The Bible treats women equal to men

[fluttershies]

Maybe Cran can help you with that, since she has said she has read the original texts. And from her other poss it seems like the original ones were even harsher on women. If God wrote all the OT laws, then he went out of His way to be very specific about what sort of clothes people can wear, but never makes it clear that men and women are equal. If they are equal than there would be no reason for the Priesthood not to have been past down to a daughter.

I do not know why all the OT laws were the way they were, honestly. However for me, since Paul does explicitly say that male and female are one in Christ Jesus, clearly whatever reason was behind it was resolved by Jesus' sacrifice.

[Lemonbalm]

Personally, I think it's telling that out of the two creation myths, evangelical Christians chose the second one.

One must remember when reading Genesis especially the creation account that it was written in Babylonian times. The Babylonians had their own creation account called the Enuma Elish (http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html), if you study this account you can see that Genesis is the exact contradiction of the Babylonian Creation account, it was a way to set the people apart of the Babylonian Empire. Attatched is a comparison chart of the two accounts.

The Genesis story is very much symbolism and poetry and in my opinion Gods way of bringing people out of Empire and intro creation and relationship with him. All that to say one cannot just look at it and say man was this way or that way since it was purely an opposing account to another story to bring people out of slavery in an empire and into nature and basically socialism unity with others and God.

[deelaem]

One must remember when reading Genesis especially the creation account that it was written in Babylonian times. The Babylonians had their own creation account called the Enuma Elish (http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html), if you study this account you can see that Genesis is the exact contradiction of the Babylonian Creation account, it was a way to set the people apart of the Babylonian Empire. Attatched is a comparison chart of the two accounts.

The Genesis story is very much symbolism and poetry and in my opinion Gods way of bringing people out of Empire and intro creation and relationship with him. All that to say one cannot just look at it and say man was this way or that way since it was purely an opposing account to another story to bring people out of slavery in an empire and into nature and basically socialism unity with others and God.

And you interpreting the bible in your own way is different from fundies, how?

[Anise]

If you would like more information of Priscilla and the book of Hebrews please ask. :)

Priscilla is pretty awesome.

[Lemonbalm]

And you interpreting the bible in your own way is different from fundies, how?

Because I am not saying that Genesis should be taken word for word to be the inherent word of God, instead read in the light of the time it was written and WHY it was written. This is also not just my interpretation but one written about by numerous scholars and theologians, if you would like books and writings please send me a message I would love to give you the journals, books, accounts, scripts and other writings. So to be honest this is not my own way of interpreting but one that took research and study by many scholars and theologians that I spent a good 6 years of school studying and will spend another 4 studying. But you are welcome to message me for more information on this topic!

[theologygeek]

The book of Hebrews (New Testament) is actually WRITTEN by a LADY, this book is not even a book it is instead a sermon therefore we can pull from that there in the New Testament times women were welcomed to not only speak but to LEAD churches. If you would like more information of Priscilla and the book of Hebrews please ask. :)

No one knows for sure who wrote the Book of Hebrews. I'd go with Priscilla if I had to guess. On another note, I'll say this till the day I die. Ten bucks says that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in love.

[Lemonbalm]

No one knows for sure who wrote the Book of Hebrews. I'd go with Priscilla if I had to guess. On another note, I'll say this till the day I die. Ten bucks says that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in love.

You're right I should have prefaced that, then again we cannot be 100 percent that any of the books were written by the names on them. But the evidence certainly does point to Priscilla in the case of Hebrews.

And I would have to agree about Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

[deelaem]

Because I am not saying that Genesis should be taken word for word to be the inherent word of God, instead read in the light of the time it was written and WHY it was written. This is also not just my interpretation but one written about by numerous scholars and theologians, if you would like books and writings please send me a message I would love to give you the journals, books, accounts, scripts and other writings. So to be honest this is not my own way of interpreting but one that took research and study by many scholars and theologians that I spent a good 6 years of school studying and will spend another 4 studying. But you are welcome to message me for more information on this topic!

Uh, no thanks. See, I don't believe the bible is the word of God. It's the word of a bunch of political men who decided to stick the concept of a god, with its inherent fear of hell, behind their agenda to scare people into obeying them. And honestly I don't see it being any different today. I also think that a theological scholar in an oxymoron. It's hard for me to understand how one can be a scholar in circular reasoning.

[bananacat]

Actually, the Elohim of Genesis most likely means gods (plural). For a very long time, it was accepted by the "authors" of the Bible that other gods existed, but El/Yahweh was just their special god who was above the rest. So many things make a lot more sense in that context. I don't know the correct term, but they weren't exactly monotheist because they believed that other gods existed; but they only worshiped one god (or that was their goal, but Asherah was a constant thorn in Yahweh's side). He also had a much more personified form in the past and it wasn't until (relatively) recently that he started being viewed as a more abstract entity.

[slickcat79]

Because I am not saying that Genesis should be taken word for word to be the inherent word of God, instead read in the light of the time it was written and WHY it was written.

This just seems...contradictory(?) to me. If you know the bible was written within a certain political context, including the motivations of people with a decided political/cultural/personal agenda, why believe god had anything to do with it at all? Wouldn't Occam's Razor (and general logic) suggest that they were just making it up because they wanted to influence people?

[theologygeek]

The verse in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 play off one another. To understand 1 Timothy the writing in 1 Corinthians must be understood. Right before Paul writes "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." he is talking about major disruptions in a church and is talking about the proper ways that speaking in tongues and prophecy must be handled. What Paul was saying and when the original greek is broken down is that women should not stay silent when their husband gives a word or prophecy. What was happening is a man would say a prophecy and the wife would stand up and object to the husbands word because of something the husband did at home etc. It was causing major disruptions in the church. That is why it says in the next verse:

"If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Paul wanted the women to disagree with their husbands outside of the church instead of quarreling inside. This did NOT prohibit women from speaking about others prophecy's but only that of their husbands, and if you think about it there would be a bias there.

I am a Christian and I strongly believe the Bible stands for the equality of men and women alike and has been distorted by our patriarchal society. The book of Hebrews (New Testament) is actually WRITTEN by a LADY, this book is not even a book it is instead a sermon therefore we can pull from that there in the New Testament times women were welcomed to not only speak but to LEAD churches. If you would like more information of Priscilla and the book of Hebrews please ask. :)

There's really no way to sugar coat Paul. He was sexist.

[Minerva]

What I remember from reading the Gospels is that most men, even the disciples themselves, were rather "disgusted" by Jesus sticking up for women in the mentioned cases and letting them eat at the table, teach women, etc. Whether or not he believed they were equal is up for debate, but what he did and said in regards to women were revolutionary during that time and in that place. I wonder if Jesus had made women disciples, would the men have documented that? I imagine making women as leaders would set them over the edge. Even if he did not make them leaders, based on the time period and era, I doubt many would listen to the women at all. Most people were disgusted enough by his breaks from traditional ways to be more inclusive. It's why he was killed by the age of 30 too. If the guy DID think women should be equal to men in society, most fundies would hate the man's guts were alive in this time and was God in the form of a man, would be funny....would be even more funny if God came in the form of a women like in Dogma. ;)

What's always bugged me about stories about Jesus and His followers is that He didn't really treat both genders equally. The men are mentioned as taking active roles in their adventures together, whereas the women are mentioned offhand as having "ministered" to Him. Of course it's entirely possible that the women's actual implication was filtered out by the writers' biases, but what we end up seeing - for the most part - is them being given entirely different roles by Jesus. And you can talk about "different but equal" all you want, but gender-specific roles played an important part in keeping women down all these years.

[Guest Anonymous]

There's really no way to sugar coat Paul. He was sexist.

That's pretty much the conclusion I came to. Dude obviously did not like women.

[tabitha2]

Everyone back then was sexist by default.

[ladidah]

I'm a Christian, the Bible's an important influence on my faith, and I have a decent amount of theological and biblical knowledge under my belt. However, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it is—whatever one's belief system may be—to remember that the Bible is an anthology, not a treatise of systematic theology. Saying "The Bible does X" or "The Bible doesn't do X" is roughly akin to saying "This 9th-grade literature textbook does/doesn't do X."

The biblical texts speak variously about women in different contexts. Even Paul does that, though I'm happy to agree with those who've said he's not the most woman-friendly writer of the lot. Add to that the layers of conflicting interpretations that have built up in the last 2,000-3,000 years, and you've got yourself a royal mess.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

What's always bugged me about stories about Jesus and His followers is that He didn't really treat both genders equally. The men are mentioned as taking active roles in their adventures together, whereas the women are mentioned offhand as having "ministered" to Him. Of course it's entirely possible that the women's actual implication was filtered out by the writers' biases, but what we end up seeing - for the most part - is them being given entirely different roles by Jesus. And you can talk about "different but equal" all you want, but gender-specific roles played an important part in keeping women down all these years.

And I think He was downright rude in the story of Mary and Martha. Which ever one of them was working her behind off in the kitchen--Jesus didn't even bother to say thank you, he told her to sit down and suck up like the other one.

[ladidah]

On Jesus' interactions with women in the gospels: Meh. What we're reading are texts by human authors (probably mostly males) looking at their society's cultural practices through their own cultural perspectives. We're not reading a divinely dictated, supra-historical text about The Way Things Ought to Be.

Edited to make syntax clearer.

[Cran]

Regarding Jesus' treatment of women and if his disciples where shocked by his "modern ways":

No, I really do not think so. They were shocked when he allowed the women to anoint his feet with oil - but not because she was a woman, you could have given the money to the poor!

The reactions of the disciples to his taking the side of the woman who was to be stoned is not recorded. But once again, he was not taking a stance for women's right, but against hypocrisy (who is without sin shall throw the first stone).

People WERE shocked because he was eating with sinners...

Regarding any mistranslations, fluttershies, I'd be glad to look it up if you could indicate the specific verses you have in mind that could have been mistranslated, in your opinion, because it is an easy way out to say: "Well everything could have been mistranslated!" and not bothering to check it out if it is a major part of your faith. There are bible commentaries in all major languages that refer to the Greek and Hebrew texts and explain the translations.

It is, imho, a great fault to deduct from things that are NOT present in the text automatically that they MUST have been suppressed by people who simply "didn't want it in there". There is simply no prove for most of the assumptions (Jesus was coupled with Mary, he wanted to treat women much better, but the Church did not allow it in the writings later etc.). This is not better than theories who claim aliens built the pyramids, we have about as much prove for that.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Agree with the chorus: The bible does not treat women and men as equals.

The gospels give no direct evidence on Jesus' opinion, we could conclude that the fact he had women among his followers made him "treat women as equals", but that is only speculation. We shouldn't forget that the twelve were exclusively men.

Together with Paul's views on women and the OT, I really struggle to see how anybody could claim the bible treats both genders equally.

Having read many translations as well as the Hebrew and Greek text, I wouldn't agree with the thesis that translations were changed in order to be more anti-women, on the contrary, if anything, the translations are usually more benign than the original.

Btw, only the account of creation in Gen 1 talks about men and women being created as the image of God, Gen 2 contains the slightly more famous version where the human (Adam) is created out of dirt and Eva out of his rib. Note that ADAM is the human....

If you look up the original Hebrew for Gen 1 and Gen 2, you'll notice that the English word "man" is used for two separate Hebrew words: "Adam" and "ish".

According to my interpretation, there really isn't any evidence that "adam", meaning "first human created from the dirt", was exclusively male. Instead, the narrative suggested a sort of hermaphrodite First Being ("G-d created the Adam, male and female he created them"), which was then separated into two separate male and female parts (as the word translated as rib can also mean side).

Even, and especially, if you view the story metaphorically and not literally, it's a very different image than the one of males being the original creation and women merely being helpers.

[debrand]

And I think He was downright rude in the story of Mary and Martha. Which ever one of them was working her behind off in the kitchen--Jesus didn't even bother to say thank you, he told her to sit down and suck up like the other one.

I did too! The story used to anger me because, let's face it, the food has to be cooked. What did Jesus expect Martha to do, sit adoringly by his feet and then magically make food appear? Other people have often told me that the story was encouraging people to take their time and enjoy the moment but that doesn't change the fact that the disciples obviously expected to be fed.

When Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, the woman jumped up and began either cooking for them or serving them in some other way. I can't remember which. He didn't say, "Hey, older lady. You were next to death. Come sit at my feet and rest." He let the older woman wait on him.

[Esther]

Everyone back then was sexist by default.

Exactly! I wonder why this is such a hard concept for some people to accept. The Bible is going to sexist, and racist, and homophobic, because that's how society functioned at the time, and the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is a product of that time. Are there strong women in there? Yes. I'm interested in a number of Biblical women who proved sufficiently important to be remembered by their people, even despite their sex. However, these women were the exception, not the rule, and their achievements don't take place in a sociological void. By and large, the Bible is a document produced by men, for men. Doesn't mean it cannot hold value for us today, because I find it a pretty amazing text myself, but it means it needs to be approached with a healthy dose of historical criticism.

Biblical literalists can't do this, but that's because they're idiots.

[formergothardite]

On Jesus' interactions with women in the gospels: Meh. What we're reading are texts by human authors (probably mostly males) looking at their society's cultural practices through their own cultural perspectives. We're not reading a divinely dictated, supra-historical text about The Way Things Ought to Be.

Edited to make syntax clearer.

The thing is, people are saying that it is a divinely dictatated text straight from God. Fluttershies says that God actually did write all the OT laws. Well if He did, then He didn't treat men and women equally. On her thread in Chatter I brought up how there were different prices set for men and women taking vows all the way down to infanthood and men were worth more than women. She said it was because men ate more. But a newborn male isn't going to eat more than a newborn female. So it can't be that.

Why is it that the very few verses that show God saying women are equal to men are more important than all the numerous verses that show Him not treating men and women equally? Actions speak louder than words and if the Bible is God's divine word, than His actions and laws show that He doesn't view women as equal to men.

Of course, fluttershies also feels like all of God's laws and commandments about slavery were good too. Which, I think, makes her the second person on here to defend slavery.

[Esther]

Why is it that the very few verses that show God saying women are equal to men are more important than all the numerous verses that show Him not treating men and women equally? Actions speak louder than words and if the Bible is God's divine word, than His actions and laws show that He doesn't view women as equal to men.

Of course, fluttershies also feels like all of God's laws and commandments about slavery were good too. Which, I think, makes her the second person on here to defend slavery.

Exactly - it's the same thing with people trying to point out how the Bible doesn't REALLY condemn homosexuality. Sorry, guys, but it really kind of does, and it's not because Jesus didn't personally say that he thought the gays were ebil that he didn't think that way. I mean, maybe he was exceptionally enlightened (or homosexual himself) - but chances are that as a religious Jew in that society, at that time, he didn't like gay people any better than did the next guy. No real reason to believe otherwise.

ETA: And obviously, that shouldn't matter AT ALL in deciding government policy toward LGBT people. If you let your laws be steered by 2000-years old documents... you really need to not be in government at all.

[dawbs]

I did too! The story used to anger me because, let's face it, the food has to be cooked. What did Jesus expect Martha to do, sit adoringly by his feet and then magically make food appear? Other people have often told me that the story was encouraging people to take their time and enjoy the moment but that doesn't change the fact that the disciples obviously expected to be fed.

When Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, the woman jumped up and began either cooking for them or serving them in some other way. I can't remember which. He didn't say, "Hey, older lady. You were next to death. Come sit at my feet and rest." He let the older woman wait on him.

I think I'm the only person who always LIKED that story. (To be fair, the bias would be that I'm a flakey person w/ADHD who has a sister who is/was the fundie-version of perfection)

I didn't see it as "enjoy the moment" as much as it was "hey, don't dis on someone ELSE for enjoying the moment"

Jesus doesn't go and hunt down Martha and say "you, stop playing the role of servant" (which would have been awesome) but when Martha says "hey, make Mary be a slave too!" he says "hey, she doesn't have to do the house/serving work--she's chosen something else; good for her. (I read an implied--'you could too' in there which I'm 'meh' about)"

[2xx1xy1JD]

Why is there the automatic assumption that the Bible, if written by humans, was exclusively written by men?

In fact, there is a theory that one of the sources mentioned in the documentary hypothesis, the "J" source, is actually a woman. http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/01/s ... oom-j.html

As well, the idea that the authors of the Bible didn't believe in its truth but simply made it up doesn't account for the mindset of those times. 3,000 years ago, you just didn't have rational atheism. People knew that there could be rain at the right time and they would have abundant harvests, or their could be a drought and they would starve. There could be violent storms or earthquakes. There was an intense drive to appease these forces - it was just a matter of figuring out how to do so, whose god was stronger and what this god or gods were all about. So, if you did X and then Y happened, you assumed that X caused Y. You see this with the Prophets. Isaiah preached that the northern Kingdom would be destroyed and the southern Kingdom safe, and we have evidence from external sources that this is what happened. So, people concluded that he was a prophet. The fact that Jerusalem seemed to have been saved in a miraculous fashion (there is an Egyptian document that a plague caused by mice killed Assyrian soldiers laying siege to the city) would have convinced people that it must have been a divine revelation. Same thing with Jeremiah. Preaching doom and gloom, he was not a popular guy. When the worst of his ranting came true, though, people concluded that he had been correct.