Women are inferior NOT

This is a wonderful illustration of how women are belittled in the Christian doctrine.

Trapped

One would think most femmes would rather reject this kind of treatment, and religion altogether, right?  But that’s not what really happens.

Sad, really.

Apparently religious women are more afraid of their loving god’s punishment than they are of the way religion values them – a little more worthy than cattle, or  “…you are worth more than many sparrows.” … unless you’re a woman.

I think these women are drawn to religion because it gives them a false sense of safety in a society that is predatory toward women.

The deplorable thing is they overlook the fact that it is a self-fulfilling cycle of self-righteous misogyny, for what they probably perceive as immediate benefits.

“All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.” Ecclesiasticus 25:19

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” 1 Cor. 11:7

“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner” 1 Peter 3:7

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” 1 Cor. 14:34

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.” 1 Tim. 2:12-14

“But women will be saved through childbearing.” 1 Tim. 2:15

“If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off.” 1 Cor. 11:6

Oh and Leviticus is my absolute my favorite.

I’m just picking and choosing? Sorry, my bad.

Image credit

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Women are inferior NOT

  1. Can women be a pain? Yes Lol. Are women inferior? NO! Some of the best supervisors i have had were women. My best friends and without privileges have been women. A world without women; just macho bull….; where is the hemlock.

  2. When you pull verses out of context and manipulate and twist them to fit your agenda, that is not Biblical doctrine. None of this accurate.

    • I’m sorry, what context would make that writing appropriate? Perhaps you can educate us on how they don’t really mean what they say in fifteen separate verses.

      • Can you sight the verses? There are several Hebrew words for women, the thing about Hebrew is that one word has multiple meanings. The cited Ecc passage could also mean harlot, young women, virgin, prostitute, temptress etc. There is no English equivalent. 
        I Cor 11: Head coverings are a sign of humility a cultural mark, I’ll come back to culture.
        I Peter 3:7 the physically weaker, the culture did not support women holding entire crop farms but rather vineyards as women had more success with them.
        I Cor. 14 and I Tim 2 Paul has prefaced with I teach this not the Lord, this teaching is also based on cultural relevance (women teachers would be associated by non-Christians as temple type prostitutes thus degrading the image of the church to non believers)
        I Tim2: women will be saved through child bearing and men through the labor of their hands.
        I Cor 11: Uncovered head is about how women save their love for their husbands, any women who shows her hair(her honor) to other men would be a prostitute, oh and a women with a shaved head in those days was a prostitute, Paul was showing that there was no difference. Again cultural.
        So was Leviticus, however Lev was written in Hebrew so you need to learn the language to understand the individual word context to see what kind of women is being referred to. The malcontent you see is on par with how the OT talked about non-Hebrews. 
        Is that appalling? I would say yes, but they wouldn’t Again this is contextual and historical stuff.
        I don’t like feeling like the burden of your understanding of the scriptures is on me totally. If you want to have an accurate and complete picture of this subject it would be best to do some reading, I would start with this book: “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals” by Webb, it’ll get you started. 
        http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619

      • How can you write with a straight face that culture gives the passage a different meaning while ignoring the fact that culture was defined by religion? Judea was a theocratic society, operated by the Sadducees and Pharisees. Culture and religion were inseparable.

        Your statement about Ecclesiastes is not correct, but even if it were, it would not do you justice. The hebrew word for woman is Isha. The hebrew word for prostitute is Zonah. But even if it were so, which is to say there is no distinction in Hebrew, the Jewish religious language, between WOMAN and harlot, young women, virgin, prostitute, temptress, etc., what does that say about how the culture, controlled by the religion, views women? I’d say that it’s an incredibly demeaning viewpoint.

        Cor 11: If a woman couldn’t leave her head uncovered or be called a whore (as you say), that comes from the religion, AND it’s oppressive. 

        Cor 11 and Tim 2: If it’s added to the cannon and regarded as scripture, it doesn’t matter where it’s “coming from,” It’s being followed as religious doctrine, and was practiced and is still used as justification for the oppression of women in fundamentalist Christian society today, as well as the prejudice against female preachers in the Catholic Church today, when temple prostitutes no longer exist. I’m glad Paul says it’s coming from him and not the Lord. He got that part right. if only the rest of the Bible writers could be so honest.

        Tim 2: women will be saved through childbearing. What if a woman doesn’t want kids? Too bad, she goes to Hell? Nice. Sounds like the same old oppression.

        As for your request for me to cite the verses, the fifteen I mentioned are cited for you in the above picture and post. I’d be glad to read your explanation for all of them, but if each one will be as shallow as appealing to culture, don’t waste your time. What I find most telling is that you agree that it is appalling, but apologize for it nonetheless. If you agree it is appalling, and Monica’s entire post is about how the treatment of women in religious writing is appalling, why are you calling it inaccurate? The culture was appalling and we can judge it as such, just as our descendants will be able to judge us in the future. A wiser argument might be to show how religion doesn’t oppress women anymore, but since women are STILL denied equality based on those “culturally contextual” writings, I think you would find that as equally hard pressed to defend.

      • ryan you couldn’t be more wrong, and you think your ‘education’ makes you higher in intelligence, which in fact is quite the opposite in your case. david would be smart to walk away from this and not waste any more of his time.

      • Pablo, your ad hominem only fuels my argument. If you have nothing of value to contribute, sit in your corner and read. You might learn something.

      • It is demeaning. I don’t like it. The normal Jewish man’s prayer in the morning was something along the lines of “Thank you God that I am not a gentile, woman or dog.” It is appalling. Did the sexist agendaists in power seek to keep it that way? Absolutely. Does scripture support women being less human than man? I don’t think so. God defined women with honor, called them a “helper” which is unique in that is the same word scripture used to call God. Woman is man’s helper in the same way that God was Israel’s helper. 
        As far as the hebrew goes the purest word for woman is Adama(its like in Spanish how you change the o to a to make it feminine, you just add the a instead). Which comes from Adam meaning both man and earth. Isha is an extension of Ish, but since the original manuscript didn’t have vowels it would read Ish regardless. Almah is yet another word for woman, as well as betula. All without origianl vowel points. Without those points and without context the word for half also means, face, sunset, sun rise, or as a description of split hoove animals etc. Trying to say that there is direct word correlation from Hebrew to English would be inaccurate, without the  Rabbonic commentaries we would be out of luck. The Mishnah is where we learn a lot about the language. 

        I was simply saying that the scripture verses were being used inaccurately. I am NOT saying that women should be treated in such a way. I do judge the culture, just as I expect to be judged. But we must note that the Bible is only supposed to apply to those who call it their holy scripture. Christians who project the Bible on non believers are heretics. I Cor 5. 
        Do I believe that women have more rights than what is plainly laid out in the cultural context of scripture? Yes, I do. I believe woman have the same rights to leadership as men, actually I think they should have more since women are the foundation on which the modern church exists. It is saddening when that doesn’t happen and it’s worse when people think that the scripture applies to them in ways it does not. I never defended oppressing women. I tried to show that women in scripture were being interpreted wrongly to prove a point that they are oppressed. I think things need to change from how they are. 
        Most Christians take the surface level reading of those passages and apply it, they shouldn’t! I am sick of seeing women oppressed and shamed that I am supposed to call people who do that my Brothers and Sisters in Christ. 

        Again I recommended Webb’s book. You’ll find that I am not making this up but rather stand behind a small, but educated amount of theologians. I wouldn’t make a stand without well researched, historical background to my claims(although most Christians do just that.) 

        I already know you won’t see my side completely, but I want you to know that I give you credit in having your opinions, fundamentalist christians have it all wrong. I agree, I simple don’t like seeing scripture twisted, by both christians and non christians.

      • Well, I think you have a unique interpretation of the Bible. Would most people adhere to your vision there would be a lot less misery in the world today, but unfortunately it is not the case. I can respect you as a person who thinks that women should be treated as equals, and at least you have the good sense to acknowledge you are in the extreme minority in your viewpoint in relation to Christian culture. We come to an agreement there.

        However, a major problem with the Bible is that there is someone else who can give just a historically sound argument, with a completely different interpretation and believes in it just as ardently as you do. The words mean what they say, and although I am glad that you have found an interpretation compatible with 21st century living, I do not think that it is fair of you to say that this blog post is inaccurate for pointing out how the vast majority of Christianity views and practices the scripture cited above. I am glad we have found some common ground, and such writing (as I say) or misinterpretation (as you say) should be fought together rather than separate.

      • Agreed, once I find a person who can stand on historical ground against the works of Webb, Bock those before them and even scriptures that would appear to in the face of what these false teachers teach. (“Nor slave nor Greek, man nor woman”) I would consider the chance that their interpretation could be correct. 
        Until then, I will continue to argue with would be believers regarding this subject. They can believe that as ardently as they want,  but I choose to believe the words say what they said in their original writing(ancient Hebrew and Greek[some Aramaic]) which requires research and understanding of those languages. Because there are times like this when the English interp does not give the historically correct impression. 
        I agree, the post is accurate to the majority of American Christians. However, it is my understanding that this is largely unique to the protestant churches of the states and is not regarded in the same manner across the world, in churches where people actually go through the trouble of reading the Bible.

      • i wish that it could be limited to just American Christians, but that is sadly not the case. 

        Oppression and inferior treatment of women continues in the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches and Pentecostal Churches, whose influence holds the majority of sway in the Christian religion, especially in Africa and South Korea. It is just not true to say that treatment of women as inferior is unique to the United States. Plainly false. You are in the world minority, David, as is Mr. Webb, by an incredible percentage, unfortunately.

        Now, all of this majority, minority argument is truly irrelevant, because the truth of the matter is, if the scripture truly came from God, there would be no need to translate it from Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew in the first place, or apologize for mistranslations, or make excuses for how the majority behaves based on those translations. The entire fable is outdated and not compatible with 21st century living, as you have so adequately pointed out for me in your own denunciation of the culture that was defined by the religion we are speaking about when it was written.

      • The real problem here, David -although Ryan’s reply to you pretty much sums it all up- is that the amount of excuses and time that even the least fundamentalist Christians spend finding better meanings for the original writings and new interpretations of the ancient books and its several authors and languages, allegedly inspired by god, won’t ever be enough to justify the incommensurable intolerance and bigotry toward women in the -again allegedly- inerrant word of the god of the bible.

        Why would an all-knowing god let his word be twisted, and why did he not do anything to avoid this, given god’s alleged foreknowledge of all things?

        Before you waggle the “free will” flag, many questions have arisen on that topic. The main one regards to the connection between god’s will and man’s will. What is the order in which these two stand to each other? Which one comes first? There is no dispute as to the existence of these two separate wills in the bible, which are in continual exercise. Nothing in the universe takes place without god having willed it, right? That’s the whole premise of the sparrow verse I cited in my post.

        That I don’t believe any of these writings are inspired by any deity goes without saying, however we cite the bible in order to make these fallacies apparent.

        What I find ironic is that you accused me of picking and choosing, (when I said so myself in my post), but you fail to recognize that most Christians do the exact same thing, only difference is they choose the nicer parts.

  3. So my take is argue foolishly over someone opinionated opinion and stay in
    a kinderguarded philosophical debate over nonsense? The rhetorical overlooked
    issues of biblical imprisonment is that no one ever phathoms it is entirely
    created to chain your existence to a blueprint of intended misguided fallacies.
    The world will go on as prescribed until skullwashing is no longer an immediate
    effectiveness to sentence human thinking to only what is written in bloody
    ink and to empty societal mental cages to once be free from this maniacal
    bs.When shall the day or sun come when you care not of people
    or their names to waste time on what they did or foretold in their lifetimes as
    if any of this will give your life purpose other than being gossipy like a little
    faint child.Its no wonder this made up manufactured god ideology statement
    “we are his children” has been so worldly acceptable and successful but yet
    you debate nonsensensically without one birth purposefullness and things
    still remain divided all over.Try spend your lives away from these books and
    you will recover all of yourselves and actually find a better journey within and
    certainly without this hogwash and worship of names,paul peter moses jesus
    who were nothing more than made up garbage to facilitate the unending
    cycles of nongrowth of god’s intellectual farms and his human property!
    People its time to wake up and get out those doctrines that shackles you
    no matter how good you memorize what is said in those books you will
    still be ignorant.WORSHIP is the grande enemy of us all time to tread a new
    path brothers and sisters,never recite any of this mess again or say any of
    these doctrinal names unless your preference is to be a child your entirely
    short wasted lives.Hope at least one person gets what I am saying.

  4. The illustration in question is a sad mischaracterization / interpretation of biblical teaching.

    (Eph 5:25-30 NASB)  {25} Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; {26} that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, {27} that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. {28} So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; {29} for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, {30} because we are members of His body.

    (Col 3:19 NASB)  Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them.

    (1 Pet 3:7 NASB)  You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life

    It would seem that Dr. collins quotes in regards Dawkins may apply here:

     Dawkins (Monica?) is a master of setting up a straw man, and then dismantling it with great relish. In fact, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such repeated mischaracterizations of faith betray a vitriolic personal agenda, rather than a reliance on the rational arguments that Dawkins so cherishes in the scientific realm. (p.164)
    and,
    The caricature of faith that Dawkins ( Monica?) presents is easy for him to attack, but it is not the real thing. (p.164)
     
     
     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s