Is God...sexist?

[D-D-W]

No God isn't sexist it is humanity that exploits those who are weaker, who lack power and yes that is mainly men.
God provided rules to protect the weak, not just women, but the poor, the foriegner etc et.
If God was sexist then there would be different conditionsfor salvation for men and for women.

Question for you. Where does the idea of equality come from?

Is this unfair? Is it unequal?

Romans 9:21
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

 

[Who Me]

Is this unfair? Is it unequal?

Romans 9:21
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Where does your idea of fairness come from?


To the Romans there were Roman cityzens, colonial cityzens, non-cityzens/barbarians and slaves.
There was no fairness in how they treated different groups.

 

[D-D-W]

Where does your idea of fairness come from?

Certainly not the bible as there is no mention of being "fair" in there.

To the Romans there were Roman cityzens, colonial cityzens, non-cityzens/barbarians and slaves.
There was no fairness in how they treated different groups.

And that was fine. They had the right to run their country as they saw fit.

IMO there should be rights and privileges here in the US to the citizens that non-citizens do not have. (beyond just voting)

 

[Who Me]

Certainly not the bible as there is no mention of being "fair" in there.

No the word 'fair ' is not mentioned, but if you know the bible you would know the principals that are in it about fair treatment.
You see there is nothing in philosophy or in any other religeon other than in the JudeoChristian belief that teaches equality under the law.
God actually tells the jews that they are to treat All people alike, that they are not to have one rule for the rich and another for the poor and another for foriegners etc, this culminates in salvation in that everyone is treater alike we are all guilty sinner deserving condemnation but for Gods offer of forgiveness.

 

[BPPLEE]

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

(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.

Lot is considered righteous by his faith. His actions are anything but righteous as he later gets drunk and has sex with his daughters. I find it hard to call him righteous too but all of us are considered righteous under the blood of Christ.

 

[gordon777]

Thank God I am here to offer you guys a little revelation.

Sodom and Gomorrah are made to be ensamples to everybody who lives ungodly after those examples of destruction.

Lot, is given a righteous soul by God, and it is why Lot and Abraham split from being together, ( Genesis 13:8-11.) so Lot went into the land of Sodom. Lot saw and heard all the wicked the men of Sodom did constantly, as we see God heard them too and went to investigate, ( Genesis 18:20-21.)

God knows what He us doing, as it is later revealed, God compares Israel to Sodom, and Israel is even more wicked, as God has done every single thing for His purposes( which people question without understanding any part of anything.) Ezekiel 16:49-55. The purpose is, that the Gentiles ( Sodom and Samaria) even though wicked, are forgiven every evil man ever did, by the blood of the covenant of Christ, as Israel too, justified her sisters Sodom and Samaria by even more wickedness. ( all of this is the wisdom and understanding of the Lord God, and the people who have discussed here do not seem to know any details of it, even though all is written in the one book.)



2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:





More context/revelation for you guys who love discussions on forums.

Jacob served fourteen years for the two daughters of Laban. Then they are Jacobs and he had the tribes of Israel from them.

Lot, not witholding what is most dear to him, ( and his daughters are his, the same as Rachel and Leah were Laban's.) offers to the wicked men of Sodom, as Lot had bowed to the two men who came to Sodom to visit Lot, and called them lords, and bowed to them.( Lot knowing they were the angels of the Lord.)

Lot then honourng the Lord God, does as Abraham was required, to offer up his only son for sacrifice( God is then known to be equal for male and females for sacrifice, as He later sacrifices His only begotten Son Jesus Christ for us all to live, as Abraham had received Isaac as a figure of Jesus Christ, in exchange for the sacrifice Abraham was willing to make of his only son.) Genesis 22;2.

Lot does the only thing he could in that situation, attempt to honour the Lord God with all he has, trusting in God that he raises the dead, and that He will deliver the godly and reserve the unjust to the day of judgement to be punished with everlasting punishment and everlasting destruction.






Genesis 31:41 Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle: and thou hast changed my wages ten times.

Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.


Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

 

[gordon777]

What all of this means is, that Lot trusting in the Lord God, does have a righteous soul, and all who cant trust as Lot did( in the Lord God) have no righteous soul at all.

 

[Sophielee]

Hi T.E.
Kind of hear you. Although I am a Christian myself, I do have a lot of questions concerning gender things, and how God sees us, and how it relates to the diverse cultures we live in, and society (people amongst people) in general.

Recently I read some chapters in Ecclesiastes. One in particular hit me:
Eccl. 7,:
(the King James Version really is the best translation from the original languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin) **
verse 28 "...Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found....
"

More and more I come to conclusion for myself, how our lives depend not on physical appearance or what we think and feel about ourselves, or what others think about us.

We are here today, and gone tomorrow.

If we truly want to know G'd, and follow Him, I have to admit, I am flesh with all it's weird foggy thoughts and ideas and questions. He gives wisdom I would not have on my own. I can hold on to my own fleshly foggy being, or render my life to Him, and let the Holy Spirit lead me. This choice it seems, I have to make, every single day.

The order in the bible: man, woman etc

I think, and feel, that the man is stronger spiritually. Men can lead my thoughts, if I let them. I can only delute, seduce, suggest, encourage (to name a few in random order).

**that in itself opens up a whole new discussion: in asmuch are we 'coloured' by different bible translations and understandings - teachings from other human beings? Or do we seek G'd the Holy One, the Source of Light and Life itself?

Hebrew is engrained in the Culture. So really, in order to start understanding G'd the holy One, one should start exploring the roots.

Blessingsx

 

[for_his_glory]

No God isn't sexist it is humanity that exploits those who are weaker, who lack power and yes that is mainly men.
God provided rules to protect the weak, not just women, but the poor, the foriegner etc et.
If God was sexist then there would be different conditionsfor salvation for men and for women.

Question for you. Where does the idea of equality come from?

just thought I would let you know that T.E. Smith is no longer here.

 

[Episcopius]

Then why not make this silly thread disappear?

 

[gordon777]

Recently I read some chapters in Ecclesiastes. One in particular hit me:
Eccl. 7,:
(the King James Version really is the best translation from the original languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin) **
verse 28 "...Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found....
"

Maybe you should know why Solomon in Ecclesiastes said, one man among a thousand he found, but a woman among all those ( 1000) he had not found?

700 wives and 300 concubines=1000, and the wives of king Solomon turned away us heart from the Lord.)

Solomon knew what God had let him experience, and wrote about it in a hidden way in Ecclesiastes, and then this testifies why Christ mentions the wisdom of Solomon and how a greater than Solomon is here.





1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.


Matthew 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

 

[Moses_young]

[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.

---

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.

Those who claim God is sexist tend to cherry-pick from the bible. The above is the perfect example. You seem to complain that the passage indicates "childbirth is unclean", and "worse yet, bearing a female child makes a woman doubly unclean." Yet you totally ignore that part where the male child needs to be circumcised.

"So what?" you may ask. "It's for his health or the health of his future wife, or it's no big deal, etc." Fine. But the female is unclean for a number of days after childbirth, and double for a female child. If the male child doesn't get circumcised, he gets cut off from his people (see Genesis 17) - basically he dies, or becomes an alien. I'd much sooner be unclean for a few extra days of childbirth than risk getting exiled from my people forever if my parents - for whatever reason - decide not to circumcise me. There is no risk of that if one is a female.

"Well, females can't be circumcised", you may point out. "They don't have the anatomy - they are born without any excess skin to snip."

And that exactly is the point. Males and females are different, and have different roles to play. To treat them differently is not sexist, because they are different! To try and treat them the same although they are different - that is evil.

 

[Randy]

Those who claim God is sexist tend to cherry-pick from the bible. The above is the perfect example. You seem to complain that the passage indicates "childbirth is unclean", and "worse yet, bearing a female child makes a woman doubly unclean." Yet you totally ignore that part where the male child needs to be circumcised.

"So what?" you may ask. "It's for his health or the health of his future wife, or it's no big deal, etc." Fine. But the female is unclean for a number of days after childbirth, and double for a female child. If the male child doesn't get circumcised, he gets cut off from his people (see Genesis 17) - basically he dies, or becomes an alien. I'd much sooner be unclean for a few extra days of childbirth than risk getting exiled from my people forever if my parents - for whatever reason - decide not to circumcise me. There is no risk of that if one is a female.

"Well, females can't be circumcised", you may point out. "They don't have the anatomy - they are born without any excess skin to snip."

And that exactly is the point. Males and females are different, and have different roles to play. To treat them differently is not sexist, because they are different! To try and treat them the same although they are different - that is evil.

T.E. Smith is a atheist and was always trying to create drama with such type posts. "He" wanted to be identified as "she". All I know is that he is no longer a member of these forums.

 

[emtor]

---

• 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."

First off,-try to think as someone from the Middle East, then as a middle eastern person from the time of Genesis.
You need to understand how these people viewed hospitality. For you and me in our time and day a cup of coffee may serve well as being a hospitable person but for Lot and the likes of him hospitality was a very different matter.
Offering his daughters to protect his guests was just the proper thing to do.
What does Lot say? " . . . for they have come under the shelter of my roof".
In those days, failing to give shelter to a guest was about the most horrible thing you could do.
The Arabs of today still take hospitality very seriously as described in an Arab tale about a bedouin who is visited by his enemy. Once his enemy entered his tent he was a guest, so the bedouin slaughtered his most valuable stallion and prepared a meal for him. They ate, and when the guest left the tent he once again became his enemy so the bedouin of course killed him.

To you and me, sending our daughters off to a gang rape is a big no-no.
To Lot, not doing anything to protect his guests was a big no-no.
Think like Lot and that passage will make sense.

 

[Anaphora]

No. God is not sexist. Judges 4:4. And Deborah, she judged Israel at that time. 4:5. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount ephraim: and the children of Israel came to her for judgement. Deborah was a prophetess. She was judge of Israel like samuel prophet, and gideon. She was shepherd and leader of Israel. God uses whom ever He sees fit. Romans chapter 9:19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? FOR who hath resisted His will?. 9:20. Nay, but O, man, who art thou that replies against God? Shall the thing formed to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?. ANTAPOKRINOMAI in Greek means = reply against. Who is the clay to question the potter?? Who would dare question Gods authority??. God uses whom ever he will to carry out His will. Pride is dangerous. Satan stopped loving God, and pride set in. Lucifer thinks he's above God and everyone else. When you start loving your self, and set God on the side. That person is headed for destruction. I'm not judging anyone. Deborah had humility, and loved God. She was a successful. God demands discipline and obedience. I told the truth about this and documentation.

 

[DJT_47]

Don't be confused or influenced by modern day nonsensical thinking. God is God. He sets the rules and standards. We are simply things of his creation. Understand your place and accept it as such. God will not be mocked.

 

[psalm51]

Honestly, as a woman, I really didn't think too much of it.

Edit: As far as the topic of discrimination is concerned. It's a patriarchal system which I'm completely okay with. I love my Father and will listen to Him.

 

[jasonc]

Mods can we delete this thread since the poster is banned?
Free

 

[gordon777]

What was made for man, sin, and death, and a wife to go into that with.

The woman was made for man, but not like a gift for good service, but just like the breath of life is given, then taken away again.

God does not take notice of silly questions and discussions of persons, but He gives is HIs Spirit to know the difference between those who know God, and those who do not.


From the same inspired writer:


Ecclesiastes 7:26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.

 

[Tenchi]

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.

The Bible nowhere approves Lot's choice to sacrifice his daughters to the wicked men of Sodom. The restraining hand of the angels keeping Lot from yielding his daughters to the vile inhabitants of Sodom seems to me implicit heavenly opposition to his plan. In any case, Lot is referred to as "righteous" not in the sense of moral perfection, to which no one but Christ has ever attained, but in the sense of seeking as best he could to do what was right amidst evil circumstances. This is certainly what he was attempting - albeit very badly - to do when he offered his daughters rather than his angelic visitors to the wicked mob at his door. Evidently, it was a greater evil in Lot's mind to submit these heavenly emissaries to the abuse of the Sodomites than his own daughters. Is this a sexist calculation? Only, I think, if one reads the story through the lens of modern radical feminism.

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

Does the Bible ever approve Abraham's taking of many wives? No. We see instead the harm it caused in the case of Hagar, the biblical account not shading the details of what Abraham did in favor of polygamy. Abraham's time, of course, was not afflicted with the radical, misanthropic feminism of today and so the OT accounts of his life do not take pains to virtue-signal to it.

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.

This is an assumed hierarchy of value you're imposing on the list. And all that you extrapolate from this assumption is likewise without basis in the actual text of Exodus 20:17. What you do here, though, reveals how unable you are to read the OT without a feminist filter.

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.

If you think the slavery of Israel was of a kind with the antebellum south in America, you misunderstand profoundly the actual state-of-affairs concerning slavery in Israel, particularly of Israelites. When an Israelite could not pay his debts, rather than collapse into utter destitution, starvation and death, he could indenture himself and his family in order to pay off his debts. This secured lodgings, food and a measure of protection for his family when he could no longer provide for them such things himself. And this indentured servitude was not permanent, recognizing also certain rights that the one sold in "slavery" retained. No man taking in the daughter of bankrupt Israelite could do just as he liked with her, as the passage from Exodus 21 described. Rather than recording a feminist nightmare, then, the passage from Exodus 21 that you cite above explains some of the protections and rights accorded women In Israel who came into indentured servitude. Such protections/rights were unheard of among all the surrounding pagan nations of the time.

Females could not be "used for sex," which is to say, raped. A daughter (not a woman married to an Israelite man) could marry into the family into whose service she'd been sold and leave her indentured status completely. Often, it was with an eye to such an arrangement that a bankrupt man would sell his daughter into "slavery." If a man took her into his service with such an understanding but then reneged on it, he couldn't just sell her to slave-traders. He could try to marry her to his own son but he would have to treat her, then, as a daughter, not a slave. If he did marry her himself but found another gal afterward to marry, he was prohibited from treating the first slave-turned-wife badly, which, if he did, released her from all connection to him and without any financial penalty to her father. Rather than setting up a circumstance for sexual abuse, what Exodus 21:7-11 does is actually prohibit such treatment.

Exodus 22:18 executes female witches but does not mention males.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (NASB)
9 "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations.
10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
12 "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.

Anyone, female or male, who engaged in occult practices in Israel was to be put to death. This was what was meant by "There shall not be found among you." God repeatedly forbid among His Chosen People the evil, pagan practices common in the nations surrounding Israel, assigning harsh penalties to those who disobeyed His prohibitions, even dethroning King Saul for his dabbling with a necromancer.

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.

Again, seeing this passage through a modern-day feminist lens, you assume and assign a sexist dimension to it. Nowhere are your assumptions even implied in the passage, however. Inasmuch as blood is a common vehicle of infection and deteriorates outside of the body in unhygienic fashion, it is associated with being "unclean." This is not a moral characterization, however, merely a practical one.

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 our modern, highly-promiscuous western culture, such a command seems bizarre and excessive, but a priest held a special office in Israel, serving as a direct, HOLY representative of God. The daughter of a priest, then, profaned herself, and her father, and, by extension, the God her father represented when she acted the whore, prostituting herself. The severe punishment of such evil conduct did not express sexism but God's holy and fierce hatred of sin - especially in connection with those serving as His direct representatives.

And so it goes, each of your examples not reflecting sexism but your modern feminist bias through which you're attempting to analyze the Bible. Beware "chronological snobbery." Your wall-o-text is just too long to sift through and answer in its entirety, but so far, I can't see that your charge of sexism holds much water.