ruler of the universe.

In sum, Alvin Schmidt deserves an enormous amount of gratitude for this sterling collection of information and inspiration. Christians have made many mistakes. But they have also achieved many great things, all because of the one whom they follow.

Dispensational Truth

11-26-2012, 10:20 PM

Here is an Amazon review of Copan's book:

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

In short, God is a "moral monster."

Paul Copan begs to differ with Dawkins' evaluation of the Old Testament God, not to mention the similar critiques of other New Atheists--e.g., Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In Is God a Moral Monster? he uses these critiques as "a springboard to clarify and iron out misunderstandings and misrepresentations." More than that, he essays to defend the justice of God, properly understood and correctly presented.

Copan divides his work into four sections. Part 1 identifies the New Atheists and outlines their critique of God. Part 2 responds to critiques of God's character that revolve around his desire for the praise of his people, his "jealousy" for their fidelity, and his command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Part 3 tackles what Dawkins calls the Bible's "ubiquitous weirdness" and those passages he sees as morally monstrous. This section, the book's longest, deals with kosher laws, criminal punishments, relationships between the sexes, slavery, the killing of the Canaanites particularly, and the so-called "religious roots" of violence generally. Part 4 concludes the book by questioning whether atheism can provide a foundation for morality and by pointing to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Copan's response to the New Atheists utilizes the following types of arguments:

First, he situates the Old Testament narratives and laws within the "redemptive movement of Scripture." As a Christian, Copan reads the Bible as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is an unsullied creation, and the end is Jesus Christ. The historical and legal elements of the Old Testament take place in the middle, falling short of God's creational ideals and in need of Jesus Christ's redemptive work. Far from being "God's timeless wisdom," Copan argues, much of the Old Testament is "inferior and provisional," offering "incremental steps toward the ideal."

Second, Copan situates the Old Testament within its historical context, pointing out how its legal codes are often a measurable improvement on the contemporaneous legal codes of other ancient near eastern societies. Criminal punishments are less severe, relationships between the sexes are fairer to women, slavery is more strictly regulated, and warfare is less savage.

Third, regarding difficult Old Testament narratives, Copan points out that narration does not imply endorsement. Jacob married two women and used their maidservants as concubines, but this does not imply divine endorsement. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter because of a rash vow, but his action did not merit divine approval. Many New Atheist critiques of Old Testament narratives commit what Copan calls "the `is-ought' fallacy."

Fourth, regarding difficult Old Testament laws, Copan focuses on their context and their limited application. Take Deuteronomy 20:16-18, for example--where God commanded the Israelites to "utterly destroy...the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite." Copan points out several things worth keeping in mind.

* In issuing this commandment, God uses Israel as an agent of judgment against the Canaanites, whom God is judging for their wickedness.
* In addition to a concern for justice, God's concern is religious: Unless the Canaanites are destroyed, they will corrupt the monotheistic faith and practice of Israel.
* This commandment, and others like it, has limited application to the initial entry of Israel into the Promised Land. It is not used as justification for Israel's wars once they are established in the land.
* The commandment is not racially or ethnically motivated, since other passages of Scripture promise a similar judgment to Israel if she is disobedient to God and since Israel itself was a multi-ethnic host.
* The narratives describing the fulfillment of this commandment use "ancient near eastern exaggeration rhetoric," meaning that the descriptions of total killing are not literally true and would not have been understood to be literally true by Israel or her contemporaries.
* The targeted cities are best understood as military outposts rather than non-combatant urban areas.
* Canaanites could escape divine judgment by joining Israel (as did Rahab and her household).
* Although some verses in Joshua describe the total destruction of the Canaanites after Israel's entry into the Promised Land, other verses describe their continued presence. So, the Bible's narrative portrayal of Israel's "conquest" is itself ambivalent.

I doubt that New Atheists will think of much of this type of argument--focusing on context and limiting application. My guess is that they will still consider the commandment problematic, even contextualized and limited. Fine. But Copan's point is that they should correctly describe what the narrative describes and understood the limitations of the commandments before they simply condemn them. One of the most irritating aspects of New Atheist critiques is their fundamentalist-like citation of Scripture without bothering to understand its contextual meaning. Copan's argument helps expose the hermeneutical weaknesses of such New Atheist critiques.

In general, I found Copan's argument to be persuasive, even probative at points. I think he successfully highlights numerous weaknesses in the New Atheist critique of the Old Testament God. Results may vary for different readers. Nonetheless, I think this is a valuable book for both atheists and Christians alike. It is valuable for atheists because it offers them a nuanced interpretation of difficult Old Testament passages. Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against the Old Testament God based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, atheists need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream Christian tradition. The book is valuable for Christian readers because it helps them read their Bibles in a Christ-centered way, recognizing the less-than-ideal character of many Old Testament figures and the inferior-and-provisional character of many Old Testament laws.

Dispensational Truth

11-26-2012, 11:15 PM

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-27-2012, 01:18 AM

It is not legitimate to offer a refuted post as a "reply" to the refutation. Sorry. You must address the facts that refute your response otherwise you are simply letting the refutation stand. I don't recognize your interpretations and perspectives as 'facts'.

I don't rely on those things either. I offered them as evidence of how the Bible has been interpreted historically. They represent the "fruit" of the Biblical teachings about women. Again, as noted before, interpretive principles and 'religious' christianity have wrongly sought to justify themselves by making Pauls epistles of encouragement, clarification and general support into rules and laws and then KEEPING THEM. Justification is by faith and faith alone.

There is no evidence in the Bible for you assertions about the "context" of the book of Timothy. Upon what are you relying for that information? Not the "ECF" I presume. It was from at least two sources of well researched commentary that I read. I thought I had posted it here before, but perhaps not.

I said nothing about the meaning of keeping them "safe" during childbirth.
That is however what the text instructs to Timothy. Note that he is writing a letter to Timothy himself, not to a broad group of people.

It is rude, logically fallacious, and false for you to say I have an "accusative and judgmental spirit." And even if I did, it would not affect the validity of the facts I present - that's why such ad hominem is a logical fallacy. You need to show some error in something I have written if you want to refute my argument. It's been written above. You do not see with your spiritual eyes the difference between commandments that were given to a temporary people of the mosaic covenant who were still in condemnation of the law of sin/death from the Garden as contrast with freedom from that law of sin/death to both genders equally after the cross. It's quite possible, though not proven, that the men of the mosaic covenant age like unbelieving or falsly instructed men of today would have had an attitude of blame on their female counterparts for still being in the curse of death. In Deut 4 or 5 they even say, "why must we now 'die'.... for we have seen that the Lord liveth. They were still thinking that physical life should be perpetual, thus blaming the woman for that condition. But God says that he created MAN [humankind] as MALE and Female, thus affirming generation procreation and lifespans [including birth,life,death] as part of his designed will.

You assertion that I cited Ephesians 5:22 again without noting the command of "mutual submission" is false. It appears you did not read my post. Here is what I wrote:

But now that I look more closely at your assertion, I see you have changed the words to say "Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives." The asymmetry of your comment shows that you are judging by an unequal and unrighteous scale. You have a double standard. Women are told to submit TO their husbands themselves, whereas you say that the men are told to submit to "loving their wives." That is a world of difference, and a very deceptive style of thinking. You will never find truth by trying to justify your preconceived beliefs through such tricky rhetoric. I'll admit to changing the wording to instill emphasis which I find in the surrounding context. But you did not address the context in your post. Here is the context of the passage. Paul is not declaring women to be submissive to their husbands as a stand alone command, but as part of a mutual subordination to an emulation of God's design of unity, peace and harmony.

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27 Neither give place to the devil.

28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.,

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Here it can be seen that wives submitting to their husbands and husbands giving themselve up for their wives are both subordinate to all members of the body of Christ submitting themselves one to another. [VS 21] It is a subtopic of the context of the previous chapters. It is not a theme of the chapter and it cannot be taken out of the context of what the chapter and book is discussing. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE !!! He's using the husband/wife relationship to indicate one example of all the believers submitting themselves to one another out of reference to Christ.

They use scripture (St Paul's letters) to justify this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Thus a man could never swear a canonical oath to a woman bishop. Other objections rest on the fact that Jesus chose only male disciples. Was Jesus sexist? Here again there is an example of Paul writing a specific instruction to a specific people and specific time period. We do not know all the context of what the people were previously discussing and to which Paul addresses and writes. Again, he is not writing command, but encouragement and support of the spirits work in their lives. I actually think that due to the seed of God coming exclusively through the women to cancel and reverse the law of sin/seperation from God incurred in the stipulations in the Garden, that there may have been an inclination in the believing women to perhaps joyously exhault and proclaim themselves as saviors of mankind through their faith. I am only speculating and gleaning this from an awareness of what the inner witness and freedom of the indwelling spirit would have meant to the women and female gender especially in contrast with their status under law and under felt responsibilty of the curse of the 'sin' until the seed promised to Eve would come. Thus some of Pauls words can be understood as a counter to that situation and context. He doesn't say: I demand that men Lord over their women, but that he doesn't permit women to teach or have authority OVER a man. It seems obvious that the circumstances of their situation could have been a tendency and desire for the female gender to do this due to their bearing the seed of God. And Paul is responding to these circumstances. Elsewhere he does say that the women should learn at home, but this too could possibly have partial context in countering the exhuberance that the female gender would have Known in their release from being accused by the male gender.

This is actually still a problem with our futurist and partial preterist friends. They view physical death [not spiritual ignorance and seperation] as the punishment incurred in the Garden, thus the present earth and mankind is still under condemnation and under 'curse' of death due to the 'sin' of the woman. They say mankind is in a 'fallen condition'. When in fact, the seed has come, only ONE VOICE of LOVE is in the New Garden, [Yay Steve Miller: Window] the stipulative, conditional law and the tempter is cast out of the inner man concerning their relationship with their Creator.

Are you arguing that the vast majority of Christian leaders over a span of two millennia have been consistently misinterpreted Paul? Or that the church policies are not sexist? Neither of those arguments will stand.
I'm not too intersted in changing "Christian leaders' misunderstandings and misinterpreting of Pauls letters. I dont' acknowledge many 'christian leaders' other than the Holy Spirit, the apostles and the inductive principles of interpretation. I hang out with them. Part of our differences of perspective is due to your lack of understanding the inductive nature of interpretign the epistles as a genre of "Epistole" which many times addressed particular cultural or covanental context issues .

Part of the reason for the male apostles could have been a replacement of the sons of Israel for the NC. There were many women disciples among his followers. The women were the first to seen him after his resurrection.

1) The Bible presents a male hierarchy of authority: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This is, by definition, sexist:

[*=1]Male Ruler: God
[*=1]Male Ruler: Christ
[*=1]Male Ruler: Man
[*=1]Female Subject: Woman

Richard
If Christ is also the 'son [servant] of man' then the man is also servant [lover and instructor] of the woman who is to build her up in Love as if from above. You can't refute this logic either. This is where I interjected the idea as a submission to Love. This is continually supported by the example of Christ's coming, teaching and giving himself up for us. The concept of ruler/subject is not in the New Covenant ideology other than ruling via Love and understanding of truth of the reality of his entity.

Though many concepts may come through the logic and reasoning ability of the male gender, I'd be a fool and a liar to even begin to think or claim that I've not been instructed/taught/supported by members of the female gender in my past and continually with particular regard to sensetivities and intuitions into the divinity of human life; but also into some of the allegorical understandings of prophecies through the softness and positiveness of God's intentions and Love evident in the end purposes of those prophecies.

There may be some considerations to the aspect that the male individual is not to be controlled by the females leadership of his instruction, but is to more highly regard his dependance on and instruction by the Spirit.

Again, you need to consider a whole survey of all relevent passages.

I expect that we'll continue to be at odds on this issue, and I may not have time for further refutations.

All the best also.

:)

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-27-2012, 01:42 AM

duxrow

11-27-2012, 08:09 AM

:talk005:Adam's bride was Eve, who was taken from his own body! So won't the 'bride of Christ' be taken from the church: the 'body of Christ"?

Abraham sent his trusted servant to fetch a bride for Isaac, and Rebekah was found watering the camels. Now the Holy Spirit has come seeking the Bride of Christ, and he's looking for the faithful who are feeding the Living Water to those who haven't heard.

The tribe of Benjamin (means 'Son of the Right Hand') was nearly wiped out, Judges 21, and it seemed that 600 men of that tribe wouldn't be able to find wives! What a strange and puzzling tale, but what a calamity today, if the Holy Spirit isn't able to locate wives for the REAL 'Son of the Right Hand', Jesus!

BOTTOM LINE? If there is one, it's probably this: Romans 7:2 tells us "the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband". So Jesus died on the cross! The Father sent the Son on purpose, and the greatness and complexity of the account of the Bride of Christ has been told so we'll know the Truth of the Holy Trinity!! :yo:

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2012, 11:53 AM

Hey there Dispensational Truth, :yo:

I'm really glad you are pursuing this topic. It helps demonstrate the truth of my article. I hope you continue.

Sexism according to Merriam Webster

: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women

Your accusation that the Bible is sexist is a lie. It is an attack on the morality of the Author and writers, and it is false, since nothing resembling the above definition is in Scripture.
I'm really glad you posted the definition, but I am mystified how you could deny that the Bible fits that definition precisely. You know perfectly well that the Bible does not give women anything like equal rights with men. You know this. It is sexism, pure and simple. That's why women have had to struggle for centuries to gain such basic rights as equal access to education, the vote, jobs, and the basic human freedom to live independently. Women could not even have a bank account in Christian America until the Twentieth century. Women have been oppressed by the Biblical teachings for 2000 years. This fact cannot be denied. Now don't get me wrong. Sexism is not unique to Christianity, but neither is Christianity free from it. I have given many examples that show "prejudice or discrimination based on sex, especially: discrimination against women." Here are a few of them again:

Is there a male hierarchy of authority, with women at the bottom? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a woman to submit to her husband and call him lord? Yes. Is a man to submit to his wife and call her lord? No. That's sexism.

Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? No. Are men allowed to have authority over women? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a woman allowed to teach? No. Are men allowed to teach? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a women valued at approximately 60% of men? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl rather than a boy? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a male Hebrew slave allowed to go free after six years? Yes. Is a female Hebrew slave? No, she is a slave for life. That's sexism (and slavery too!).

Is a man allowed to divorce his wife in the OT? Yes. Is a women allowed to divorce her husband? No. That's sexism.

I could go on and on ... it appears you don't understand the basic meaning of words. The Bible is totally sexist from beginning to end.

You cannot refute my argument by merely asserting falsehoods. You need to quote the actual words I wrote and show where I erred so that all rational people will have reason to agree. As it stands, you are merely making assertions with no foundation in fact.

Its in the Diabolical Koran, which is a PERVERSION of dozens of Bible stories, borrowed Jewish legends and errors from other heretical groups. I have read more than the Koran, I have studied the Sunna of Mohammed and the Hadiths, which reveal all the truth about Islam, and without which the jumbled mess of the Koran cannot be understood. Islam makes people insane. Islam is misogynistic and sexist. Islam, like its founder, is of the devil.

The Bible is heavenly, righteous and true.

You compared the two, and you are totally wrong.

It is never wrong to "compare" things. You just did that yourself! You compared the Koran to the Bible. It appears what you really meant is that is it is wrong to mention the Bible and the Koran without excoriating the latter.

You say the Bible is "heavenly, righteous, and true." I understand where you are coming from, since I believed the same thing for many years. But then I opened my eyes and saw things that I had overlooked when I was "blinded by the light" - for there truly is much in the Bible that is amazing and heavenly. But it has a dark side too, and if you can't admit this, then you are blind like I was. For example, how can you think that the laws of the OT are good? They allowed soldiers who found a pretty girl amongst the war captives to take her, have sex with her, and discard her if she didn't "please him." Here it is:
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

The word "humbled" in this context means "had sex with." So this perfect, righteous law of God explicitly allows soldiers to take pitiful captive women, have sex with them, and then discard them like a dirty rag if they are not "pleased" by them. You call that moral? You don't see it as sexist?

Another example is Numbers 31 where God commanded all the men, women, and children be slaughtered except 32,000 sexy virgins who were then distributed amongst the Israelites, with half going to the very soldiers who had just murdered every person those poor girls ever loved. This is not only a murderous moral abomination, but it also is sexist - the girls were kept alive only because they were highly desirable FEMALE VIRGINS. It was all about SEX. We see a very similar abomination in Judges 20-21 where every man, woman, and child of Jabeshgilead was murdered for the explicit purpose of kidnapping virgins to give to the remaining 600 soldiers of Bethlehem after God helped the other tribes kill them. There are many moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.

The Bible does not teach women are stupid, like domesticated animals and are to be beaten by their husbands. The Bible does not teach that Hell is mostly populated by women who were ungrateful to their husbands. Mohammed the pedophile taught such things as "divine revelation"

Your denigration of the Bible by calling it sexist is FALSE. It is not. Your agruments to support it are rather absurd.

I never said that the Bible says women are stupid. Your comment does not apply to anything I wrote, and so it does not refute anything I wrote. It would help if you addressed what I actually wrote.

But the Bible does list women along with domesticated animals and other property in the Tenth Commandment. Therefore, the Tenth Commandment does not even apply to women at all! The Ten Commandments were written for men, not women. Women are not treated with equal rights in the Bible. It is sexist.

So, what pejorative term do you use for the Bible's teaching that children are to obey their parents??? Is that bad as well? What liberal slander will you use for that?

Or you will admit that IT IS RIGHT for children to submit to and obey and honor their parents? Nothing wrong there. Your arguments are anarchy and would seek to overthrow any order in family or life. I call your position REBELLION.

Again, you are addressing stuff that I did not write. That's not how you refute an argument. You need to respond to what I actually wrote.

But in answer to your question, the idea of "obedience" has nothing to do with morality. As the old saying goes, "Obedience is doing what you are told whether it is right or wrong, morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told." This is the primary error of the Bible. It does not teach "morality" at all, but rather OBEDIENCE which is the "morality" of the military. Hitler's troops were "just obeying orders" when they murdered six million Jews just as the Jews were "only following God's orders" when they murdered all the inhabitants of the "Promised land" that they were ordered to INVADE. This fact is often overlooked by Christian apologists. The Israelites were the invaders.

It is important for children to obey because they are children who have yet to develop sufficient maturity to act on their own decisions. It is not a value in and of itself, it is necessary to protect and guide the child until they reach maturity. After that, the concept of servile obedience to others is a handicap, not a virtue.

The fact that you think morality is nothing but OBEDIENCE and immorality is nothing but REBELLION shows how the Bible has corrupted your sense of morality. Those concepts are the morality that DICTATORS impose upon their subjects. True morality is the doing what is RIGHT regardless of what you are told.

Simple physiology proves what the Bible says is true--men are STRONGER and designed for hard labor. Men excel in Math, logic and philosophy. The best chefs are men. Almost all inventions were by men. I can go on and on. Men CANNOT mother children like women can, nor can they give birth. We are different. Men are clearly designed to lead, guide and protect. Women are natural followers. ITS OBVIOUS. I may not be really old, by I have lived a very full, well-read and observant 47 years of life and I KNOW WHAT I SEE. And what I see comports exactly with Scripture.

I wish there were a way to communicate the irony of your justification. Your assertion that "men are stronger" is only true in a statistical sense. There are women that are stronger than most men. Why should they not be free to use their strength just like a man? There are women that are better at math than most men. Why should they not be free to use their skill? Christianity has traditionally denied women equal rights even when they had equal (or better) skills. This is SEXISM, pure and simple. Women were denied EDUCATION. Women were denied the right to be heard! Mary Anne Evans had to assume the false male identity of "George Eliot" to get her works published.

Your answer only CONFIRMS the truth of my argument. And as an added bonus, it reveals why you cannot understand that the Bible is sexist. The sexist teaching of the Bible has entered so deeply into your mind, you use sexist examples to prove the Bible is not sexist! How ironic is that?

Paul did not blame Eve. This Feminist chestnut is unworthy of response, as anyone reading the Bible can see what Paul taught. Paul said he did not allow women to teach or USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN, like Eve did because Adam was created first, and had the firstborn priviledge and pre-eminence, and that Eve was actually deceived, and anyone knows that women can be played emotionally and led into error by some sweet-talk.

But Paul BLAMES ADAM-Rom 5. Adam DISOBEYED AND REBELLED. In Adam all die, not Eve. This means He sinned, its his fault, but also that He plunged humanity into this mess because he was the head and representative. So what are you talking about? Adam knew what he was doing. Eve was used to get him to disobey.

Again, you only confirm what I wrote. The MALE Adam has preeminence over the FEMALE from the beginning. This follows the pattern of MALE AUTHORITY over women that is based upon the Biblical teaching of God as MALE who rules over MAN and MAN rules over WOMAN. That's sexism, pure and simple.

It is true that Paul blamed Adam in Romans 5, but in 1 Timothy 2:14 he blamed Eve: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." He said Eve was "in transgression." So your assertion that this is a "Feminist chestnut" that is "unworthy of response" is shown to be absurd. You would do well not to make such absurd statements that are so easily refuted.

And again, we see the core teaching of Biblical morality has absolutely nothing to do with "morality" at all, but rather OBEDIENCE and REBELLION which are the highest values of a SLAVE MENTALITY. Obedience cannot be "moral" or "immoral" because it's moral value depends upon what you are obeying. Therefore, the concept of obedience is utterly distinct from the concept of morality. The Bible has misinformed Christians about the nature of morality - and worse, the error taught in the Bible is the source of the greatest evil in the world that comes from HUMAN AUTHORITIES demanding OBEDIENCE to commands like the Crusades, witch burnings, and what ever. Let this sink in - the Biblical teaching that OBEDIENCE = MORALITY is what makes ARMIES that go out committing gross atrocities, such as the murder of millions of Jews under Hitler.

You have a probem with Order in family and society. So, is it wrong for Employees to obey their boss? Should they be at work as an asset and good Christian witness, or is that some kind of oppression in your view?

I have no problem with "order in the family" unless it is a military style order that demands OBEDIENCE by the wife. Many Christians take this command so far as to say that a woman being abused should not get divorced.

As for obedience to an employer - there's no problem with that at all. It is part of the agreement. It has nothing to do with morality.

Is giving the kind of submission to governing authorities per Rom 13 wrong as well? Do you have some pejorative term for that as well?

Funny you should mention that. America was born in REBELLION against its CHRISTIAN RULERS (England) in direct contradiction of Romans 13. So much for the fantasy history of the great "Christian America" of the old days. It's all propaganda and lies. There was never a "Christian America" unless you are talking about the Christians who stole the land and murdered the natives who lived here. The Christians who kept Africans as slaves and tortured them mercilessly even as they read them Paul's command "Slaves, obey your masters" (Col 3:22).

If God made men to lead, and gave them the responsibility to lead, WORK AND PROVIDE FOR their wives and children, doesn't it make sense that the wife should HELP her husband, support and obey him? Women do that best, and I can tell you, when my wife is in my corner like that, I am high as a kite and will do anything(not sinful of course) for her! She defers to me for final decisions about things, and trusts God with that, and prays for me that if I am wrong, I will hear the Lord and correct-course. This works. Always has.

There is no need for the husband to RULE OVER the woman as if she were a child who could not think for herself. But that's exactly how the Bible says it:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them. 20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart. 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. (Col 3:18-22)

Women, children, and slaves are all commanded to OBEY their MALE RULERS.

Obedience is not morality. Obedience is for children who don't know how to care for themselves and for group endeavors like the military and activities that require cooperation. It is especially import for INSTITUTIONAL RELIGION which is based fundamentally on OBEDIENCE to a MALE HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY that is patterned on the theological view of God as a MALE RULER. Just look at the Pope, the Imams, the Pastors who rule over their "flocks." The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are thoroughly and completely sexist. You can deny this fact all you want - it won't change the fact. Anyone with eyes can see the truth ... except those who are willfully blind.

So you call sexism something that by definition is not. You see, I have submitted myself to people in my life that didn't know what they were talking about, but since they were in authority, and what they were saying was not sinful for me to obey, I humbly did so and trusted God. Submission is not sexism. It is divine order as spelled out in Scripture. Even Christ submitted to DEATH, something horrible, and death on a Cross for a noble, glorious purpose. A wife submitting to her husband is not a cross like that! The spirit of the age we live in is a REBELLIOUS, WICKED spirit, and the worst one is the FEMINIST SPIRIT. That spirit has wrought more destruction to the West than any other. The Devil knew if he could destroy the family unit, he could destroy nations and churches in those nations by turning everything on its head.

I don't understand why you feel confident to continually repeat that I "call sexism something that by definition is not." You have not shown any error in my examples of the sexism that saturates the Bible from beginning to end. Paul said "It is good not to touch a woman." Obviously, he was talking to MEN, not women. He did not say "it is good for a woman not to touch a man." The Bible does not say that women are "defiled" by men, but it does say that men are "defiled" by women (Rev 14:4).

If you submitted yourself to FALLIBLE MEN when you did not even understand "what they were talking about" then you have abdicated your personal responsibility put yourself in great danger since you didn't know if those men were trustworthy or if their commands were moral.

And again, you exemplify the fundamental biblical confusion that replaces MORALITY with OBEDIENCE. You identify "rebellion" with "wickedness" when in fact they have nothing in common. And worse, you have identified the CRY FOR FREEDOM coming from the female half of the humanity with "wicked rebellion." These are the kinds of evils I was opposing when I wrote the article we are discussing.

Feminism is wickedness. The spirit behind feminism is the Sodomite-spirit, because that was always the goal. Once the woman left her proper sphere from home and family, and sought to be like a man and seek careers, the destruction of the family via divorce and adultery ensued, children were wounded and confused, and now what have we here??? THE HOMOSEXUAL PLAGUE HAS COME UPON OUR NATION AS A RESULT OF THIS SPIRIT. It is the same spirit that lied to you and said the Bible is sexist. Look at the fruit of those who rebelled against the Bible and hold your mindsets! We are literally becoming Sodom and Gomorrah!

Wow - your comment reeks with sexism. Statements like "the woman left her proper sphere from home and family" is the essence of sexism. Your comments show that you have been indoctrinated with the sexist teachings of the Bible to such an extent you cannot even see them for what they are. Its fine if you want to defend the idea that God ordained sexism, but it is utterly absurd for you to deny that the Bible is sexist. Your own words PROVE that the Bible is sexist!

As for the "homosexual plague" - that's a perfect example of how the Bible corrupts the minds and morals of believers. What about the plague of slavery that marred our country from its beginning? Do you think that God is more concerned about sexuality or the enslavement, torture, rape, and murder of a whole race of people? You values are warped. This is most obvious when looking at the fundamentalists like the Southern Baptists. They LIE LIE LIE - spitting in the face of the Christ they claim to love - to protect their leaders who have been caught lying. This was something that really helped free me from the shackles of Christianity. I'm talking about Ergun Caner, the former President and Dean of Liberty's Theological Seminary. He had a Turkish father, Swedish mother, and grew up in Columbus Ohio from age three. When 9/11 happened, he knew he could make a lot of money and fame by pretending to be a former terrorist trained in Turkey to "do what was done on September 11" before he "found Jesus." He preached his lies from many pulpits and in his classes at Liberty U for nearly a decade before he was exposed. And what happened when his lies were exposed? Liberty U tried to cover them up (http://69.36.83.99/blog/index.php/2010/06/27/a-christian-university-liberty-is-neither/). Their entire leadership is UTTERLY CORRUPT. When the lies could no longer be hidden, they finally had to let him go, but still refused to admit (http://69.36.83.99/blog/index.php/2010/05/10/statement-from-liberty-to-lie-university-with-annotations/) he lied. Many Christian ministries silently removed his videos (http://69.36.83.99/blog/index.php/2010/05/30/free-will-baptists-hide-evidence-of-caners-lies/) to hide his lies. Prominent Christian apologists like Norm Geisler and John Ankerberg LIED to cover up his lies. His brother Emir, a president at another Christian seminary, knew all about his lies and chose to cover them up. THEY ARE ALL LIARS LIARS LIARS. PURE CORRUPTION saturates fundamentalist Christianity. And now the LIAR is teaching at another FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN COLLEGE. This showed me that there is a near ubiquitous spirit of LIES saturating many if not most fundamentalist Christian organization. You can read all about it in my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://69.36.83.99/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/).

So I appeal to you to recant this foolishness. You can say you don't agree with what Scripture says, but calling it sexist is false by definition and NONE of your examples demonstrate this. I would further encourage you to go on a prolonged fast, humble yourself and seek the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you out of sin and delusion, and back to faith in Him and His word.
I very much appreciate your appeal, but there is no way I can deviate from the truth. So if you think I have erred in something I have written, you need to quote my exact words and show precisely how they are false. Only then can I change a word of what I've written.

A good place to start would be your assertion that "calling it sexist is false by definition and NONE of your examples demonstrate this." Your assertion mystifies me. The examples I gave are true. Your assertion ha no basis in fact. You have shown no error as yet, so there is nothing for me to change. Again, let me appeal to you to quote something I actually wrote and show how I misinterpreted it.

Again, I'm really glad you are taking the time and effort to work with me on this. It is very important. If you are correct, then you posts will help people see my errors. But this sword cuts both ways. If you are not correct, then you will be confirming the truth of my words. This is why many Christians can't risk speaking in public about these issues. I hope you will persevere to the "bitter end" so that folks reading will be able to discern the truth of the matter.

All the very best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2012, 01:04 PM

Also, may I recommend two books? One is by Paul Copan called IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER? It deals with some of the stories in the OT you find so objectionable, and I think you totally misunderstand.

I'm glad you mentioned that book, since I was planning on writing a review of it. It utterly fails in its attempt to justify the Bible. It unintentionally answers the question of it's title in the affirmative. It is an intellectual travesty that no serious thinker would be able to accept. Here is what a CHRISTIAN, Thom Stark. has to say about it in the preface of his 300 page review of the book (available here (http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/04/is-god-a-moral-compromiser-a-critical-review-of-paul-copans-is-god-a-moral-monster/)):

Books like Copan’s in my opinion will only take Christianity ten steps backwards. Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They’ll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar’s argument and run away with it, with-out any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven’t been persuaded by it. They don’t often make arguments for what’s plausible, preferring to argue for what’s “possible,” if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn’t there, indeed, what’s often contradicted by the very passages they cite.

But despite their very good intentions, they seem oblivious to the real harm they’re doing. Not only are they giving permission for Christians to be dishonest with the material, they’re reinforcing delusions that disconnect well-meaning Christians from reality, blinding them to the destructive effects many of these horror texts continue to have upon Christian communities and in broader society.

Yet those Christians who are genuinely struggling with these horror texts, those who are tormented by them, on the verge of having a crisis of faith—they find no comfort in the easy answers offered. Rather, they are often repulsed by them, and often come to think that the only alternative to an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised faith is no faith at all. I see this tragic reality every day. And this is why I’m so critical of apologists like Paul Copan—not just because their arguments are frequently very un-tenable, but because their work can have damaging effects on real people. I contend that we cannot move forward until we find the courage to confront our problematic texts, the courage to be brutally honest. Only in the pursuit of the truth of the matter will we be able to find God. But when our agenda is rather to defend our institutions, all we will find is the gods of our own fashioning.

My heart, therefore, is not to attack apologists like Copan, but to call them to make better arguments for the sake of the church, and for the sake of those who are struggling at the margins of faith. Don’t misunderstand me. I do not think that Paul Copan is a mali-cious person. I do not think he is being intentionally dishonest with the material. No doubt Copan is a very intelligent person, but his commitment the doctrine of inerrancy sometimes prevents him, in my opinion, from making the best arguments. Likewise, I know he is a kind and good person, with fairly decent morals and ethics. But it is his arguments that are at issue here. And it’s his apologetics, not his personal morality, that affect so many.

Look at those words I highlighted red. They exemplify the essence of most Christians apologetics which are designed to defend established dogmas regardless of the truth. They often trample the truth to accomplish their nefarious ends - the justification of man-made doctrines concerning the Bible. This is why, in my experience, Christianity tends to breed a CONTEMPT for the truth and so corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who seek to defend it.

And another is UNDER THE INFLUENCE by Alvin Schmidt. Here is a review that ought to help you:

It is common today for the church to be on the receiving end of much criticism. The church is blamed for many of the ills in the world, but is seldom given credit for any good it has done. Indeed, many argue that it is the church that is blocking progress to a more enlightened and peaceable world.

One gets the impression from these secular critics that Christianity has been a negative force in the world, while non-Christian and non-religious alternatives are somehow superior. However, those conversant with the historical record know better. While Christendom has had its dark moments in history, over all, it can be credibly argued that it has been a force for good in the world.

It is impossible to know what the world would be like if Christianity had never been formed because we cannot re-run history. Mere speculative arguments don't mean much to me. Either side has plenty of evidence supporting their case. It's an undecidable.

So the real issue concerns what the Bible actually teaches and how those teaches have demonstrably affected history. Yes, there people who projected their natural goodness into the Bible and so used it to justify their position against slavery, and likewise we can find folks who projected their wickedness into the Bible and found STRONG PROOF that the Bible CLEARLY supports slavery! You can read the argument in my post DeBow's Review (1850) Argued that the Bible Supports Slavery (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2134-DeBow-s-Review-(1850)-Argued-that-the-Bible-Supports-Slavery). Here is the conclusion from that 1850 argument:

We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.
Modern folks find this unacceptable, so they force the Bible to fit their desired beliefs. If folks can come to diametrically opposed conclusions on issues as significant as the enslavement of other humans, it only proves yet again that the Bible is not a moral guide at all, but rather is putty in the hands of the interpreter.

In Kenneth Scott Latourette’s massive 7-volume history of the expansion of the Christian Church, the Yale historian concluded by noting just how much good this expansion had contributed to the world. More recently D. James Kennedy wrote a brief volume entitled What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? The world would be much worse off, he argued, if it weren’t for this man Jesus.

Again, I am familiar with the argument. It is quite intriguing that similar arguments have been made for Muhammad. Did you know that he has been listed as the Number 1 most influential person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100) in history? I can assure you that the arguments for the influence of Christianity would impress Muslims just as much as Muslim arguments for the influence of Islam would impress you. In other words, such arguments have no power to convince anyone who is not already convinced. And that, unfortunately, is the hallmark of all religious apologetics, especially Christian apologetics which I have come to see as an abyss of absurdity. That's one of the things that drove me from the faith. I could see how it corrupted both the minds and the morals of those who tried to defend it. Case in point: watch this debate between atheist Hector Avalos and Christian Keith Darrell. The atheist affirms that genocide and slavery are absolutely immoral. The Christian cannot affirm these absolute moral facts because he is a Christian who believes God commanded such things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7DIMWV1VSq8

This is from the thread Hector Avalos debates Keith Darrel: Is the Bible a Moral Code for Today? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today). I think it exposes the utter absurdity and immorality of fundamentalist Christianity. First they claim that there could be no morals without God, but then they can't admit that genocide and slavery are immoral! Nothing could be more absurd.

In spite the claims of some today that Christianity oppresses women, the historical record shows just the opposite. Women were oppressed in almost every culture prior to the coming of Christianity. By elevating sexual morality, and by conferring upon women a much higher status, the Christian religion revolutionised the place and prestige of women.

This is a very important point. I have never said that the Bible was the source of sexism in human societies. On the contrary, my point is that the Bible exhibits the same kind of sexism that we would expect if it were written by men and not inspired by God. That's the real point. The sexism in the Bible shows it was not inspired by God because the true God cannot be sexist.

And it is true that early Christians seemed to elevate the status of women. But that was quickly squashed as male took over and rule women and oppressed them and did not allow them rulership positions.

When arguing that Christianity helped elevate women over the "long run" you must answer the question of why God did not simply state the truth - that men and women should be given equal rights - from the beginning? The fact that equal rights evolved over the span of millennia in OPPOSITION to the Christain dogmas shows that the argument is false. It was the Protestant Reformation sparked by the priniting press, followed by the scientific revolution and the higher criticism of the Bible that freed people from its shackles that ultimately led to the freedom of slaves and women. If the Bible was the source, why did Christian teachers and leaders throughout history say such despicable things about women? Here again is a small sampling of the kinds of things they said:

Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?) "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
Tertullian (2nd-3rd c. Church father) In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell.
Tertullian "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."
John Chrysostom (349-407): "Amongst all the savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman."
Saint Augustine of Hippo, Church Father and Bishop (354–430) "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."
Augustine "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."
Jerome (345?-420): "If it is good for a man not to touch a woman, then it is bad for him to touch one, for bad, and bad only, is the opposite of good."
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, Doctor of the Church (13th c.) As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.
St. Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian and Doctor of the Church (13th c.) Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.
Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546) "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."
Luther "The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."
Luther "God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God's will. 'Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error."
Luther "Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
Martin Luther, Reformer "No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise."
John Calvin (1509-64): "Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude."
John Wesley (1703-91): "Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."

This is the DEMONSTRABLE effect the Bible had on CHRISTIANS. How then can you say that the Bible was the source of the emancipation of women?

And BTW, if women were not historically oppressed by Christian society, there never would have been an emancipation of women (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/the_emancipation_of_women.html):

The emancipation of women, i.e. their liberation from religious, legal, economic, and sexual oppression, their access to higher education, and their escape from narrow gender roles is not easily achieved. The struggle for sexual equality has a long history and is likely to continue for some time. Even if it should soon be won in the industrial nations, it may well rage on in many "underdeveloped" countries.

In traditionally patriarchal societies any improvement in the status of women has far-reaching consequences and produces fundamental political changes. Therefore it is always resisted by the established powers. However, it seems certain that they will ultimately have to relent, because the emancipation of women is both necessary and desirable. It will provide for a greater degree of social justice and thus benefit everyone. Indeed, from the beginning, the great "feminists" or champions of women's rights have always insisted that they worked in the interest of the whole human race. The feminist movement therefore has always been a humanist movement. Some of its representatives were reformers, others revolutionaries, but virtually all of them worked for a better, more equitable, and more humane world. Much can be learned from their experiences. They often suffered ridicule, persecution, and defeat, but also won admiration, support, and victory. Gradually, they achieved many of their goals. Their opponents, on the other hand, learned that a just cause cannot be suppressed forever. Where needed reforms are consistently blocked, revolution becomes inevitable.

When Christians deny and ignore historical facts as big and obvious as this, they make themselves look like deluded fools. They make themselves look like holocaust deniers.

For example, the great importance given to marriage meant that women were spared much of the abuse and mistreatment that they were accustomed to. By rejecting polygyny, prostitution, homosexuality and bestiality – all common during the time – the early Christians not only sheltered women but protected children and family.

So polygyny is bad? Why then did God himself give Saul's many wives to David? Was God "looking out for their welfare"? Apparently not, since he passed them around like party treats from Saul to David, and then from David to Absalom with the express purpose that they be raped on the rooftop as a punishment to DAVID!
2 Samuel 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

So there is God USING the women as a means of punishing David! Where was God's concern for those women? To abuse a man's wives to indirectly hurt the man is one of the most primitive primate tactics. It is a display of sexual dominance to humiliate the male. It is a way of "raping" David vicariously.

The way Jesus treated women was in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. In Roman law a man’s wife and children were little more than slaves, often treated like animals. Women had no property rights and faced severe social restrictions. Jesus of course changed all that. The way he treated the Samaritan woman was one remarkable example. And this was not lost on the early disciples. We know from the New Testament documents that many women exercised various leadership roles in the early church. Indeed, during this period Christian women actually outnumbered Christian men.

So now you are saying that JESUS WAS A FEMINIST? Man, you gotta get your story straight! :lol:

You say women had no property rights? Funny you should mention that. You are describing Christian America 19 centuries after Christ.

Jesus called the Samaritan woman a "dog" because she was not of Israel.

Admittedly there were some anomalies later in the church’s history, when chauvinistic and anti-feminine views were allowed to re-enter parts of the church. But such aberrations must not detract from the truly revolutionary elevation of the status of women achieved by Christianity.

Consider also the issue of health care. Prior to Christianity, the Greeks and Romans had little or no interest in the poor, the sick and the dying. But the early Christians, following the example of their master, ministered to the needs of the whole person. During the first three centuries of the church they could only care for the sick where they found them, as believers were then a persecuted people. Once the persecutions subsided, however, the institutionalisation of health care began in earnest.

For example, the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 directed bishops to establish hospices in every city that had a cathedral. The first hospital was built by St Basil in Caesarea in 369. By the Middle Ages hospitals covered all of Europe and even beyond. In fact, “Christian hospitals were the world’s first voluntary charitable institutions”.

Care for the mentally ill was also a Christian initiative. Nursing also sprang from Christian concerns for the sick, and many Christians have given their lives to such tasks. One thinks of Florence Nightingale, for example, and the formation of the Red Cross.

Education, while important in Greek and Roman culture, really took off institutionally under the influence of Christianity. The early Greeks and Romans had no public libraries or educational institutions – it was Christianity that established these. As discipleship was important for the first believers (and those to follow), early formal education arose from Christian catechetical schools. Unique to Christian education was the teaching of both sexes.

I have no problem admitting much good that came from folks who called themselves Christians. But none of that contradicts the fact that the Bible is sexists. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree here. I have not written a word saying that there was nothing good in Christianity.

Also a Christian distinctive, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included. There was no bias based on ethnicity or class. And the concept of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers. Moreover, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian educational endeavours.

That's not how it worked out in history. Christians societies held black slaves. And Christian interpreters like the famous Fausette and Brown, agreed with the ancient Christian doctrine that blacks were black because that was the curse of Ham. The Mormons held this doctrine till 1978!

The bottom line, as Schmidt notes, is that if Jesus Christ had never been born, to speak of Western civilisation would be incomprehensible. Indeed, there may never have been such a civilisation. The freedoms and benefits we enjoy in many modern cultures are directly due to the influence of this one man. And besides all the institutional, cultural, social, political and artistic benefits, there is one last benefit: the countless millions of changed lives due to a liberating encounter with the risen Christ. It is this benefit, first and foremost, which of course accounts for all the institutional benefits.

His argument was designed to fit his predetermined conclusion. No matter the validity of many of his points, it is absurd to suggest that "Western civilization would be incomprehensible" because there is no way to know what would have happened without Christianity and it is impossible to separate Christianity from all the other influences.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2012, 01:12 PM

lastly, let me add, that I will read your biographical information, for that is logically what I wanted to know about after I started reading the Bible wheel, and much more so, when I read this article and my heart sank. I do care for you and your soul, and I will be praying for you.

I appreciate your care and understand your concern. But I think you are believing things only because you have been told that you must believe them, not because you have any reason or evidence that they are true. I think you have projected your private intuitions about God and morality onto the Bible rather than getting such things from the Bible.

What is your concern really? Do you think that God is going to punish me because I have spoken the truth to the best of my ability? If not, what then is the danger? Should I say that Christian beliefs are true when I can demonstrate that they are false, or at best undecidable?

Why exactly did your heart sink? What exactly would you have me change?

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2012, 01:54 PM

It is not legitimate to offer a refuted post as a "reply" to the refutation. Sorry. You must address the facts that refute your response otherwise you are simply letting the refutation stand.
I don't recognize your interpretations and perspectives as 'facts'.

Neither do I. I was talking about the FACTS that are not subject to interpretation such as the FACT that women were valued at about 60% of men, that women were not allowed to teach or have authority over men, etc. You have not refuted any of the FACTS that I have presented.

Again, as noted before, interpretive principles and 'religious' christianity have wrongly sought to justify themselves by making Pauls epistles of encouragement, clarification and general support into rules and laws and then KEEPING THEM. Justification is by faith and faith alone.

We are not talking about justification by faith. The issue is the SEXISM of the Bible. It can be seen throughout, from the Garden story to Revelation. If you want to deny this fact, you need to address the facts that I presented in my article.

It is rude, logically fallacious, and false for you to say I have an "accusative and judgmental spirit." And even if I did, it would not affect the validity of the facts I present - that's why such ad hominem is a logical fallacy. You need to show some error in something I have written if you want to refute my argument.
It's been written above. You do not see with your spiritual eyes the difference between commandments that were given to a temporary people of the mosaic covenant who were still in condemnation of the law of sin/death from the Garden as contrast with freedom from that law of sin/death to both genders equally after the cross. It's quite possible, though not proven, that the men of the mosaic covenant age like unbelieving or falsly instructed men of today would have had an attitude of blame on their female counterparts for still being in the curse of death. In Deut 4 or 5 they even say, "why must we now 'die'.... for we have seen that the Lord liveth. They were still thinking that physical life should be perpetual, thus blaming the woman for that condition. But God says that he created MAN [humankind] as MALE and Female, thus affirming generation procreation and lifespans [including birth,life,death] as part of his designed will.

It was not "written above." If your arguments are only visible to those with "spiritual eyes" then they have no objective validity.

You comment does not address the fact that the Bible is sexist from beginning to end.

You assertion that I cited Ephesians 5:22 again without noting the command of "mutual submission" is false. It appears you did not read my post. Here is what I wrote:

But now that I look more closely at your assertion, I see you have changed the words to say "Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives." The asymmetry of your comment shows that you are judging by an unequal and unrighteous scale. You have a double standard. Women are told to submit TO their husbands themselves, whereas you say that the men are told to submit to "loving their wives." That is a world of difference, and a very deceptive style of thinking. You will never find truth by trying to justify your preconceived beliefs through such tricky rhetoric.
I'll admit to changing the wording to instill emphasis which I find in the surrounding context. But you did not address the context in your post. Here is the context of the passage. Paul is not declaring women to be submissive to their husbands as a stand alone command, but as part of a mutual subordination to an emulation of God's design of unity, peace and harmony.

I agree that Paul taught "mutual submission" of believers one to another. But that does not obviate his teaching that women must submit themselves to their husbands in analogy to submission to Christ as LORD. No such injunction is given to men, that they must submit themselves to their WIVES as they submit to Christ as LORD. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to imagine a man in the Bible calling his wife "lord." That's pure sexism. I explained this asymmetry in my post that you are answering. It is strange that you don't admit this fact, since this is the fact that you are supposed to be answering.

Here it can be seen that wives submitting to their husbands and husbands giving themselve up for their wives are both subordinate to all members of the body of Christ submitting themselves one to another. [VS 21] It is a subtopic of the context of the previous chapters. It is not a theme of the chapter and it cannot be taken out of the context of what the chapter and book is discussing. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE !!! He's using the husband/wife relationship to indicate one example of all the believers submitting themselves to one another out of reference to Christ.

I agree it is not the "theme" of the chapter, but that does not mean that I have misinterpreted it or taken it "out of context." On the contrary, I have shown that it fits perfectly with its local context as well as the larger context of the whole Bible that explicitly establishes male headship in analogy with the male headship of Christ under the male headship of God the Father. I have proven this point and neither you nor anyone else has challenged it.

They use scripture (St Paul's letters) to justify this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Thus a man could never swear a canonical oath to a woman bishop. Other objections rest on the fact that Jesus chose only male disciples. Was Jesus sexist?
Here again there is an example of Paul writing a specific instruction to a specific people and specific time period. We do not know all the context of what the people were previously discussing and to which Paul addresses and writes. Again, he is not writing command, but encouragement and support of the spirits work in their lives. I actually think that due to the seed of God coming exclusively through the women to cancel and reverse the law of sin/seperation from God incurred in the stipulations in the Garden, that there may have been an inclination in the believing women to perhaps joyously exhault and proclaim themselves as saviors of mankind through their faith. I am only speculating and gleaning this from an awareness of what the inner witness and freedom of the indwelling spirit would have meant to the women and female gender especially in contrast with their status under law and under felt responsibilty of the curse of the 'sin' until the seed promised to Eve would come. Thus some of Pauls words can be understood as a counter to that situation and context. He doesn't say: I demand that men Lord over their women, but that he doesn't permit women to teach or have authority OVER a man. It seems obvious that the circumstances of their situation could have been a tendency and desire for the female gender to do this due to their bearing the seed of God. And Paul is responding to these circumstances. Elsewhere he does say that the women should learn at home, but this too could possibly have partial context in countering the exhuberance that the female gender would have Known in their release from being accused by the male gender.

That's a lot of words that don't directly address the real issue. Paul most certainly gave a "command" when he said "I do not PERMIT a women to teach or have authority over a man." And that's how it's been interpreted for 2000 years! And folks still appeal to that verse to this very day to prohibit women from have equal rights in the church. It would be best if you could focus your comments on the precise issue being debated.

This is actually still a problem with our futurist and partial preterist friends. They view physical death [not spiritual ignorance and seperation] as the punishment incurred in the Garden, thus the present earth and mankind is still under condemnation and under 'curse' of death due to the 'sin' of the woman. They say mankind is in a 'fallen condition'. When in fact, the seed has come, only ONE VOICE of LOVE is in the New Garden, [Yay Steve Miller: Window] the stipulative, conditional law and the tempter is cast out of the inner man concerning their relationship with their Creator.

That's true. We discussed it at some length in the thread Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1507-Is-Physical-Death-the-Penalty-for-Sin). I think the biblical answer "No" was clearly established.

I'm not too intersted in changing "Christian leaders' misunderstandings and misinterpreting of Pauls letters. I dont' acknowledge many 'christian leaders' other than the Holy Spirit, the apostles and the inductive principles of interpretation. I hang out with them. Part of our differences of perspective is due to your lack of understanding the inductive nature of interpretign the epistles as a genre of "Epistole" which many times addressed particular cultural or covanental context issues .

Well, they are you "spiritual forefathers" since they established and defined everything you believe, in as much as you base your beliefs upon the Bible and the associated interpretations they handed down to you. The Protestant Reformation caused a huge break in the Protestant understanding of Christian history. They tend to have a huge lacuna of about 1500 years between the first century church and the 16th century reformed church, as if nothing happened in between. And so they think that there beliefs are "what the first Christians believed" because they base them on the Bible, forgetting that it was preserved and handed down by the Catholics who also invented all sorts of doctrines modern Protestants take for granted, such as the Trinity, the Dual Nature of Christ, etc. - doctrines that did not exist until later centuries. It's all rather ironic ...

Part of the reason for the male apostles could have been a replacement of the sons of Israel for the NC. There were many women disciples among his followers. The women were the first to seen him after his resurrection.

So the OT sexism justifies the NT sexism? Why were not the matriarchs given equal status to the patriarchs?

The fact that women were the first to see Christ is an interesting anomaly in light of the general sexism of the Bible.

If Christ is also the 'son [servant] of man' then the man is also servant [lover and instructor] of the woman who is to build her up in Love as if from above. You can't refute this logic either. This is where I interjected the idea as a submission to Love. This is continually supported by the example of Christ's coming, teaching and giving himself up for us. The concept of ruler/subject is not in the New Covenant ideology other than ruling via Love and understanding of truth of the reality of his entity.

I have no problem with the idea of submission to Love. But it's not an answer to the sexism in the Bible.

Again, you need to consider a whole survey of all relevent passages.

I did that. I do not believe that anyone has shown any error in my article based on a failure to do a "whole survey of all the relevant passages."

I expect that we'll continue to be at odds on this issue, and I may not have time for further refutations.

All the best also.

:)
Understood. Thanks for taking time to share your observations. You can toss in smaller observations - no need to spend the whole day writing a book. I have the same problem. These long posts take a lot of time and effort to answer, and I have a lot of other projects on the stove. So maybe we should all aim at shorter posts that deal with only one specific point at a time.

All the best to you, my friend,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-27-2012, 05:42 PM

Paul most certainly gave a "command" when he said "I do not PERMIT a women to teach or have authority over a man." And that's how it's been interpreted for 2000 years!Again, I disagree that this is a command or a permission for men to lord over women. That is the difference in our understanding of the "SPIRIT" of Pauls words. In 2 Cor 1 we find the chapter summarized in these words.
Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. Thus, Paul was likely addressing a possible circumstantial situation where the women may have been imposing authority over the men due to the female genders having birthed the seed of God, without aid of men, whereby both genders come to experientially know the reality of the entity and character of God and of his love and image implanted in humanity. As noted in another thread they had a 'cheer' going and were throwing it in their brothers faces. "We bore Jesus, yes we did, we bore Jesus, how bout YOU" That's recorded in a book by Helmut Neydigger [actually Calvin Miller] called the Philipian fragment. [Not really, but it would fit]

Well, they are you "spiritual forefathers" since they established and defined everything you believe, in as much as you base your beliefs upon the Bible and the associated interpretations they handed down to you. The Protestant Reformation caused a huge break in the Protestant understanding of Christian history. They tend to have a huge lacuna of about 1500 years between the first century church and the 16th century reformed church, as if nothing happened in between. And so they think that there beliefs are "what the first Christians believed" because they base them on the Bible, forgetting that it was preserved and handed down by the Catholics who also invented all sorts of doctrines modern Protestants take for granted, such as the Trinity, the Dual Nature of Christ, etc. - doctrines that did not exist until later centuries. It's all rather ironic ...
I dont' consider them my spiritual forefathers. Though they had some doctrines and perspectives correct, there were many they did not. As mentioned we rely on Jesus, the apostles and the Holy Spirit of truth for foundation, not on the ECF's.

So the OT sexism justifies the NT sexism? Why were not the matriarchs given equal status to the patriarchs? I didn't say that the NT sexism was justified, nor that the OT 'sexism is justified, but that the Ot sexism was permitted due to the unregenerate heart still under condemnation until Shiloh would come through the woman. Matt 19:8; He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Thus, perhaps the OT 'sexism' as you call it is still due to the unfulfilled promise at that time. There were many female patriarchs of faith in the OT. Some are mentioned in Heb 11. See also Deut 5:24
And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. [see Deut 18:15-19]
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
There needs to be a new, circumsized heart, as noted in Deut 30; Ez 36; Jer 31. A heart justified by belief in the person and character of God and of his approval of generational life through BOTH genders.

I have to admit that I am appalled, hurt and ASHAMED at some of the comments you quoted by the ECF's. Their perspectives indicate to me that they hadn't fully worked through the foreknown, forearranged and fore-permitted 'fall' from grace from the Garden. They may have still believed in physical death as the punishment and curse from the Garden fall. I beleive Ireneous taught this in context of a future physical resurrection. Jesus was the lamb slain from BEFORE the foundation of the world. Additionally, their comments [as well as some of their other teachings] reaveal that some of them were a new type of pharisee who sought to or were expected to sit in the seat of a new 'moses' as lords over the church. The 'church' doctrines was being judaized, codified and 'doctinalized' into 'law' even at that time. In some perspectives, parts of the institutional church are a new and idolotrous 'religion' of Ireneous and the ECF's rather than of the associated Kingdom of God through Christ.

Jesus corrects sexist perspectives such as these of the ECF's to the Pharisees in the incident of the Woman caught in adultery and in their question about divorce in Matt 19. And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,........Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, [what God has ordained as holy; both male and female gender] let not man put asunder. Remember, no man is justified by keeping any parts of the law; thus I believe that Jesus is affirming the worth of the female as one of the two genders whom God has purposefully and biologically joined together and whom no man should put asunder. The later context of his permitting the little children [likely both male and female] come to him is in support of his intentions of not 'putting asunder' any, even in their weak and vulnerable state.

The 'new creation' begins at Christ.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2012, 07:34 PM

Paul most certainly gave a "command" when he said "I do not PERMIT a women to teach or have authority over a man." And that's how it's been interpreted for 2000 years!Again, I disagree that this is a command or a permission for men to lord over women. That is the difference in our understanding of the "SPIRIT" of Pauls words. In 2 Cor 1 we find the chapter summarized in these words. Thus, Paul was likely addressing a possible circumstantial situation where the women may have been imposing authority over the men due to the female genders having birthed the seed of God, without aid of men, whereby both genders come to experientially know God. As noted in another thread they had a 'cheer' going and were throwing it in their brothers faces. "We bore Jesus, yes we did, we bore Jesus, how bout YOU" That's recorded in a book by Helmut Neydigger called the Philipian fragment.[Not really, but it would fit]

There is no biblical foundation for your speculations. And even if they are true, they are irrelevant to the reason I quoted that passage. That passages shows that the OT story of the Fall was used to justify sexism in the NT. That was my point and nothing you have written contradicts it.

I'm not too intersted in changing "Christian leaders' misunderstandings and misinterpreting of Pauls letters. I dont' acknowledge many 'christian leaders' other than the Holy Spirit, the apostles and the inductive principles of interpretation. I hang out with them. Part of our differences of perspective is due to your lack of understanding the inductive nature of interpretign the epistles as a genre of "Epistole" which many times addressed particular cultural or covanental context issues .
Well, they are your "spiritual forefathers" since they established and defined everything you believe, in as much as you base your beliefs upon the Bible and the associated interpretations they handed down to you. The Protestant Reformation caused a huge break in the Protestant understanding of Christian history. They tend to have a huge lacuna of about 1500 years between the first century church and the 16th century reformed church, as if nothing happened in between. And so they think that there beliefs are "what the first Christians believed" because they base them on the Bible, forgetting that it was preserved and handed down by the Catholics who also invented all sorts of doctrines modern Protestants take for granted, such as the Trinity, the Dual Nature of Christ, etc. - doctrines that did not exist until later centuries. It's all rather ironic ...

I dont' consider them my spiritual forefathers. Though they had some doctrines and perspectives correct, there were some they did not. As mentioned we rely on Jesus, the apostles and the Holy Spirit of truth for foundation, not on the ECF's.

We were not talking about the only ECFs but rather all the people that are you "spiritual forefathers" who put together the Bible and the interpretations you accept. You did not receive the Bible dropped from heaven. You received it from men who wrote it, collected it into the Bible, translated it, and interpreted it. If your interpretations are significantly different than theirs, why do you accept the Bible they gave you?

I didn't say that the NT sexism was justified, nor that the OT 'sexism is justified, but that the Ot sexism was permitted due to the unregenerate heart still under condemnation until Shiloh would come through the woman. Matt 19:8; He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Thus, perhaps the OT 'sexism' as you call it is still due to the unfulfilled promise at that time. There were many female patriarchs of faith in the OT. Some are mentioned in Heb 11.

I'm glad we agree that the biblical sexism is not justified. And I'm glad we agree it exists. Unfortunately I do not find you solution satisfying since the NT sexism is found in the NT - that is, in the New Covenant after Christ came.

I have to admit that I am appalled, hurt and ASHAMED at some of the comments you quoted by the ECF's. Their perspectives indicate to me that they hadn't fully worked through the foreknown, forearranged and fore-permitted 'fall' from grace from the Garden. They may have still believed in physical death as the punishment and curse from the Garden fall. I beleive Ireneous taught this in context of a future physical resurrection. Jesus was the lamb slain from BEFORE the foundation of the world. Additionally, their comments [as well as some of their other teachings] reaveal that some of them were a new type of pharisee who sought to or were expected to sit in the seat of a new 'moses' as lords over the church. The 'church' doctrines was being judaized, codified and 'doctinalized' into 'law' even at that time. In some perspectives, parts of the institutional church are a new and idolotrous 'religion' of Ireneous and the ECF's rather than of the associated Kingdom of God through Christ.

There are a lot of valid criticisms in your comments. We have a lot of agreement there. But you also touch upon some highly controversial topics, such as the idea that the fall was "foreknown, forearranged and fore-permitted."

Jesus corrects sexist perspectives such as these of the ECF's to the Pharisees in the incident of the Woman caught in adultery and in their question about divorce in Matt 19. And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,........Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, [what God has ordained as holy; both male and female gender] let not man put asunder. Remember, no man is justified by keeping any parts of the law; thus I believe that Jesus is affirming the worth of the female as one of the two genders whom God has purposefully and biologically joined together and whom no man should put asunder. The later context of his permitting the little children [likely both male and female] come to him is in support of his intentions of not 'putting asunder' any, even in their weak and vulnerable state.

The 'new creation' begins at Christ.
Again, I find your points quite agreeable, but I don't see how they affect the conclusions of my article.

Great chatting,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-27-2012, 07:46 PM

For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)
Have you ever wondered why Sarah would [voluntarily] call him "lord". What did Abraham do which would have initiated such a response?

The angels had told Abraham that the seed promised to come to Eve was to come through Him and Sara. This seed was promised to cancel and reverse the effects of the law of sin/death and seperation from God incurred in the Garden 'fall'. Abraham BELIEVED GOD, and it was accounted to him as righteousness. In believing God, Abraham was canceling any enmity between him and Sara and opening himself to recieve blessing and protection from Him. Abraham was fearless to love his 'sister' in life and faith. Sara would have submissively and instinctively followed and accompanied him as her 'lord' because of his positive attitudes, power, faith and love.

A similar instance is incurred with Lamach and of his 'killing' the accuser and mortifying any negativity against his 'sisters', wives, by putting faith in God and the promised future seed of God and the woman to crush the accuser and injector of disinformation. This would therefore reverse any 'curse' and negative attidutes in his life.

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Here it is in the NKJV.
1
9 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

23 Then Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.

[he mortified the man of doubt and enmity against the woman by putting faith in the future seed of the woman to reverse/cancel those effects. He created a loving, thankful and recieving atmoshpere for his fellow created companion to flourish. This is something that was foreign to the ECF's and the others you quoted.]

24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

In chapter 5, take note how long Lamach lived in contrast with '666'. Consider Johns discussion of the 'spirit of anti-christ' along with the note of how long Lamech lived and of his witness of faith!! Consider who the 'man or ideology of sin' would be referring to, understanding that faith is the righteousness of God which HITS the bullseye.

And I think a third example can be found in Genesis account of the 'sons of God' recieving or taking wives of the "daughters of men" and of those they wished in the pre-flood environment. The 'sons of God' would have also called upon the name, character and goodness of the lord [Gen 4:26] and upon the future seed promised to mankind through HER seed, like their post Christ sons and daughters of God called on and believed upon the delivered Christ in John 1:12,13. They posessed an environment of acceptence, appreciation, thankfulness, non condemnation and love for humanity in both genders. This union of believing and unbelieving [daughters of men]though was apparently not to the interest of truth, especially at that time. The 'sons of God' though faith would have likely been most righteous to have remained the standard and to cause both men and women to come to faith. But, of course, they were living in 'cursed' land and the happiness and pleasure of positive company [or to influence positive company and protect the weaker gender] would have been very drawing.

In Colossians 3, Paul writes about the concepts of being thankful, positive, forebearing and loving. Like Lamach, they are to 'mortify' [vs 5] the carnal man by faith in the positive things of Heaven. Those who are Husbands are to LOVE [action as well as feeling] their wives and to not be embittered against them.[vs 19]

Again, I think it's very key to note that the garden 'punishment' is not physical death, but spiritual seperation,[shame] and perhaps shortened life for Adam. [within his 1000 yr lifespan, he would die]. And again this is something not acknowledge by majority of the futurist or partian preterist church doctrines which stem from the ECF's.

The curse of the earth was lifted by the flood, [Gen 5:29] and the individual seperation from knowledge and expereince with the omnipotent due to the curse of the law of sin/death was [AND IS] reversed through justification by faith in his coming. [Romans 8:2] And the curse and ending of the corporal law of Moses, is also fulfilled within the time of his coming though the flood of the [international] Roman armes as used by Christ.

Dispensational Truth

11-27-2012, 08:00 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2012, 09:30 PM

This is a very popular meme out there right now. I keep seeing it posted and reposed on Facebook. I think it is quite relevant to our current discussion since Christians consistently confusion morality with obedience:

660

Richard Amiel McGough

11-28-2012, 01:57 PM

Well you have written much, and as I have time, I will respond. You engage in strawman fallacies, which I shall demonstrate, you fail to understand the simple definition of words. You impose a foreign meaning onto words. Submission is not synonymous with sexism. The Bible does not teach prejudice against women. Islam does. If it teaches submission to women, that is not sexism. Christ was subject to his parents-Luke 2:51!!!! What do we learn about submission from THAT????? You are not consistent. If telling wives to be in subjection to their husbands is prejudice against women, then the same is true about telling children to obey and honor their parents. You MUST condemn this also. You must condemn any kind of submission to government, to employers or anything else, because according to you, submission is sexist or prejudice and IMMORAL to put anyone underanyone else, no matter the circumstances or issues involved.

You would do well to avoid making false assertions. You have now committed yourself to proving that I have "engaged in strawman fallacies" and that I "fail to understand the simple definition of words." If you fail to do this, you will have only two options remaining:

Admit you are wrong.
Stand publicly convicted as an unrepentant willful liar.

Choose well!

You have no idea with whom you are dealing. I am a linguaphile (http://www.wordnik.com/words/linguaphile) - I love words and the study words. I use them with extreme precision. It would be a cold day in hell when anyone, let alone a simple-minded Bible believer, could catch me failing to "understand the simple definition of words."

You err by not reading my posts carefully. I never said that mere "submission" was synonymous with sexism. That would be absurd, as you rightly noted. Both men and women are instructed to submit to God. That is not sexism. Your assertion is irrational and it misrepresents I have written. It is, therefore, a textbook example of a strawman argument. You have consistently erred in this way. You have made many assertions that have nothing to do with anything I have written. As explained in previous posts, you need to quote the exact words I have written and show where I have erred. It is ironic that you falsely accused me of doing what you consistently do. This irony is amplified by your assertion that I don't understand the "simple definition of words." As it turns out, you are describing yourself, not me. Specifically, you wrote:
I encourage you to go and learn the difference between patriarchy and sexism, for you clearly don't.

Great! Let's look at those definitions. First, we have the etymology of patriarchy (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=patriarch&allowed_in_frame=0) which is from the Greek pater (father) and archein (to rule). Here are a few definitions from various sources:

Patriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.
Patriarchy (http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo101/glossary.html#p) - A condition in which gender relations are characterized by the dominance of men over women, or masculinity over femininity
patriarchal (http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm#p) - A social system of male supremacy. Power and significance resides in the father of a family group or clan, and this is passed down through the male heirs. Found in many primitive tribal cultures and fundamentalist societies (primarily Islamic and Judeo-Christian). The tradition of wives being named after their husbands is a remnant of the patriarchal history all of mankind shares.

Now let's look at a few definitions and descriptions of sexism from various sources:

Sexism (http://www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_s.htm): Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their gender. The most common form of sexism is discrimination against females. However, it occasionally is manifested as preferential treatment for women. A secondary meaning is the belief that one gender - normally female - is inherently inferior to other genders (male and intersexual). See also racism, religism, and homophobia.
Sexism (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=u&authuser=0&q=sexism&tbs=dfn:1&sa=X&ei=GXC2UL7pOO-CyAGs8ICgCQ&ved=0CC0QkQ4&biw=1391&bih=792): Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Sexism (http://books.google.com/books?id=szm-8WgGjWgC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Sexism+and+patriarchy+mutually+reinforce&source=bl&ots=q7DsVgx9QB&sig=TZgHGvdG4FIPzW_tT9OIo_HYhOg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PWu2UKPMLYavygHX7oGoBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sexism%20and%20patriarchy%20mutually%20reinforce&f=false) defines the ideology of male supremacy, of male superiority and of beliefs that support and sustain it. Sexism and patriarchy mutually reinforce one another. ... Sexism stands in the same relation to paternalism as racism does to slavery.
Sexism (http://www.public.asu.edu/~squiroga/santill.HTM) is perpetuated by systems of patriarchy where male-dominated structures and social arrangements elaborate the oppression of women.

Your error is now self-evident. It is true that there is a difference between patriarchy and sexism because sexism could apply to discrimination against either men or women, whereas patriarchy is defined as male supremacy over women. Thus patriarchy is, by definition, sexist, whereas sexism is not necessarily patriarchal. A matriarchal system would be sexist.

Now you attempted to deflect attention from the fact that the Bible teaches patriarchal sexism by focusing on only one aspect of the definition of sexism, namely, the word "prejudice" when you said the "Bible does not teach prejudice against women." You may be correct that the Bible does not explicitly "teach" that people should hold prejudicial views against woman, but on the other hand there is much to suggests otherwise. For example, Paul denied women the right to teach and explained it was because Eve had been deceived by the serpent. This and similar biblical teachings led countless Christians throughout history to write grossly prejudicial calumny against all women as I've shown in the quotes from Church leaders such as Tertullian who said "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway." You see no "prejudice" in that? I could fill a large book with similar quotes of gross prejudice against women based on the teachings of the Bible. By their fruit you will know them. Your point fails.

But even if your assertion were true it would be irrelevant because mere "prejudice" is not the essence of sexism, let alone the sexism I exposed in my article which is inextricably entwined with patriarchy that you admit is in the Bible. The fundamental point of my article was that the sexism was INSTITUTED BY GOD in the Bible. That was the point of my article. I showed how everything in the Bible coheres with this sexist patriarchal view. It is based on the fundamental theology that views God and Christ as males at the head of a hierarchy of male authority with women at the bottom. I proved it by showing a systematic discrimination against women: they are literally devalued (monetarily) at about 60% the value of men. Women are unclean twice as long when they give birth to a girl as opposed to a boy. I presented a mountain of integrated incontrovertible facts that you have not touched in any of your comments. This is why your attempt to create a disjunction between "sexism" and "patriarchy" is so ridiculous. First, it is simply false, and second, it proves that you don't understand the "simple definition of words" - let alone the article I wrote.

You can't have it both ways. If submission is sexism--prejudice and sinful against another--if it is oppression, then its all wrong. You won't go there, but casually dismiss the family and employer examples I gave because they undermine your position.

This exemplifies your error again. I never said that "submission is sexism." You have doubled down on your strawman. Note that I have proven your error by showing that you did not accurately quote my words. Indeed, you did not quote me at all! Therefore, I have PROVEN that you have created a strawman argument. If you want any credibility with our readers, you would do well to admit your error.

The bottom-line:

You have a problem with the Sovereignty of God. You deny God the right, as the Potter to make mankind, which He did, as He wishes. He calls the shots, defines our roles and place in this world, NOT YOU. Your problem is REBELLION, and until you humble yourself before God and your Sovereign Lord, you will remain blind. And this is coming from an Arminian very hostile to Calvinism. You have set yourself up as judge against the Scripture, but the Scripture is more than capable of judging you and your false morals and pretended enlightenment. You are backslidden, but worse--it appears you are apostate. Not only have you departed from the faith, but you now attack that faith and seek to deceive others. You site a lying deceiver who serves his father the Devil, Thom Stark, and call him a "Christian"! Yeah, like Obama is a "Christian"! Thom is a reprobate and has been completely refuted by others online. This link is one example of why no one needs to listen to that liar-http://www.christianciv.com/humanfacesofgod2.htm

Your assertions contain multiple absurdities. I have not written a word about the "sovereignty of God" so you don't have any way to know if I have a "problem" with it or not. I have not denied any "rights" to God. You are confusing your own private and unsupportable beliefs about the Bible with God himself. That is a grave error, no different than a Muslim claiming the Koran is the Word of God. And worse, even if the Bible were the Word of God, you don't know if your interpretation is correct. If you had any self-awareness at all you would know that this is a question of CRITICAL IMPORTANCE because the world is filled with fundamentalists like you who are totally convinced they have "God's own truth" but who come to conclusions that radically contradict yours! You need to learn to THINK CRITICALLY. Case in point: you reject Calvinism whereas many Biblical fundamentalists believe it is the absolute truth of what the Bible teaches.

As for Thom Stark - thanks, I'll check it out. But remember, it would be the Genetic Fallacy for you to claim his critique is false merely because you don't agree with his religion. The fact remains that Copan's book is an intellectual abomination. It demonstrates how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt both the hearts and the minds of believers.

Dispensational Truth

11-28-2012, 10:09 PM

As a editorial note, my response did not come out exactly as I planned, seeing I am not well-versed in how to use these types of forums. But you can figure out when I am quoting Richard, and when I am responding. Its late. This took hours to write, and I am going to bed.
---------------------------------
<< Administrator's Note: I fixed the format for you. You were missing this closing tag [/quote]. >>

Against my better judgment, based on other writings of yours I have now read on this site, I will rebutt this last post of yours, though, it won't matter one bit to you. You have a ready answer, and you will not let anything affect you--like facts.

You would do well to avoid making false assertions. You have now committed yourself to proving that I have "engaged in strawman fallacies" and that I "fail to understand the simple definition of words." If you fail to do this, you will have only two options remaining:

Admit you are wrong.
Stand publicly convicted as an unrepentant willful liar.

Choose well!

Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice.

You have no idea with whom you are dealing. I am a linguaphile (http://www.wordnik.com/words/linguaphile) - I love words and the study words. I use them with extreme precision. It would be a cold day in hell when anyone, let alone a simple-minded Bible believer, could catch me failing to "understand the simple definition of words."

"simple-minded"? Hmmn--fallacy number One--Ad Hominem in BLACK AND WHITE. And this coming from a man that knows NOTHING about me, my education and intellectual attainments in this life. But it does suit your purpose, which is to exalt yourself and denigrate your opponent. That is not an argument, but a fallacy. Score 1-0. And notice the warning--that I have no idea with whom I am dealing. Uh, yes I do--a typical infidel full of himself and his self-professed intellectual superiority. I know with whom I am dealing--an arrogant, proud man who is blinded by his sin. People like you, who have an ax to grind, certainly CANNOT, and WILL NOT understand the meanings of words, and will conflate different words to suit their agenda. You are devoid of the Spirit of God, and therefore self-handicapped. You have tried to make the words patriarchy and sexism SYNONYMS, even though they are not, and none of your undocumented definitions are proof. Apples are not oranges. They may be similar in many ways, but they aren't the same. Your assertion is the Bible is SEXIST--as in IMMORAL. It is NOT. It teaches a LOVING, REPSONSIBLE PATRIARCHY, which by definition IS NOT THE SAME THING. Score 2-0.

You err by not reading my posts carefully. I never said that mere "submission" was synonymous with sexism.

No, you never "said" it, you just ARGUED like they were. Score 3-0

That would be absurd, as you rightly noted. Both men and women are instructed to submit to God. That is not sexism. Your assertion is irrational and it misrepresents I have written. It is, therefore, a textbook example of a strawman argument. You have consistently erred in this way. You have made many assertions that have nothing to do with anything I have written. As explained in previous posts, you need to quote the exact words I have written and show where I have erred. It is ironic that you falsely accused me of doing what you consistently do. This irony is amplified by your assertion that I don't understand the "simple definition of words." As it turns out, you are describing yourself, not me. Specifically, you wrote:
I encourage you to go and learn the difference between patriarchy and sexism, for you clearly don't.
Great! Let's look at those definitions. First, we have the etymology of patriarchy (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=patriarch&allowed_in_frame=0) which is from the Greek pater (father) and archein (to rule). Here are a few definitions from various sources:

Uh, no. You would qoute words in Scripture that tell wives to love and submit to their husbands, and then you scream LOOK, LOOK, SEXISM RIGHT THERE!!!! And so, to any rational, honest person, you are equating submission with sexism. FALLACY! You have conflated these words and their meanings, therefore YOU DON'T KNOW THE SIMPLE MEANINGS OF WORDS, or you choose not to, for puposes of deception. And since you are back in sin and accusing God, such diabolical purposes are not unlikely from you. Score 4-0.

Patriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.
Patriarchy (http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo101/glossary.html#p) - A condition in which gender relations are characterized by the dominance of men over women, or masculinity over femininity
patriarchal (http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm#p) - A social system of male supremacy. Power and significance resides in the father of a family group or clan, and this is passed down through the male heirs. Found in many primitive tribal cultures and fundamentalist societies (primarily Islamic and Judeo-Christian). The tradition of wives being named after their husbands is a remnant of the patriarchal history all of mankind shares.

Now let's look at a few definitions and descriptions of sexism from various sources:

Sexism (http://www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_s.htm): Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their gender. The most common form of sexism is discrimination against females. However, it occasionally is manifested as preferential treatment for women. A secondary meaning is the belief that one gender - normally female - is inherently inferior to other genders (male and intersexual). See also racism, religism, and homophobia.
Sexism (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=u&authuser=0&q=sexism&tbs=dfn:1&sa=X&ei=GXC2UL7pOO-CyAGs8ICgCQ&ved=0CC0QkQ4&biw=1391&bih=792): Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Sexism (http://books.google.com/books?id=szm-8WgGjWgC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Sexism+and+patriarchy+mutually+reinforce&source=bl&ots=q7DsVgx9QB&sig=TZgHGvdG4FIPzW_tT9OIo_HYhOg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PWu2UKPMLYavygHX7oGoBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sexism%20and%20patriarchy%20mutually%20reinforce&f=false) defines the ideology of male supremacy, of male superiority and of beliefs that support and sustain it. Sexism and patriarchy mutually reinforce one another. ... Sexism stands in the same relation to paternalism as racism does to slavery.
Sexism (http://www.public.asu.edu/~squiroga/santill.HTM) is perpetuated by systems of patriarchy where male-dominated structures and social arrangements elaborate the oppression of women.

Well I could provide a few more definitions from other sources to round out this slanted selection from you, but even so, you refute yourself. At the end we see that sexism is about oppressing women, and the comment about male superiority is not patriarchy, and the comparison of sexism to paternalism with racism to slavery??? Who wrote that, a feminist? Back to that in a minute, but notice that sexism is about OPPRESSING WOMEN. It is rooted in a sinful prejudice against their gender based on mindsets that are outside the Bible and patriarchy. You people sure TRIED HARD to make sexism and patriarchy the same, but OBVIOUSLY they are not. Score 5-0.

Lets quote something you conveniently FAILED TO QOUTE from Wikipedia. You quoted this:

is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.

But you left out this:

Patriarchy literally means "rule of fathers",[2][3] from the Greek πατριάρχης (patriarkhēs), "father" or "chief of a race, patriarch".[4][5] Historically, the term patriarchy was used to refer to autocratic rule by the male head of a family. However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Patriarchy refers to FATHERS, the heads of families, which are the basis of all societies. This changes things from the slanted definitions you gave, and shows the true idea of patriarchy, as revealed in the Bible, which is not about male rule and oppression over women, but the rule of fathers. It is only natural that as families stuctured in this way would be reflected in the communities, cities and governments that developed. And it is QUITE IRONIC that cultures developed along these lines all over the world. Patriachy seems to be the natural development of things. Hmmn. And how did that happen? Why does this happen? O my opponent won't like the answer, because he wants another one! So he must demonize the Scripture to justify what is obvious in nature and history, and Scripture. Such is the vaunted "intellect" I am supposed to be so in awe of. Sorry, but the score is now 6-0.

Let go further. What else did you fail to quote from Wikipedia? Well this:

Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women

And the plot thickens. So we see that it all depends on WHO is doing the definitions! What Richard has failed to do is to point this out, which would be deceptive, or he is unaware, and so demonstrates elementary ignorance in general, and specifically with this subject, despite his own hype. We now see its the FEMINISTS WHO REDEFINED PATRIARCHY into something it is not, because that's how they "feel" about it. And Richard thinks this is proof. Score 7-0

Then Wikipedia cites explanations from "specialists" who try to account for the widespread order of patriarchy throughout history. Some are rather comical. But this quote is telling:

Some sociobiologists, such as Steven Goldberg, argue that social behavior is primarily determined by genetics, and thus that patriarchy arises more as a result of inherent biology than social conditioning. Goldberg also contends that patriarchy is a universal feature of human culture. In 1973, Goldberg wrote, "The ethnographic studies of every society that has ever been observed explicitly state that these feelings were present, there is literally no variation at all

EXACTLY. Its a natural law observed in all places at all times! This is the Divine Order, and it has played out in all societies. It has to be attacked and resisted and slandered to change people from this natual tendency is family and community. That last fact is a three-pointer, and so the Score is now 10-0

So this next comment can be dismissed

Your error is now self-evident. It is true that there is a difference between patriarchy and sexism because sexism could apply to discrimination against either men or women, whereas patriarchy is defined as male supremacy over women. Thus patriarchy is, by definition, sexist, whereas sexism is not necessarily patriarchal. A matriarchal system would be sexist.

And then we have this gem:

Now you attempted to deflect attention from the fact that the Bible teaches patriarchal sexism by focusing on only one aspect of the definition of sexism, namely, the word "prejudice" when you said the "Bible does not teach prejudice against women." You may be correct that the Bible does not explicitly "teach" that people should hold prejudicial views against woman, but on the other hand there is much to suggests otherwise.

Does anyone see a problem in the above? I do. Its called a CONTRADICTION. He admits what he then turns around and denies! Well, you would make a good Calvinist. Score 11-0.

But Richard will offer one example of his "much to suggest otherwise". And here he engages in MISREPRESENTATION of what Paul said. Lets read Richard, then Paul:

For example, Paul denied women the right to teach and explained it was because Eve had been deceived by the serpent.

Paul said in 1Timothy 2:

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now much can be said about this drift of this passage--that women shouldn't be immodest, loud, and gaudy, but rather modest in clothing and attitude. It is apparent that some women wanted to take the reigns, and these same women were rather immodest in dress and attitude. So Paul heakens back to the beginning, and God's order of things. I explained man had the Firstborn, pre-eminent position. Paul said he didn't allow women TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN. You see, he didn't allow women to take a man's role anymore than he would encourage a man to takes a woman's role. Its not sexism, but proper roles in family and church. And we also see that THE REASON Paul gave was not because Eve was deceived, but that ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST. I already explained this in a previous post, and Richard conveniently ignored it. Ignoring counter-evidence presented is rude and hardly an exalted way for such an intellect to argue. Score 12-0.

Earlier I had said the Bible PLAINLY BLAMES ADAM. It is his sin that brought death and condemnation into the world and that in Adam, all die. Adam knew what he was doing, and the Devil used Eve, by deception, to get him to REBEL. Richard ignores this. Score 13-0. But Richard offers us this:

This and similar biblical teachings led countless Christians throughout history to write grossly prejudicial calumny against all women as I've shown in the quotes from Church leaders such as Tertullian who said "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway." You see no "prejudice" in that? I could fill a large book with similar quotes of gross prejudice against women based on the teachings of the Bible. By their fruit you will know them. Your point fails.

We are talking about what the Bible teaches, and you are quoting non-Biblical writers. Another fallacy. BLACK AND WHITE. How is this "evidence" incriminating the Bible when your proof is by quoting something OTHER THAN the Bible??? Well, this is a kangaroo court you have the Bible in, and it is guilty from the onset, and will be guilty when you reach your "verdict". Score 14-0

But even if your assertion were true it would be irrelevant because mere "prejudice" is not the essence of sexism, let alone the sexism I exposed in my article which is inextricably entwined with patriarchy that you admit is in the Bible. The fundamental point of my article was that the sexism was INSTITUTED BY GOD in the Bible.

You are totally wrong, as I have now proven. You claims are akin to saying that since God institued captial punishment, the Bible teaches murder is OK. You are that off-base with your assertions, and they begin with your faulty definition of words. You got your definition of patriarchy from the Feminist handbook, not a real Dictionary! Score 15-0

So when Richard begins to conclude with:

That was the point of my article. I showed how everything in the Bible coheres with this sexist patriarchal view.
We can now laugh at this claim. Nonsense. But notice how he now tries to conflate by JOINING these two words. Yeah, and capital punishment is murder. I get it. Score 16-0

Then we have more big talk like this:

It is based on the fundamental theology that views God and Christ as males at the head of a hierarchy of male authority with women at the bottom. I proved it by showing a systematic discrimination against women: they are literally devalued (monetarily) at about 60% the value of men. Women are unclean twice as long when they give birth to a girl as opposed to a boy. I presented a mountain of integrated incontrovertible facts that you have not touched in any of your comments. This is why your attempt to create a disjunction between "sexism" and "patriarchy" is so ridiculous. First, it is simply false, and second, it proves that you don't understand the "simple definition of words" - let alone the article I wrote.

It appears Richard doesn't know what discrimination means. So why is it that only the High Priest could enter the holy of holies??? Why the "discrimination against all the others"? Is it discrimination based on an idea that he was a superior human to all others, who were inferior??? You see, to ask these questions immediately exposes Richard's claims as false, as well as his misuse of words. Score 17-0

Women are not "devalued" at about 60% of men anymore than that other liberal lie that claims the Founders viewed blacks as 3/5th human. Both of these assertions are bald-faced lies. If Richard was as educated as he claims, then SURELY he has read many commentaries about these verses that would then enlighten him and keep him from misrepresenting the Scripture, just like had he studied the Founding Era and the relevant documents, he would know that the liberal lie about the blacks is akin to the feminist defintion of patriarchy! Score 18-0

This exemplifies your error again. I never said that "submission is sexism." You have doubled down on your strawman. Note that I have proven your error by showing that you did not accurately quote my words. Indeed, you did not quote me at all! Therefore, I have PROVEN that you have created a strawman argument. If you want any credibility with our readers, you would do well to admit your error.

Yawn. You did ARGUE AS IF submission is sexism. YOU DID. Go back and read your own postings. And when I called you on it, you have tried to qualify your assertions, while at the same time, denying the qualifications and asserting again that submission is sexism by citing feminists as if they are lexical authorities! Round and round we go. Score 19-0

And Richard concludes with quite a convoluted mess of a paragraph, full of errors, non-sequitors and the like:

Your assertions contain multiple absurdities. I have not written a word about the "sovereignty of God" so you don't have any way to know if I have a "problem" with it or not. I have not denied any "rights" to God. You are confusing your own private and unsupportable beliefs about the Bible with God himself. That is a grave error, no different than a Muslim claiming the Koran is the Word of God. And worse, even if the Bible were the Word of God, you don't know if your interpretation is correct. If you had any self-awareness at all you would know that this is a question of CRITICAL IMPORTANCE because the world is filled with fundamentalists like you who are totally convinced they have "God's own truth" but who come to conclusions that radically contradict yours! You need to learn to THINK CRITICALLY. Case in point: you reject Calvinism whereas many Biblical fundamentalists believe it is the absolute truth of what the Bible teaches.

Say what? LOL!

Lets dissect this alittle, shall we? I didn't say you said a word about the Sovereignty of God. What I did say is you CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT, as your moralizing arguments against the Bible reveal. Do you understand this difference Mr. Linguist? Your attitude, which comes through your posts, and your arguments prove you deny God His sovereign right TO JUDGE ANY AND ALL AS HE WISHES. You want to fight with Him. You...a mere mortal speck in His grand universe! Sit down boy, or you may get flattened! It is hard for you to kick against the pricks. God can remove any nation or race of people from off the face of the earth, and He doesn't have to answer to you. And you are NOTHING to argue against Him. Romans 9 was written for people exactly of your unrighteous and arrogant attitude.

Next you bring up whose interpretation is correct? About what? The issues we are discussing are very clear. God judges. He is righteous. He often used Israel to punish other wicked and impenitent nations, and you slander God. And further, I have not been putting forward my particular doctrinal beliefs as any form of argument or rebuttal against your writings. Nice Red Herring. Here is yet another fallacy you have committed.

As for your remark about Calvinism--all admit the Bible teaches the Sovereignty of God. What is debated is the definition of the term, and the scope of God's rule. If you possessed the linguistic erudition you claim, you wouldn't, nay COULDN'T put forward such foppery as an argument! Score 20-0

As for Thom Stark - thanks, I'll check it out. But remember, it would be the Genetic Fallacy for you to claim his critique is false merely because you don't agree with his religion. The fact remains that Copan's book is an intellectual abomination. It demonstrates how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt both the hearts and the minds of believers.

Oh Whatever! You clearly did not give Copan's careful and well argued book a sympathetic hearing at all. You won't. Therefore your critique of it is worthless. To call it an intellectual abomination indicates to me you probably never read it. You may disagree with it, claim its arguments are weak, but your characterization of it is preposterous and false.

==================

And so ends my rebuttal. I have refuted the basis or your article. I have refuted many of your arguments, and exposed THE WAY you argue as deceptive and fallacious. I could go back and refute your other posts just as easily, because intellectually, I am more than a match for you. You may have initially thought I was some hayseed fundamentalist from the Sticks, but you were wrong. But I will not waste my time. I noticed in other articles and comments you wrote, that whenever someone made a good point against what you wrote, you would say, "Your response actually proves my arguement" or something like that. Its your pat answer you start with, even when it is OBVIOUS such is not the case. Your mind, therefore is not open.

But let me give you another line of evidence. You claimed that God almost never answers prayer, if at all. You claim the promises of God are not true. Well, in the last month, off the top of my head, the more notable answers to prayer are these:

A woman in our church was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, the kind of which was one in a million, which would go down her spine and wreak havoc. This was confimed by many tests. Well we set to fasting and prayer, and two weeks later, prior to scheduled surgery, they found that the tumor was not cancerous, and it wasn't that one in a million that would go down her spine and wreak havoc. Praise the Lord! She is leading worship now in our fellowship and full of life and a renewed excitement to serve Him seeing He has spared her life and reversed the doctor's report.

At another fellowship I visit, I prayed for an 80 year old woman who could not walk, and had not walked in a long time. Well, she walked during that service! And the more she walked, the better she walked and the stronger she got! She cried for joy, as did her son who was amazed at what was happening. We talked later, and she confessed to hurt and perhaps some bitterness towards some that had wounded her. This was key. She forgave them on the spot in prayer, and the Lord gave me a verse for her to confess every day, that would be true for her physical body--The Lord is the strength of my life. Well she told me that just that morning the Lord had given her that verse! I told her to speak it all day every day and her body would continue to recover and get stronger. A week later, her son told me she is doing better and better, as I told her the Lord showed me she would. Praise God.

At this same fellowship I prayed for a women who arrived from India off the mission-field. She had pain in and under her eye, it was swelling and she didn't know what it was. This was after church at a Barbecue. I asked to pray for her and others joined in. She said, in amazement, that the pain stopped immediatley. She was smiling and relieved. Then she asked for more prayer, that she was concerned about the swelling and that something didn't feel right. So we prayed again. I had to leave and take my son to work. Later I found out that she went upstairs, and that she felt something leave that area of her eye, come down her nose, into her throat, and she spit it out--an ugly seed, raisin-looking thing. Swelling gone. She has been fine ever since.

Last week, I prayed for a young man in much wrist and forearm pain who didn't know why this was happening. Within five minutes the pain left after we prayed and I explained some faith principles to him. He too was relieved and surprised at the healing that came so quickly.

I can tell you of many others, including dilocated shoulders going back into place, my daughter coming to me with a dislocated finger, crying in pain, for prayer, and the moment we prayed it popped back into place without me ever touching her hand. We NEVER WENT TO THE DOCTOR as a family. We always went to God. God always came through. The five are grown, happy, healthy and have given us 8 grandchildren so far. PRAISE GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST THE LORD.

duxrow

11-30-2012, 10:29 AM

You gave me "5 good reasons" why the Earth is Flat, and it might've been a hundred, but still won't change my belief that it's round. Maybe in the old days, but not lately. hah.

Unregistered

12-06-2012, 10:39 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

12-06-2012, 11:49 AM

I just want to say that it's funny how the Christians who are arguing against the Bible being sexist are mostly men. If you replaced "men" with "whites" and "women" with "blacks", perhaps you would see how racist the Bible sounds. Why would it be any different for sexism? The fact that according to the Bible, women are not supposed to be the authority figure even if they are well capable, is a clear case of discrimination.

Yes, I am a female and the Bible does strike me as being very sexist. I hope you guys will think it through before making comments like these. Imagine yourself being a woman and being labelled second best no matter what you do. How would you like that?

Also, I never thought that a man would think or care that the Bible is sexist. So thanks for proving me wrong, Richard!

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

It's good to have a female voice join in our conversation. Unfortunately, many Christian women who comment on this issue try to justify the Bible because they begin with the presupposition that it is the "Word of God" and so cannot be sexist since sexism is now generally considered unjust. The irony is that this moral advancement is largely opposed by Bible believers which shows that the Bible actually retards, rather than advances, our moral understanding.

You have my life partner, Rose, to thank for bringing this issue to the front and center of my attention. She and I began to break free from Christian fundamentalism back in 2009 when we started freely asking questions like "Why should we care what others think of us?" and "What do we really believe about the Bible?". I focused mainly on the problems with traditional Christian apologetics that seemed incoherent to me, such as the justification of genocide and the errors and contradictions in the Bible. Rose focused mainly on sexism since she, as a women, suffered from it throughout her life and it deeply disturbed her throughout her three decades as a Christian. She has recorded her transformation on her blog godandbutterfly.net (http://godandbutterfly.net) where she has presented her analysis of the sexism in the Bible in many articles.

Richard Amiel McGough

12-06-2012, 06:26 PM

You have no idea with whom you are dealing. I am a linguaphile (http://www.wordnik.com/words/linguaphile) - I love words and the study words. I use them with extreme precision. It would be a cold day in hell when anyone, let alone a simple-minded Bible believer, could catch me failing to "understand the simple definition of words."

"simple-minded"? Hmmn--fallacy number One--Ad Hominem in BLACK AND WHITE. And this coming from a man that knows NOTHING about me, my education and intellectual attainments in this life. But it does suit your purpose, which is to exalt yourself and denigrate your opponent. That is not an argument, but a fallacy. Score 1-0. And notice the warning--that I have no idea with whom I am dealing. Uh, yes I do--a typical infidel full of himself and his self-professed intellectual superiority. I know with whom I am dealing--an arrogant, proud man who is blinded by his sin. People like you, who have an ax to grind, certainly CANNOT, and WILL NOT understand the meanings of words, and will conflate different words to suit their agenda. You are devoid of the Spirit of God, and therefore self-handicapped. You have tried to make the words patriarchy and sexism SYNONYMS, even though they are not, and none of your undocumented definitions are proof. Apples are not oranges. They may be similar in many ways, but they aren't the same. Your assertion is the Bible is SEXIST--as in IMMORAL. It is NOT. It teaches a LOVING, REPSONSIBLE PATRIARCHY, which by definition IS NOT THE SAME THING. Score 2-0.

Hey there DT,

As I said, I'm very glad you are pursuing this conversation because it helps demonstrate the truth of my article and the utter bankruptcy of arguments against it. Case in point, your assertion that I committed the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is itself fallacious because I did not use any ad hominem in any argument. The comment that you called "ad hominem" was simply a statement of my opinion given in response to your unfounded and false assertion that I had "failed to understand the simple meaning of words." I did not use it in any argument.

It is true that it was "ad hominem" in the sense that it was directed "to the man" (you) but that does not make it a fallacy. There is a double irony here because you followed your accusation with a gushing sewer of ad hominem attacks that would make Satan himself blush. This is a "double irony" because you have convicted yourself of two things: 1) hypocrisy, and 2) grossly violating the teachings of the Bible. More on this below.

You also erred when you said that I know nothing about you. Your profile states (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/member.php?7150-Dispensational-Truth&tab=aboutme#aboutme) that you are a "born again Bible believer" so that part of my statement is accurate. And if your posts indicate anything, it is that you are a very simple-minded fundamentalist. For example, you asserted (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3179-A-Common-Confession-of-Faith-for-Christians-and-Muslims&p=50734#post50734) that "Allah is Lucifer." This indicates a gross ignorance of the Bible since nowhere in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts or in any legitimate translation of them is any fallen angel, let alone Satan, called "Lucifer." That name is nothing but a mistranslation imported from the Latin Vulgate into the King James Version. I explained your error in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3179-A-Common-Confession-of-Faith-for-Christians-and-Muslims&p=50762#post50762) but you have yet to respond. I would be very interested to know if you will admit your error. It is one of the most common errors amongst simple-minded Biblical fundamentalists who are typically quite ignorant of what the Bible actually states. And there is yet another error here. The word "Allah" is used by Arab Christians to refer to the God of Christianity. It is used in Arabic translations of the Bible. But that's another issue we will have to put off for another time. You have provided more than enough fallacious fish to keep this thread frying for quite some time.

You err by not reading my posts carefully. I never said that mere "submission" was synonymous with sexism.
No, you never "said" it, you just ARGUED like they were. Score 3-0

It is good that you admit that your error, but your assertion that I "ARGUED like they were" is nothing but an empty and false assertion. You don't seem to understand how to refute an argument. You must accurately quote my words and then show where I erred. If you fail to accurately represent my argument you will have done nothing but construct a straw man, which ironically is what you accused me of doing. So again, we see you doing the very thing you accused me of just as you did when you accused me of ad hominem. This appears to be a fundamental characteristic of your psyche. It is called hypocrisy. The Bible explicitly states that such behavior is unrighteous. For example:
Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

And again:
Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

Your comments indicate that you despise the teachings of the Bible.

And there is of course great irony in your self-serving running score in which you count all your errors as victories. :lmbo:

That would be absurd, as you rightly noted. Both men and women are instructed to submit to God. That is not sexism. Your assertion is irrational and it misrepresents I have written. It is, therefore, a textbook example of a strawman argument. You have consistently erred in this way. You have made many assertions that have nothing to do with anything I have written. As explained in previous posts, you need to quote the exact words I have written and show where I have erred. It is ironic that you falsely accused me of doing what you consistently do. This irony is amplified by your assertion that I don't understand the "simple definition of words." As it turns out, you are describing yourself, not me. Specifically, you wrote:
I encourage you to go and learn the difference between patriarchy and sexism, for you clearly don't.

Great! Let's look at those definitions. First, we have the etymology of patriarchy (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=patriarch&allowed_in_frame=0) which is from the Greek pater (father) and archein (to rule). Here are a few definitions from various sources:
Uh, no. You would qoute words in Scripture that tell wives to love and submit to their husbands, and then you scream LOOK, LOOK, SEXISM RIGHT THERE!!!! And so, to any rational, honest person, you are equating submission with sexism. FALLACY! You have conflated these words and their meanings, therefore YOU DON'T KNOW THE SIMPLE MEANINGS OF WORDS, or you choose not to, for puposes of deception. And since you are back in sin and accusing God, such diabolical purposes are not unlikely from you. Score 4-0.

Again, you have created a straw man. You did not accurately represent my argument. As I explained in the very quote to which you replied, mere "submission" is not sexist and I never argued as if it were. It is the uniform teaching of the whole Bible that commands women must submit to men, not have authority over men, be silent in church, and so forth that is sexist. You have written nothing that addresses, let alone refutes, the facts I presented in my article. Your response therefore is proven to be a textbook example of a straw man argument.

Your repetition of your empty and erroneous assertion that I "don't know the simple meaning of words" does not make it true. If you want that accusation to stand, you will need to accurately quote something I actually wrote and show me where I erred. You have not done that.

And again you pour out more fleshly (to use the Biblical terminology) ad hominem from your pricked pride when you accuse me of being "back in sin and accusing God" and that I am motivated by "diabolical purposes" when in fact I am motivated by integrity, truth, goodness, and justice.

Patriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.
Patriarchy (http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo101/glossary.html#p) - A condition in which gender relations are characterized by the dominance of men over women, or masculinity over femininity
patriarchal (http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm#p) - A social system of male supremacy. Power and significance resides in the father of a family group or clan, and this is passed down through the male heirs. Found in many primitive tribal cultures and fundamentalist societies (primarily Islamic and Judeo-Christian). The tradition of wives being named after their husbands is a remnant of the patriarchal history all of mankind shares.

Now let's look at a few definitions and descriptions of sexism from various sources:

Sexism (http://www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_s.htm): Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their gender. The most common form of sexism is discrimination against females. However, it occasionally is manifested as preferential treatment for women. A secondary meaning is the belief that one gender - normally female - is inherently inferior to other genders (male and intersexual). See also racism, religism, and homophobia.
Sexism (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=u&authuser=0&q=sexism&tbs=dfn:1&sa=X&ei=GXC2UL7pOO-CyAGs8ICgCQ&ved=0CC0QkQ4&biw=1391&bih=792): Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Sexism (http://books.google.com/books?id=szm-8WgGjWgC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Sexism+and+patriarchy+mutually+reinforce&source=bl&ots=q7DsVgx9QB&sig=TZgHGvdG4FIPzW_tT9OIo_HYhOg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PWu2UKPMLYavygHX7oGoBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sexism%20and%20patriarchy%20mutually%20reinforce&f=false) defines the ideology of male supremacy, of male superiority and of beliefs that support and sustain it. Sexism and patriarchy mutually reinforce one another. ... Sexism stands in the same relation to paternalism as racism does to slavery.

Well I could provide a few more definitions from other sources to round out this slanted selection from you, but even so, you refute yourself. At the end we see that sexism is about oppressing women, and the comment about male superiority is not patriarchy, and the comparison of sexism to paternalism with racism to slavery??? Who wrote that, a feminist? Back to that in a minute, but notice that sexism is about OPPRESSING WOMEN. It is rooted in a sinful prejudice against their gender based on mindsets that are outside the Bible and patriarchy. You people sure TRIED HARD to make sexism and patriarchy the same, but OBVIOUSLY they are not. Score 5-0.

Lets quote something you conveniently FAILED TO QOUTE from Wikipedia. You quoted this:

is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.

But you left out this:

Patriarchy literally means "rule of fathers",[2][3] from the Greek πατριάρχης (patriarkhēs), "father" or "chief of a race, patriarch".[4][5] Historically, the term patriarchy was used to refer to autocratic rule by the male head of a family. However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Patriarchy refers to FATHERS, the heads of families, which are the basis of all societies. This changes things from the slanted definitions you gave, and shows the true idea of patriarchy, as revealed in the Bible, which is not about male rule and oppression over women, but the rule of fathers. It is only natural that as families stuctured in this way would be reflected in the communities, cities and governments that developed. And it is QUITE IRONIC that cultures developed along these lines all over the world. Patriachy seems to be the natural development of things. Hmmn. And how did that happen? Why does this happen? O my opponent won't like the answer, because he wants another one! So he must demonize the Scripture to justify what is obvious in nature and history, and Scripture. Such is the vaunted "intellect" I am supposed to be so in awe of. Sorry, but the score is now 6-0.

I saw that part of the definition in the wiki and chose to leave it out because the patrilineal aspect of patriarchy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument, as is obvious to anyone who read my article. You are simply trying to divert the discussion away from the facts I presented. This is a textbook example of a red herring fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) - the attempt to mislead or distract from the actual issue. I anticipated your move but chose not to waste space preemptively answering it since I really didn't think you would make such an obvious blunder. But now I'm glad I left it out since it gave you the opportunity to demonstrate, yet again, the fundamentally fallacious methods you must use in your attempt to defend the Bible.

Your assertion that the patrilineal aspect of patriarchy "changes things from the slanted definitions you gave, and shows the true idea of patriarchy, as revealed in the Bible, which is not about male rule and oppression over women, but the rule of fathers" is ludicrous beyond description. It changes nothing because it relates to nothing I have written in my article or in my responses to you. And worse, it does not contradict the definitions I gave so your point is pointless.

The issue is not the "definition" of patriarchy. The word "patriarchy" does not even appear in my article at all. And the definition you suggest has nothing to do with anything I've written, so again, you have not addressed, let alone refuted, anything I have written. The issue is the sexism of the Bible established from Genesis to Revelation as I showed in my article. You need to accurately quote something I have written and show where I have erred.

Let go further. What else did you fail to quote from Wikipedia? Well this:

Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women

And the plot thickens. So we see that it all depends on WHO is doing the definitions! What Richard has failed to do is to point this out, which would be deceptive, or he is unaware, and so demonstrates elementary ignorance in general, and specifically with this subject, despite his own hype. We now see its the FEMINISTS WHO REDEFINED PATRIARCHY into something it is not, because that's how they "feel" about it. And Richard thinks this is proof. Score 7-0

Yes indeed, your "plot" thickens (with gross fallacies). Once again you have made false and unfounded assertions. You gave no evidence that "feminists have redefined patriarchy." The fact that feminists see patriarchy as sexist does not mean it is not! It does not imply that they redefined anything. On the contrary, they have simply called it as it is in my estimation. If you want your assertion to stand, you need to show some error in the many linked definitions I gave above. You have not done that, so your assertions are empty and void. You consistently err in this way.

The simple truth is that patriarchy is, by definition, sexist if it discriminates against women for no other reason than that they are women. I have given much evidence that the Bible discriminates against women in many ways. I listed many examples in a previous posts and you have not addressed any of the facts I presented. Here are a few of them again:

Is there a male hierarchy of authority, with women at the bottom? Yes. That's sexism.
Is a woman to submit to her husband and call him lord? Yes. Is a man to submit to his wife and call her lord? No. That's sexism.
Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? No. Are men allowed to have authority over women? Yes. That's sexism.
Is a woman allowed to teach? No. Are men allowed to teach? Yes. That's sexism.
Is a women valued at approximately 60% of men? Yes. That's sexism.
Is a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl rather than a boy? Yes. That's sexism.
Is a male Hebrew slave allowed to go free after six years? Yes. Is a female Hebrew slave? No, she is a slave for life. That's sexism (and slavery too!).
Is a man allowed to divorce his wife in the OT? Yes. Is a women allowed to divorce her husband? No. That's sexism.

That's eight facts that you have totally ignored. And I could go on and on ... indeed, you have not touched any of the facts that show the Bible is sexist from beginning to end.

You cannot defeat truth by mere assertion.

Then Wikipedia cites explanations from "specialists" who try to account for the widespread order of patriarchy throughout history. Some are rather comical. But this quote is telling:

Some sociobiologists, such as Steven Goldberg, argue that social behavior is primarily determined by genetics, and thus that patriarchy arises more as a result of inherent biology than social conditioning. Goldberg also contends that patriarchy is a universal feature of human culture. In 1973, Goldberg wrote, "The ethnographic studies of every society that has ever been observed explicitly state that these feelings were present, there is literally no variation at all

EXACTLY. Its a natural law observed in all places at all times! This is the Divine Order, and it has played out in all societies. It has to be attacked and resisted and slandered to change people from this natual tendency is family and community. That last fact is a three-pointer, and so the Score is now 10-0

First, it is not a "natural law." The book The Chalice and the Blade (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0062502891/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=thebibwhe-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0062502891&adid=0A4BVWJSAE5TSB41SZF2) by Riane Eisler gives a lot of evidence of egalitarian societies that were not sexist, and which were not marked by the primitive violence of brutal tribal war gods like Yahweh.

Second, your point is irrelevant because the fact that something is common does not mean it is right or good. This should have been obvious to you as a Christian since you believe that all men are sinners. How do you know that universal sexism is not a manifestation of universal sin?

Third, your point is a combo straw man + red herring since nothing I wrote in my article has anything to do with whether or not male domination over women has been "observed in all places at all times." You are avoiding the actual facts I presented in my article.

There are your "three points" for you.

So this next comment can be dismissed

Your error is now self-evident. It is true that there is a difference between patriarchy and sexism because sexism could apply to discrimination against either men or women, whereas patriarchy is defined as male supremacy over women. Thus patriarchy is, by definition, sexist, whereas sexism is not necessarily patriarchal. A matriarchal system would be sexist.

No, it cannot be dismissed. Patriarchy is, by definition, sexist if it discriminates against women because they are women. You have not written a single word that refutes this fact and I have shown that the Bible discriminates against women from Genesis to Revelation.

How is it possible that you don't see you have not even addressed, let alone refuted, any of the evidence I presented in my article?

And then we have this gem:

Now you attempted to deflect attention from the fact that the Bible teaches patriarchal sexism by focusing on only one aspect of the definition of sexism, namely, the word "prejudice" when you said the "Bible does not teach prejudice against women." You may be correct that the Bible does not explicitly "teach" that people should hold prejudicial views against woman, but on the other hand there is much to suggests otherwise.

Does anyone see a problem in the above? I do. Its called a CONTRADICTION. He admits what he then turns around and denies! Well, you would make a good Calvinist. Score 11-0.

There is no contradiction. I was trying to correct your apparent attempt to quibble over the word "prejudice" as a means of avoiding the sexism taught in the Bible. It is true that the Bible does not explicitly tell men to be "prejudiced" against women in the sense that they should say things like "women are stupid and worth half a man." I felt a need to address this because you focused on the word "prejudice" and ignored the more fundamental idea of "discrimination" which is how the sexism of the Bible manifests most clearly. The Bible discriminates against women because they are women. That is the definition of sexism that you yourself posted. Now you want to say that I am "contradicting" myself because I am carefully distinguishing words that you deliberately confused? <Sigh>

But Richard will offer one example of his "much to suggest otherwise". And here he engages in MISREPRESENTATION of what Paul said. Lets read Richard, then Paul:

For example, Paul denied women the right to teach and explained it was because Eve had been deceived by the serpent.

Paul said in 1Timothy 2:

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now much can be said about this drift of this passage--that women shouldn't be immodest, loud, and gaudy, but rather modest in clothing and attitude. It is apparent that some women wanted to take the reigns, and these same women were rather immodest in dress and attitude. So Paul heakens back to the beginning, and God's order of things. I explained man had the Firstborn, pre-eminent position. Paul said he didn't allow women TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN. You see, he didn't allow women to take a man's role anymore than he would encourage a man to takes a woman's role. Its not sexism, but proper roles in family and church. And we also see that THE REASON Paul gave was not because Eve was deceived, but that ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST. I already explained this in a previous post, and Richard conveniently ignored it. Ignoring counter-evidence presented is rude and hardly an exalted way for such an intellect to argue. Score 12-0.

Earlier I had said the Bible PLAINLY BLAMES ADAM. It is his sin that brought death and condemnation into the world and that in Adam, all die. Adam knew what he was doing, and the Devil used Eve, by deception, to get him to REBEL. Richard ignores this. Score 13-0.

I have not offered only "one example" - I have offered dozens of examples that span the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and have shown how they mutually confirm each other. My argument is irrefutable, which I presume is the reason you have chosen to avoid most of the facts I have presented.

Your assertion that I misrepresented 1 Timothy 2:14 is absurd because it explicitly blames Eve and says she, not Adam, was "in transgression." If you think that Romans 5 which blames Adam contradicts this verse, then your argument is with the Bible, not me.

Your assertion that the "drift of this passage" is that "women shouldn't be immodest, loud, and gaudy" is false because there is much more than that being taught there. And it is irrelevant to my argument anyway. The fact remains that Paul taught sexism and based it on the foundational sexism found in the story of the fall. It is a consistent teaching throughout the Bible.

Your assertion that "proper roles in family and church" is not "sexism" is false. Sexism is defined as discrimination based on sex, just as racism is discrimination based on race. It was racist for Mormons to prohibit blacks from the priesthood every bit as much as it is sexist to prohibit women from teaching. There is no way out of this. It is based on the basic definition of words. Your only hope to save the Bible is to assert that sexism is not wrong. And since that is what you believe - that men should rule over women - why don't you just come out and say it rather than pretending that you hold to modern secular values that say sexism is wrong?

But Richard offers us this:

This and similar biblical teachings led countless Christians throughout history to write grossly prejudicial calumny against all women as I've shown in the quotes from Church leaders such as Tertullian who said "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway." You see no "prejudice" in that? I could fill a large book with similar quotes of gross prejudice against women based on the teachings of the Bible. By their fruit you will know them. Your point fails.

We are talking about what the Bible teaches, and you are quoting non-Biblical writers. Another fallacy. BLACK AND WHITE. How is this "evidence" incriminating the Bible when your proof is by quoting something OTHER THAN the Bible??? Well, this is a kangaroo court you have the Bible in, and it is guilty from the onset, and will be guilty when you reach your "verdict". Score 14-0

Yes, we are talking about WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. And how can we know if the Bible is a good tree or bad? You know the answer:
Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

There has been some exceedingly bad fruit from the Bible tree. It has been used for thousands of years to justify the oppression of women. The most prominent leaders of the Christian church have said abominable things about women and justified their comments by citing the Bible. They are the men that collected, translated, and handed down the Bible that you claim is the Word of God. They are your spiritual forefathers - the men who passed down the Christian faith. If not for many of them, there never would have been a Protestant Reformation and you'd probably be a Catholic since there wouldn't be any other option.

But even if your assertion were true it would be irrelevant because mere "prejudice" is not the essence of sexism, let alone the sexism I exposed in my article which is inextricably entwined with patriarchy that you admit is in the Bible. The fundamental point of my article was that the sexism was INSTITUTED BY GOD in the Bible.
You are totally wrong, as I have now proven. You claims are akin to saying that since God institued captial punishment, the Bible teaches murder is OK. You are that off-base with your assertions, and they begin with your faulty definition of words. You got your definition of patriarchy from the Feminist handbook, not a real Dictionary! Score 15-0

Your analogy fails because it is based on a false distinction between patriarchy and sexism. Patriarchy of the kind seen in the Bible is, by definition, sexist because it discriminates against women on the basis of the fact that they are women.

To be perfectly clear: You are saying that the discrimination against women under patriarchy is not sexist. But discrimination of women is defined as sexism. Therefore, your argument reduces to the absurdity that "sexism under patriarchy is not sexist." I trust this is sufficiently clear that even you can see your error.

You also err again by asserting that I am using a "definition of patriarchy from the Feminist handbook, not a real Dictionary." I am using the definition that YOU posted!

So when Richard begins to conclude with:

That was the point of my article. I showed how everything in the Bible coheres with this sexist patriarchal view.

We can now laugh at this claim. Nonsense. But notice how he now tries to conflate by JOINING these two words. Yeah, and capital punishment is murder. I get it. Score 16-0

You are repeating the same error over and over and over again. You never presented any evidence that my definition of patriarchy was false or that patriarchy that discriminates against women is not sexist. And how could you, since I have been using the definition of sexism that you yourself posted? :doh:

Then we have more big talk like this:

It is based on the fundamental theology that views God and Christ as males at the head of a hierarchy of male authority with women at the bottom. I proved it by showing a systematic discrimination against women: they are literally devalued (monetarily) at about 60% the value of men. Women are unclean twice as long when they give birth to a girl as opposed to a boy. I presented a mountain of integrated incontrovertible facts that you have not touched in any of your comments. This is why your attempt to create a disjunction between "sexism" and "patriarchy" is so ridiculous. First, it is simply false, and second, it proves that you don't understand the "simple definition of words" - let alone the article I wrote.

It appears Richard doesn't know what discrimination means. So why is it that only the High Priest could enter the holy of holies??? Why the "discrimination against all the others"? Is it discrimination based on an idea that he was a superior human to all others, who were inferior??? You see, to ask these questions immediately exposes Richard's claims as false, as well as his misuse of words. Score 17-0

Excellent! You have now revealed a primary root of your endless errors and why you falsely accused me of failing to "understand the simple definition of words." It is YOU who does not understand the meanings of "discrimination." Google returns (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=discrimination+definition&oq=discrimination+def&gs_l=hp.3.0.0l10.1302.4776.1.5865.20.14.1.4.4.0.16 6.2066.0j14.14.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.acDM038GQa4&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=4025695578239b74&bpcl=39650382&biw=1598&bih=792) the two primary definitions -

The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

The literal meaning of "discrimination" refers merely to the ability to discern between things, to note differences (def #2). That's why Google lists "distinction - discernment - differentiation" as synonyms. This is the kind of "discrimination" any intelligent person would use when deciding which doctor to go to, such as one who graduated from Harvard vs. one with no education at all. There is nothing wrong or immoral about this kind of discrimination. It is definition #2, the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex" that is the kind of discrimination I have exposed in the Bible. The Bible teaches men to discriminate against women in matters of leadership, authority, teaching, and many other things, and it has led to 2000 years of unjust oppression of women. Nothing could be more obvious. And nothing you have written shows any failure on my part to understand this definition. On the contrary, I have consistently used this definition. All your comments have therefore been exposed as utterly and abjectly absurd.

Women are not "devalued" at about 60% of men anymore than that other liberal lie that claims the Founders viewed blacks as 3/5th human. Both of these assertions are bald-faced lies. If Richard was as educated as he claims, then SURELY he has read many commentaries about these verses that would then enlighten him and keep him from misrepresenting the Scripture, just like had he studied the Founding Era and the relevant documents, he would know that the liberal lie about the blacks is akin to the feminist defintion of patriarchy! Score 18-0

Again, you make empty assertions without presenting any evidence at all. I proved the fact that women are literally devalued (in a monetary sense) at about 60% in the article you are supposed to be refuting. Here it is again. The price schedule is as follows (Lev 27:2-7):

Monetary Devaluation of Females compared to Males

Age

Male

Female

% Value

20 - 60 years
50 shekels
30 shekels
60%

5 - 20 years
20 shekels
10 shekels
50%

60 years and above
15 shekels
10 shekels
67%

1 month - 5 years
5 shekels
3 shekels
60%

How is it possible that you could be so deluded and corrupt as to call me a liar when I do nothing but accurately report exactly what the Bible states?

This exemplifies your error again. I never said that "submission is sexism." You have doubled down on your strawman. Note that I have proven your error by showing that you did not accurately quote my words. Indeed, you did not quote me at all! Therefore, I have PROVEN that you have created a strawman argument. If you want any credibility with our readers, you would do well to admit your error.
Yawn. You did ARGUE AS IF submission is sexism. YOU DID. Go back and read your own postings. And when I called you on it, you have tried to qualify your assertions, while at the same time, denying the qualifications and asserting again that submission is sexism by citing feminists as if they are lexical authorities! Round and round we go. Score 19-0

So now you TRIPLE-DOWN on your error! And without even trying to present any evidence supporting your false assertion. Merely saying "go back and read your own postings" does not constitute evidence. For the hundredth time, if you want to assert that I have erred, you need to accurately quote my exact words and show where I erred. When you made this same false assertion earlier I showed your error, and here you are misrepresenting the answer I gave. Nothing could be more obvious, or pathetic.

I did not "qualify my assertions." I clarified your misunderstanding. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore and misrepresent what I said. Here it is again so everyone, including you, can see your error. You falsely asserted that I said "submission was synonymous with sexism." I explained that would be absurd and that I never said any such thing. So you were forced to admit that I "never said it" but went on to falsely assert that I "just ARGUED like they were" synonymous.

On the upside, you have quite effectively shown everyone that my comment, which so pricked your delicate pride, was fully warranted: "It would be a cold day in hell when anyone, let alone a simple-minded Bible believer, could catch me failing to "understand the simple definition of words." Hell is as hot as ever.

:lmbo:

Thanks for tossing your grist in my mill. It will be feeding freethinkers for decades to come. I wouldn't be surprised if your demonstration helps free thousands of people from the shackles of fundamentalist Christianity which so profoundly corrupts both the minds and the morals of believers.

Rose

12-12-2012, 08:07 PM

Sexism is alive and well in the Christian community as is evident in the ruling from the Bristol University's Christian Union where a decision to "ban women speakers unless they are accompanied by their husbands" was handed down.

A university's Christian society has banned women from speaking at events and teaching at meetings, unless they are accompanied by their husband, it has been revealed.
The Bristol University Christian Union (BUCU) had originally decided women would be allowed to teach at meetings after their international secretary resigned in protest, but the group has since changed its policy.
The Huffington Post UK has seen the email sent out by president Matt Oliver to all BUCU members which said: "It is ok for women to teach in any CU setting... However we understand that this is a difficult issue for some and so decided that women would not teach on their own at our weekly CU meetings, as the main speaker on our Bristol CU weekend away, or as our main speaker for mission weeks.
"But a husband and wife can teach together in these."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/04/bristol-university-christian-union-ban-women-speaking-meetings_n_2236586.html

cupbearer13

12-13-2012, 07:27 AM

hummm... Yeshua was not rejected because he said he was the Messiah, the Jewish people have had many messiahs. He was rejected because of the way he interpreted the Scriptures. He told people they had to get eyes to see and ears to hear. He taught in parables because he said the "Mysteries of the Kingdom" are in the parables. (Matt.13:11) When through the Holy Spirit you get the spiritual meaning behind the events in the Scripture you will have EVERY question and discrepancy answered.

In Biblical symbolism, the man represents our Spiritual nature and the woman represents our soulish nature. Our spiritual man has to be the head over our soulish nature. Hair represents our spiritual covering. Our soulish nature or spiritual man, in contrast has to have an open heaven before Yeshua, and is represented by baldness in the word. It is a shame for our carnal nature to be bald - the woman- to be bald because it represents that she is not covering her soulishness with the spiritual. All of us have a soulish nature and a spiritual nature. When we are disconnected from the head (Yeshua), we are exhibiting our soulish nature and are carnal. When we are connected to the head (Yeshua), we become the Bride of Yeshua and birth out his plans on the earth.

People, especially Messianics, often don't like Paul's writings because they think they contradict what they see in other areas of the Word. Paul understood symbolism. He is the one who actually gave the symbolic explanation when he said in Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." That's it period. There is NO difference.

In Gen. 2:17 YHVH tells Adam that the day he eats of the tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil, that he will die. That day, he did die. His spiritual nature died. It has been dead for about 6000 years now. All that was left was his carnal nature, which is represented by Eve. Gen. 3:20 says that Eve was so named because now she was the MOTHER OF ALL LIVING. In other words Adam and Eve when they partook of carnality birthed out the carnal and their spiritual nature died. The man (true spiritual) died, and all that was left was his wife - carnal birthing out carnal, never getting out of our carnal way of thinking, reasoning and understanding. (for those that have eyes to see though, an older brother had to come, Yeshua, to marry the dead brother's wife, so that spiritual children could be raised up and the line of Adam could be restored - once again the opportunity to birth out male, or true spiritual children has been given).

The man in the video doesn't realize that it is really his woman talking. It is obvious that he doesn't have a spiritual covering on his head, and it is shameful because he has no understanding of the nature and character of Yeshua, because all he sees is the carnal or deathly understanding. Paul talks about this as the "dead letter".

In the parables of the Sower - Mark 4:14, Yeshua says the seed represents the Word. The purpose of a seed is to birth out. There is revelation in all the Word that has to be birthed out. Yeshua gave us the Holy Spirit and is again sending his TRUE apostles and prophets to allow us to buy the eyesalve to get eyes to see. We need to have that true seed of the Word implanted in us, that we can become the trees of righteousness and start birthing out his TRUE character on the earth which includes miracles, signs and wonders because he has pure LOVE for us. We now ALL have to opportunity to be ruled by our MALE or spiritual.

Richard, he has given you too much. YHVH was bringing forth his firstfruits in the late 90's till now, you are already falling behind. You have absolutely no idea what he has planned for you. We want you back.... Love and blessing. ~j.