Is the Bible sexist ?

Xelasnave.1947 said:
Exactly so why in this modern era should we look to folk who did not have the benefit of an education such as most enjoy today.
Why present it as in any way relevant to a modern audience.
I do not see the point.
If I want to learn about science would I be better served reading the largest papers rather than a book written even two hundred years ago.
If I have medical issues would I be wise to follow treatments used a hundred years ago.
You are correct the old testament was written thousands of years ago for an audience back then.
You get a pass mark for observation.

And you do not think there is anything in a modern library that may be more suitable?
The bible persists because it is tied to religion which is devoid of ability to change even when proved incorrect or proved inappropriate...slaves anyone?

I do not see that at all.

I really have no idea what point you make.
I have no idea how the bible addresses what it is you think it addresses.
I have raised kids.
So well adjusted they stood out as mature and knowledgeable when still kids.
I did not talk baby talk and explained how things worked such that they developed minds able to reason.
I took time with them and did not turn them over to brain washing dished out by some fool seeking wisdom in texts written thousands of years ago.

Absolutely disagree.
My Son at 14 started his own hot dog stand and purchased his first real estate before he was 21.
Can't help but think that because his brain was not preoccupied with the purpose of life or confused by guilt he just got on with living.

I really do not understand the point.
To me you seem to be reading between the lines which is dangerous because there is nothing between the lines.
Thank you for posting.
Alex
Click to expand...
I have no issue with the works as a text. It's very interesting, as we have a line of development we can see in a section of history for a group that's still around in the present day.
Due to their nature we don't have a lot of writings from tribal peoples from ages past.
But as far as morality...
Look, in Exodus Moses takes God to task over his behavior. God and Moses makes it clear that the Plagues of Egypt happened so that God could show how powerful he is. He could have done it differently, but he purposefully hardens the heart of the Pharoah show he could demonstrate how powerful he is.
And how does he do this?
He kills kids.
The first born of everyour family, that doesn't have the lambs blood on the door.
The children of families that had very little idea, or no control, over the treatment of the Hebrew in the tale.
God kills children just to make a point.
He didn't have to, that's true even in the story.
But he does, again just to show how powerful he is.

And when his chosen people enter a land he gave them, well there were already people there. Instead of telling them to move, or moving them himself, his chosen people are told to slaughter them. And then divide up the spoils between them. And those spoils include children, little girls. Children. Who are to be concubines for the conquerors.

I don't like using the word evil. I really dont. It's got to much baggage.
But the killing of children, the taking of children as slaves.
That is something most of us can agree is evil.
I don't see a moral lesson in that, not a good one anyway.
The only redeeming element to the story is, the Exodus account is mythical.
But being a tribute culture we can know that woman being part of the loot, probably happened.
That Jesus said some nice stuff doesn't expunge this. It's still part of the text. And Jesus himself states that not one jot or tittle of it was changed.
He meets with Moses, even.

As an account of human development, I have no issue with any part of the works that make up the Christian Bible.
As a work that claims to be a source of morality... it only works if you ignore most of it that runs against modern sensibilities.
 
RuneSpider said:
I have no issue with the works as a text. It's very interesting, as we have a line of development we can see in a section of history for a group that's still around in the present day.
Click to expand...
Yes and I understand how important it must be to those who are most priveledged to have a history of sorts of their ancestors.
The main reason I am not overly harse in my critism is my recognition of how my calls to throw it out must cause descendants to take an opposite position.
My family has Jews and aboriginals as well as Irish, Welsh Scotish and Polish, within so I have an appreciation of the ancestor side of things.
Saying the great serpent who carved out the river is a myth is not well received well either.
RuneSpider said:
He didn't have to, that's true even in the story.
But he does, again just to show how powerful he is.
Click to expand...
I was an unbeaten fighter but I did not pick a fight to beat someone up and prove to the audience that I can beat the crap out of someone.
I am a mere human and clearly able to indulge a humbleness that God could not.
I mean if I did pick a fight I would pick the badest looking man to beat rather than picking on some kid who had come to the pub to have his first drink.
When ever I bested someone I did not keep beating them to show how tuff I was.
I do not get it.
I can not see any lesson or viture in the story.
RuneSpider said:
And when his chosen people enter a land he gave them, well there were already people there. Instead of telling them to move, or moving them himself, his chosen people are told to slaughter them. And then divide up the spoils between them. And those spoils include children, little girls. Children. Who are to be concubines for the conquerors.
Click to expand...
There is nothing I can say.
RuneSpider said:
The only redeeming element to the story is, the Exodus account is mythical.
Click to expand...
Why indulge such a myth.
RuneSpider said:
That Jesus said some nice stuff doesn't expunge this. It's still part of the text.
Click to expand...
Given the recording we do not know exactly what Jesus said.
I have picked out good bits but I am not sure exactly whose teachings I follow...and we can never know.
But somehow fairness, love, not being greedy sits well with me.
So some of my moral code comes from a source that I am uncertain about.
But that probably is the point I make.
I don't need to hold up the new testament and say it is written therefore I am right.
Alex
 
billvon said:
Really? Do you ever do work on weekends? Do you have any statues or figures in your house? (dolls or animal toys for kids, little symbols of fish on a plate, anything like that.)

I can easily show you where the Bible says such things. Here's a good one from Numbers ,in which the Lord tells Moses to kill everyone in a city, then kill all the male children, and all the women except for the virgins - they were to be left for the officers to rape as a reward.
===========================
And they warred against the Midianites, just as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed all the males. They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of those who were killed—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. Balaam the son of Beor they also killed with the sword.

. . . Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
==========================

Yep. He also said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."

Which one is the "real" Jesus? You can choose either one.
Click to expand...
Would be kind post a proper citation in the Old Testament I like to go over in different languages . I find some time the translation from one language to other language the words ior meaning there are not in agreement.


"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."
We do not know in what context it was written.
Example why blame Jesus if religion becomes institutionalised the system who is in power will outlaw other ideas , take The church persecuted Martin Luther in the 1500 for disagreeing with the institution.

Family disagreements because believe : My grandparent once they found out my parent changed from Orthodox to protestant , they asked my parents with 2 kids live the house in winter . So what does Jesus have to do with misunderstanding of humanity ? Jesus was teaching love to each other . Apparently my grandparents did not understand " LOVE THAY FELLOW MAN " What Jesus was predicting that such things will take place .
 
Jesus doesn't get a pass. A being who is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient would have the foresight and capability to forestall that.
He also bid his disciples to buy a sword, and abandon their families.
It should be noted too that Jesus specifically said he did not come to preach to Gentiles.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Yes and I understand how important it must be to those who are most priveledged to have a history of sorts of their ancestors.
The main reason I am not overly harse in my critism is my recognition of how my calls to throw it out must cause descendants to take an opposite position.
My family has Jews and aboriginals as well as Irish, Welsh Scotish and Polish, within so I have an appreciation of the ancestor side of things.
Saying the great serpent who carved out the river is a myth is not well received well either.

I was an unbeaten fighter but I did not pick a fight to beat someone up and prove to the audience that I can beat the crap out of someone.
I am a mere human and clearly able to indulge a humbleness that God could not.
I mean if I did pick a fight I would pick the badest looking man to beat rather than picking on some kid who had come to the pub to have his first drink.
When ever I bested someone I did not keep beating them to show how tuff I was.
I do not get it.
I can not see any lesson or viture in the story.

There is nothing I can say.

Why indulge such a myth.

Given the recording we do not know exactly what Jesus said.
I have picked out good bits but I am not sure exactly whose teachings I follow...and we can never know.
But somehow fairness, love, not being greedy sits well with me.
So some of my moral code comes from a source that I am uncertain about.
But that probably is the point I make.
I don't need to hold up the new testament and say it is written therefore I am right.
Alex
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I take it as it is. A cultural account. But not an holy work.
Met plenty of Christians who would say God would never decree x thing. But a light reading of the text not only finds x thing, but details how to do it properly.
 
timojin said:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."
We do not know in what context it was written.
Click to expand...
I don't know the context but I can not think of any context that could make these words consistent with the teachings.
But I do know that what ever Jesus said was not recorded until some fifty years after he said it.
So one could doubt if he said anything like this at all.

He may have said

Do you not think that I came to bring peace on earth. Did I not come to bring peace and hide the sword.

For I have not come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; I would not have ‘a man’s enemies to be those of his own household."

Which version do you think fits the image of Jesus.
Does no one understand the words in the New Testament may not be recalled exactly as Jesus spoke them fifty to one hundred years earlier.
I ask you can you recall the speech your head master gave when he wished you well for the future when you left school.
Do you think you could now write down that speech and get it right.
Such a flaw which no one will acknowledge.
And yet all run around ...Jesus said this Jesus said that...nonsence.
No one knows and happy to ignore that simple undeniable fact.
Would you bet your life on it?
Would you bet the life of your wife, husband,son, daughter, father mother on me being wrong on this.
Your answer will say everything just ask if my proposition could be wrong just as you go to sleep.
Alex
 
Probably no more sexist than we are today :oops:...we just use different terminology, now.
 
I didn't realize that I was supposed to respond to comments, but having been chastised for my sin and having had lots of interesting mixed replies, I feel ready to respond now.
As one might easily expect, some die-hards have found it necessary to somehow defend the Bible for the obvious sexism contained therein. You knew all along that this was unacceptable by today's standards, but think that as God is very old, much older than His Book and stuck in His mysterious ways, then it is reasonable for Him to be sexist. We are told by the theologians that God inspired all of the writings in the Bible and guided the compilers, editors and translators to ensure it is without error and is complete, but (for some odd reason), the Holy Writ requires very careful interpretation in order to ensure that God and his assistants are revealed in the best possible light and that only qualified theologians, such as Catholic priests or ordained pastors (to name a small number of examples) are capable of the job. This means that us mere mortals should shut up and listen to their holy guidance. Five hundred years ago, such grand authorities thought it was OK to burn anyone that deviated ever so slightly from the "true religion", but as a result of the amazing progress in science, education and general well being, such "authorities" no longer have this power. It seems obvious to me, that IF God inspired the Bible writers, then He would have told them that viruses and bacteria cause diseases, not evil spirits. He would have told them that it is immoral to own a human being as a slave and that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. He should have told them NOT to sell your daughter and NOT to kill the Midianites. He should have told them that all religions are equally correct and that the best advice to guide everyone through life is as follows...

First, when you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts.

Second, love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected you have to learn to tolerate each other, you have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that you don’t like. You can only live together in that way and if you are to live together and not die together you must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.

Third, there are lots of other organisms in the Universe that need My attention, so please forgive Me for being so busy that I cannot answer all your comments.

Finally, Good Luck, Godless and ignore Me.
 
On reflection, I think "He" is a mistake. Also "She". Both terms imply reference to a person with gender.

I think we can all agree that God has no gender.

That means we are left with "it".
The use of "it" removes any gender connotations.
However there is resistance to calling God "it", because it seems to eliminate the notion that God is a person (or 3).

But if you accept that God is actually a real thing with measurable properties (like the sun) or is perhaps a family of three persons, then there really isn't any problem calling it "it".
We certainly haven't any problem referring to the Royal Family as"it", so why not God ?
 
One could easily get the impression that Jesus was misogynistic and wanted to break up families, if we believe his chroniclers...

"If any woman come to me, and hate not her father, and mother, and husband, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and her own life also, she cannot be my disciple".
 
Ted Grant II said:
One could easily get the impression that Jesus was misogynistic and wanted to break up families, if we believe his chroniclers...

"If any woman come to me, and hate not her father, and mother, and husband, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and her own life also, she cannot be my disciple".
Click to expand...

To silly to make a serious response to

except to respond to and

claim it is to silly

to respond to in a serious way

:)
 
Ted Grant II said:
On reflection, I think "He" is a mistake. Also "She". Both terms imply reference to a person with gender.

I think we can all agree that God has no gender.

That means we are left with "it".
The use of "it" removes any gender connotations.
However there is resistance to calling God "it", because it seems to eliminate the notion that God is a person (or 3).

But if you accept that God is actually a real thing with measurable properties (like the sun) or is perhaps a family of three persons, then there really isn't any problem calling it "it".
We certainly haven't any problem referring to the Royal Family as"it", so why not God ?
Click to expand...

God is considered a 'he' because that appeals to males. The bible is a mixture of unholy contradictions and that is specifically for the purpose to appropriate the good with the bad to keep power and control. to wit, claim it all belongs together. it doesn't though. you have to discern the good from the bad/evil in any work/book. otherwise, you give power over to anyone who will lure you with the good as pretense and use the bad against you.
 
timojin said:
The bible is a guide to live in peace with your God and with your fellow men. ( Love thy God with all your heart and love your fellow man as yourself ) the rest are fillers
Now, if you are interested in ancient literature that is fine . So let it be as it is specially the New Testament.
Click to expand...

How can people love a god who will not ( cannot?) come out of hiding & show itself?
<>
 
Ted Grant II said:
In Luke chapter 14 verse 26 Jesus says "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, then he cannot be my disciple". If he was unbiased, he would have said, "If any person comes to me and hate not their family and themselves also, then they cannot be my disciple".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't follow a guy who only wanted the company of other guys.
Did God made men stronger and bigger than women so they could be boss or did evolution play that tune ?
 
An hypothetical postulate had it that hunter gatherers had a female deity and matriarchal society.
Currently, post agriculture, we seem to have a male deity and a patriarchal society.
So, yes the bible is sexist------------that is the current nature of things---today.

This will, most likely,change again and again.
 
sculptor said:
An hypothetical postulate had it that hunter gatherers had a female deity and matriarchal society.
Currently, post agriculture, we seem to have a male deity and a patriarchal society.
So, yes the bible is sexist------------that is the current nature of things---today.

This will, most likely,change again and again.
Click to expand...
Either form of society could be sexist or not. Apparently, matriarchal societies were not generally sexist towards men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top