Is God...sexist?

[T. E. Smith]

[My goal is not to go on a Dawkins-style "GOD IS A MORAL MONSTER!" rant, but to rationally discuss various difficult Bible verses.]

Question: is God sexist? The Bible seems to me to indicate, yes he is.

---

Four replies I anticipate:

• These verses are out of context.
  • They very well may be, but please explain specifically how they are OOC and how the context changes the meaning.
• The verses applied only to Israel.
  • Some of them do. But then my question is, why was it fine for Israel to practice it?
• You are a nonbeliever, so of course you would argue this.
  • This is an ad hominem fallacy and thus is irrelevant to the argument.
• You've just been reading atheist propaganda.
  • No, I have not, I almost never read those books. Of the ones I have, I in fact view the "Aha!" style of Dawkins or Coyne with contempt.

In the Tanakh:

• In Genesis 19:8, Lot infamously says, "Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
  • Now we'd happily view this as a horrid statement condemned by the Bible, except that in 2 Peter we read of "righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked, for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard" (2 Peter 2:7-8). No mention anywhere of the wrongness of his actions.
• In Genesis 25:1-6, Abraham, a godly man, takes many wives and it is never condemned.
• In Exodus 20:17 we see, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
  • Here we find a man's property in order, most valuable to least valuable: First, the house is the most valuable. Then the wife, then the male servant, then female, then ox and then donkey. The wife is viewed as property, and female servants under male.
• In Exodus 21:7-11 we read, "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."
  • Five crucial things to get from this:
    • 1) It's OK to sell daughters as slaves.
    • 2) Female slaves can be used for sex.
    • 3) Females were not freed like males were.
    • 4) Polygamy permitted.
    • 5) Unwanted female slaves can be freed without payment.
• Exodus 22:18 executes female witches but does not mention males.
• At the beginning of Exodus 12: "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days."
  • Two problematic things:
    • 1) Childbirth is unclean.
    • 2) Worse yet, bearing a female child makes a woman doubly unclean.
• Leviticus 21:9 says to burn daughters: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire."
• In Leviticus 21:13-14, a priest has to marry a virgin, not a "used" woman. "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people."
• In Numbers 5:11ff, fidelity trial by ordeal, for women only.
• Numbers 31:17-18: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."
• Deuteronomy 20:14: "The women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves."
• In Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
  • Rape victim must marry rapist, and the father of the rape victim is compensated - of course the rape victim gets nothing.
• Proverbs 31:3: "Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings."
• Isaiah 3:16ff: "Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes... the LORD will lay bare their secret parts."
• Isaiah 19:16: "In that day the Egyptians will be like women, and tremble with fear before the hand that the LORD of hosts shakes over them." Women = tremble with fear.
• Imagine Ezekiel 23 as a movie. It would probably be banned. E.g.: "[She] lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts."
• Hosea 13:16: God sends judgment of "pregnant women ripped open."

In the NT:

• Matthew 25 tells a sexist tale of ten virgins.
• John 2:4, Jesus says rudely to his mother, "Woman, what does this have to do with me?" Tell that to your mother next time she asks for help.
• 1 Cor. 11:3: "The head of woman is man." Verses 7-10: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
• Infamous 1 Corinthians 14:34: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
• Eph. 5:24: "Wives should submit in everything to their husbands."
• 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."
  • Women must be quiet, and salvation comes through childbearing.
• 1 Peter 3:5-6: "For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening."
  • Sarah called Abraham "Lord" or "master" (as in slave master, same word in Greek), and women are apparently to do likewise.
• Revelation 14:4 describes the redeemed as follows: "It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins."

 

[christian1724]

Just a clarification question. Is it OK to assume that you really seek to know "Does God Discriminate?" and if so "Is it Evil for God to Discriminate?" (based on gender, race, sexual orientation, kind...whatever)

 

[T. E. Smith]

Just a clarification question. Is it OK to assume that you really seek to know "Does God Discriminate?" and if so "Is it Evil for God to Discriminate?" (based on gender, race, sexual orientation...whatever)

Truly yes, since I hear from Acts, "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality."

 

[Northman]

To answer the topic heading, according to those seeking to write definitions, God was/is indeed a sexist.

You are a nonbeliever, so of course you would argue this.

• This is an ad hominem fallacy and thus is irrelevant to the argument.

I think here you might be trying to apply something where it doesn't belong. By this I simply mean that you, being an ex, and even if you weren't an ex and you were just a regular non-believer, means you don't get say in shaping or helping shape the ethos or general belief system of anyone who is. We are warned to not give non-believers the place of council. This stance can be called any name, even that of a fallacy, and you won't see much movement. In other words, it can super hard to try and provoke someone out of obeying Jesus and trying to get them to listen to you instead. Adjusting thought processes to judge God is still judging God, as you did in your snippet of John 2:4.

 

[stovebolts]

Wow, that’s a pretty big list. I’m sorry for smirking at a few of your conclusions while others conclusions may take a little unwinding.

Don’t mind the smirking, I’ve smirked at sages a time or too as well.

Let’s have some fun with this one first. Please understand my time is limited, but I will try to follow up. Just don’t snowball me where I can’t find the time to reply. I’d rather have a quality conversation on a small topic than a shallow conversation on a wide set of topics.

In Genesis 19:8, Lot infamously says, "Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

• Now we'd happily view this as a horrid statement condemned by the Bible, except that in 2 Peter we read of "righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked, for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard" (2 Peter 2:7-8). No mention anywhere of the wrongness of his actions.

We need to look at the culture and weigh what they thought was important. Hospitality is huge within the Hebraic faith and what I’ve read is that if you invite somebody into your home, you are responsible for their safety.

In verse 2, Lot calls them lords, but not before bowing at their feet and calling himself a servant. Knowing the danger at night in Sodom, Lot invites them into his home and taking the role of a servant, offers to have their feet washed. His reasoning seems to be that they would be safer to wander Sodom in the daylight.

They decline, and at this point we can see where Peter writes as Lot being a righteous man.

A “lord” is superior to a “servant”. The ethical conduct was one could decline an offer of an inferior person, but not from a superior person. Upon Lots urging, they accept and by accepting, they place Lot as superior over themselves. In other words, Lots righteousness is elevated above theirs. It is from this perspective that Peter writes of Lots rightousness.

Now to the matter of Lot offering his daughters. Many Rabbis believe that this shows the evil in Lots heart that he would support prostitution in any form, let alone offer his daughters as prostitutes. In short, Lot is not commended for this this action.

We then see the “men” under Lots roof take charge and blind the men outside thus sparing Lot and his family (including his two daughters).

It is at this point that Lot realizes these men are actually messengers of God.

Lot was elevated as superior (righteous) by the Angels of the Lord by accepting Lots offer and in turn, they rescued him not only from the men of Sodom, but also from the sin he was about to commit by prostituting his daughters.

2 Peter 2:9 NET
If so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the Godly from their trials, and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the Day of judgment.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I think here you might be trying to apply something where it doesn't belong. By this I simply mean that you, being an ex, and even if you weren't an ex and you were just a regular non-believer, means you don't get say in shaping or helping shape the ethos or general belief system of anyone who is. We are warned to not give non-believers the place of council. This stance can be called any name, even that of a fallacy, and you won't see much movement. In other words, it can super hard to try and provoke someone out of obeying Jesus and trying to get them to listen to you instead. Adjusting thought processes to judge God is still judging God, as you did in your snippet of John 2:4.

Indeed, but I hear often the statement that I can't make these types of judgments because I'm a non-believer. So that is an ad hominem fallacy. Now, by me saying "That's an ad hominem fallacy", I don't expect to get people to listen to me. People will still judge me for my religious preferences.

I can live with that. But it is still illogical.

I’m sorry for smirking at a few of your conclusions while others conclusions may take a little unwinding.

I've smirked at a few conclusions from believers myself, so no apologies. I won't badger any replies.

We need to look at the culture and weigh what they thought was important. Hospitality is huge within the Hebraic faith and what I’ve read is that if you invite somebody into your home, you are responsible for their safety.

In verse 2, Lot calls them lords, but not before bowing at their feet and calling himself a servant. Knowing the danger at night in Sodom, Lot invites them into his home and taking the role of a servant, offers to have their feet washed. His reasoning seems to be that they would be safer to wander Sodom in the daylight.

They decline, and at this point we can see where Peter writes as Lot being a righteous man.

A “lord” is superior to a “servant”. The ethical conduct was one could decline an offer of an inferior person, but not from a superior person. Upon Lots urging, they accept and by accepting, they place Lot as superior over themselves. In other words, Lots righteousness is elevated above theirs. It is from this perspective that Peter writes of Lots rightousness.

Now to the matter of Lot offering his daughters. Many Rabbis believe that this shows the evil in Lots heart that he would support prostitution in any form, let alone offer his daughters as prostitutes. In short, Lot is not commended for this this action.

We then see the “men” under Lots roof take charge and blind the men outside thus sparing Lot and his family (including his two daughters).

It is at this point that Lot realizes these men are actually messengers of God.

Lot was elevated as superior (righteous) by the Angels of the Lord by accepting Lots offer and in turn, they rescued him not only from the men of Sodom, but also from the sin he was about to commit by prostituting his daughters.

(Well, we don't really know when he discovered they were angels. It may have been at the beginning in v. 1. On the other hand, it may be when you said. It is of little consequence though.)

Good points about hospitality, I agree.

So I'm not saying that Peter would have looked at Lot's offering of his daughters and said, "Yep, that was a good thing to do." (Maybe he would have, but I doubt it.) What I am saying is that Peter appears to have ignored that statement from Lot, just kind of brushed over it. I would think that a more serious condemnation would have been in order, at least somewhere in the Bible, but I don't have it.

But yes the Rabbis were opposed to Lot's actions and that was good. I don't think the author(s) of Genesis were clearly in support of Lot's decision (it is vaguely possible that they viewed it as in keeping with principles of hospitality, but I doubt that), just that there is never a condemnation in the Bible, and never anything for Lot in the Bible except praise. That's all that bothers me.

EDIT: To clarify a little more. Rather than approving outright of Lot's decision, the authors appear to ignore it. But ignoring the wicked actions of a man against his daughters, is sexist, I think.

 

[stovebolts]

just that there is never a condemnation in the Bible, and never anything for Lot in the Bible except praise. That's all that bothers me.

I understand, and we need to understand what Peter is saying.

We all should understand that prostitution is not a good thing, and Moses writes about prostitution. When Lot offers his daughters, he offers them as prostitutes. Anyone reading this should be filled with horror or disgust. We instinctively understand that Lots heart was evil, and there isn’t a way to justify it.

This is where the Hebraic cultural lenses needs to come in. Lots evil heart has already been exposed, but prior to that, the goodness in his heart toward total strangers is also revealed. Lot is so concerned with the welfare of these strangers that he elevated them as lords, bowed at their feet and offered to wash their feet. In this case, he takes the role as servant.

What lord would stay at a servants home for a lord is superior than a servant. As such, they decline.

When lot persists, it shows his concern for them. And this is a righteous act. Lot understands that by inviting them in, he is putting himself and family at risk, and that risk is soon realized. When they accept Lots offer, culturally they are putting Lot as superior to themselves and they become the inferior persons.

How much better would this world be if we lowered ourselves to serve others? In this regard, Lot was righteous.

Where Lot failed, was he posed an idea that was not Godly when he offered his daughters as prostitutes. This should be a given.

Peter is not highlighting Lots sins, what Peter is doing is showing us how God is not only able to save us from our circumstance, but often from ourselves. Emphasis on verse 9a

2 Peter 2:9 NET
If so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the Godly from their trials,

Lots daughters were never given as prostitutes.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I understand, and we need to understand what Peter is saying.

We all should understand that prostitution is not a good thing, and Moses writes about prostitution. When Lot offers his daughters, he offers them as prostitutes. Anyone reading this should be filled with horror or disgust. We instinctively understand that Lots heart was evil, and there isn’t a way to justify it.

This is where the Hebraic cultural lenses needs to come in. Lots evil heart has already been exposed, but prior to that, the goodness in his heart toward total strangers is also revealed. Lot is so concerned with the welfare of these strangers that he elevated them as lords, bowed at their feet and offered to wash their feet. In this case, he takes the role as servant.

What lord would stay at a servants home for a lord is superior than a servant. As such, they decline.

When lot persists, it shows his concern for them. And this is a righteous act. Lot understands that by inviting them in, he is putting himself and family at risk, and that risk is soon realized. When they accept Lots offer, culturally they are putting Lot as superior to themselves and they become the inferior persons.

How much better would this world be if we lowered ourselves to serve others? In this regard, Lot was righteous.

Where Lot failed, was he posed an idea that was not Godly when he offered his daughters as prostitutes. This should be a given.

Peter is not highlighting Lots sins, what Peter is doing is showing us how God is not only able to save us from our circumstance, but often from ourselves. Emphasis on verse 9a

2 Peter 2:9 NET
If so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the Godly from their trials,

Thank you for the extended reply and the thought involved.

 

[stovebolts]

Thank you for the extended reply and the thought involved.

I’m multi tasking lol! I hope I articulated it somewhat cohesively lol.
Let me know your thoughts and if need be, I can dig out my resources.

 

[stovebolts]

In Genesis 25:1-6, Abraham, a godly man, takes many wives and it is never condemned.

This occurred after Sahah dies.
Genesis 23:1

 

[T. E. Smith]

This occurred after Sahah dies.

True, but we are told he had concubines in 25:6. A concubine appears to be a wife whose children have no inheritance.

 

[Free]

[My goal is not to go on a Dawkins-style "GOD IS A MORAL MONSTER!" rant, but to rationally discuss various difficult Bible verses.]

Question: is God sexist? The Bible seems to me to indicate, yes he is.

---

Four replies I anticipate:

• These verses are out of context.
  • They very well may be, but please explain specifically how they are OOC and how the context changes the meaning.
• The verses applied only to Israel.
  • Some of them do. But then my question is, why was it fine for Israel to practice it?
• You are a nonbeliever, so of course you would argue this.
  • This is an ad hominem fallacy and thus is irrelevant to the argument.
• You've just been reading atheist propaganda.
  • No, I have not, I almost never read those books. Of the ones I have, I in fact view the "Aha!" style of Dawkins or Coyne with contempt.

In the Tanakh:

• In Genesis 19:8, Lot infamously says, "Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
  • Now we'd happily view this as a horrid statement condemned by the Bible, except that in 2 Peter we read of "righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked, for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard" (2 Peter 2:7-8). No mention anywhere of the wrongness of his actions.
• In Genesis 25:1-6, Abraham, a godly man, takes many wives and it is never condemned.
• In Exodus 20:17 we see, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
  • Here we find a man's property in order, most valuable to least valuable: First, the house is the most valuable. Then the wife, then the male servant, then female, then ox and then donkey. The wife is viewed as property, and female servants under male.
• In Exodus 21:7-11 we read, "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."
  • Five crucial things to get from this:
    • 1) It's OK to sell daughters as slaves.
    • 2) Female slaves can be used for sex.
    • 3) Females were not freed like males were.
    • 4) Polygamy permitted.
    • 5) Unwanted female slaves can be freed without payment.
• Exodus 22:18 executes female witches but does not mention males.
• At the beginning of Exodus 12: "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days."
  • Two problematic things:
    • 1) Childbirth is unclean.
    • 2) Worse yet, bearing a female child makes a woman doubly unclean.
• Leviticus 21:9 says to burn daughters: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire."
• In Leviticus 21:13-14, a priest has to marry a virgin, not a "used" woman. "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people."
• In Numbers 5:11ff, fidelity trial by ordeal, for women only.
• Numbers 31:17-18: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."
• Deuteronomy 20:14: "The women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves."
• In Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
  • Rape victim must marry rapist, and the father of the rape victim is compensated - of course the rape victim gets nothing.
• Proverbs 31:3: "Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings."
• Isaiah 3:16ff: "Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes... the LORD will lay bare their secret parts."
• Isaiah 19:16: "In that day the Egyptians will be like women, and tremble with fear before the hand that the LORD of hosts shakes over them." Women = tremble with fear.
• Imagine Ezekiel 23 as a movie. It would probably be banned. E.g.: "[She] lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts."
• Hosea 13:16: God sends judgment of "pregnant women ripped open."

I highly recommend that you read Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, to start. It is not nearly as simple as it looks.

 

[christian1724]

Sorry, I have more clarification questions, at least one anyway.

Just a clarification question. Is it OK to assume that you really seek to know "Does God Discriminate?" and if so "Is it Evil for God to Discriminate?" (based on gender, race, sexual orientation, kind...whatever)

Truly yes, since I hear from Acts, "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality."

Would you agree that; Given God's existence, that by definition (so to speak), He would be discriminatory?

In that case, the question would come down to "Is it evil for God to discriminate?".

 

[T. E. Smith]

Would you agree that; Given God's existence, that by definition (so to speak), He would be discriminatory?

In that case, the question would come down to "Is it evil for God to discriminate?".

Based on the texts above I think he would be discriminatory. However, I may be misreading.

That second question is an interesting one too.

 

[stovebolts]

In Exodus 20:17 we see, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

• Here we find a man's property in order, most valuable to least valuable: First, the house is the most valuable. Then the wife,

This is very interesting. Again, we need to look at the Hebraic culture.
Within their culture, a male acquires a house before a wife so he has a place to bring his wife back to. Forward to the Church which is Christs Bride, Jesus even says the he goes to prepare a place for us. Generally speaking, in Jewish culture it was normal for the man to add onto his Fathers house.

Now, there are always exceptions and some men want to marry before they have a house. In Deuteronomy 5:16-21 we see a repeat of the last five commandments. Ironically, verse 21 reads,

You must not desire another man’s wife, Nor should you crave his house, his field, his male and female servants, his socks, his donkey, or anything else he owns.

Again, the order starts with the wife, not the home.

Why?

Because some men wish to marry before they acquire a home.

 

[stovebolts]

True, but we are told he had concubines in 25:6. A concubine appears to be a wife whose children have no inheritance.

This is what my Bible reads,
Genesis 25:6 NET
But while he was still alive, Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent him off to the east, away from his son Isaac.

This passage is referring to Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid.

However, in 1Chronicles 1:32 it reads,

The sons to whom Katurah, Abrahams concubine, gave birth:

We see here that Katurah is referred to as a concubine while in Genesis 25:1 Katurah is called Abrahams wife.

The reason for both is to show Isaacs place in accordance with Gods promise.

“For in Issac shall seed be called to thee”. Genesis 21:12 , Romans 9:7

As you said earlier, a concubine receives no inheritance because the promise comes through Isaac.

Now, there is speculation that Katurah may have indeed been Hagar which may be why Katurah is called Abrahams Wife in one portion of scripture and a concubine in another because Hagar was a concubine.

 

[D-D-W]

This is what my Bible reads,
Genesis 25:6 NET
But while he was still alive, Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent him off to the east, away from his son Isaac.

This passage is referring to Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid.

While Hagar was probably included, both "concubines' and "sons" are plural in the Hebrew. So it was referring to more - perhaps many more - than just Hagar.

 

[D-D-W]

I really dislike questions of this type as they tend to put us in the position of having to judge God. I find that arrogant and backwards.

In this question about God being "sexist," that is an entirely HUMAN (fallen human) perspective. We did not create male and female; HE did. And HE only knows why, and how our idea of "egalitarianism" may conflict with His design parameters.

 

[christian1724]

I really dislike questions of this type as they tend to put us in the position of having to judge God. I find that arrogant and backwards.

It might be the ultimate arrogance.(Isaiah 29) Placing judgement on God may well be what earned satan one of the three? predestined places in hell (whatever hell is).

But the fact is, the question was already there before it was asked openly. These type of questions can be instilled at a very young age (as I'm sure you've already noticed). And the answers are being provided by people who are empty. Simply look to the average university graduate and confirm that letting the enemy tend the field is a guarantee of a failed harvest.

In this question about God being "sexist," that is an entirely HUMAN (fallen human) perspective. We did not create male and female; HE did. And HE only knows why, and how our idea of "egalitarianism" may conflict with His design parameters.

The question of the OP is skirting an underlying question. Some might believe that the real question is "Is God capable of evil?" or "How can it be that God exists with (perceived) evil in the world?". I think we waste our time and theirs if we simply address their itemized list of perceived grievances against God without first establishing that reliability exists. Otherwise, once that list has been exhausted then a new list will be presented; "Is God racist?" and on and on.

No. I think the real questions are: "Is God reliable?" and to answer that, you have to understand "What is Truth?" and the fact that "Truth Exists".

Once that is established, then faith is enabled (Action based upon a belief). And with Faith comes...

 

[T. E. Smith]

I highly recommend that you read Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, to start. It is not nearly as simple as it looks.

A good and wise book (the Bible?), written by a good and wise author (God?), would not require such lengthy explanations and excuses as provided in books like Copan's.

It should be clear, unambiguous.