The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is the Bible Misogynistic?

We can debate and discuss whether or not the Bible is Misogynistic.

Depends on what you mean. The PC version? Yes. The PC version is hell-bent on trying remove male-female gender differences and so yes, the Bible is, based on their definition and usage, misogynistic.

That is not to be confused with inequality and improper treatment of women. They are not property and never should have been.

The most important event in the bible is the resurrection and the first evidence was from the eye witness account from two women, so i don’t think this witnessing by the two women is happenstance and i think it elevates their importance.
As far as “misogynistic” one should understand that the bible to a large extent is reporting historical events over the centuries and the culture was “misogynistic” and also slavery existed but the reporting of these things does not translate to support.

1 Like

Dictionaries define misogyny as “hatred of women” and as “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women”.

Let’s have that debate. Is the Bible misogynistic? What evidence would you “yeses” put forward in support?

As a “no” supporter, I will be happy to respond.

This is of some interest to me; I am currently preparing a sermon on the three scripture passages dealing with Martha, Mary and Lazarus.

Right, and thus I see the patriarchal assumptions of women as property, especially in the O.T. as deeply mysogynistic, a vantage point reflected in so many things being evaluated only by their effect on the male involved, and epitomized by provisions facilitating a father’s right to sell his daughter into slavery as the property of another male.

It is important I think, to separate what some people did IN the bible, from what the bible ‘teaches’. The bible does not hide the facts of dominance, might-makes-right, racism and other warts on humanity; I think that’s for the good and the bible should be admired for it. The Judeo-Christian influence on the world has shown the way out of much of that dominance-centeredness.

Of course women were not property to be used, bought and sold at their owner’s whim. Neither were the men who were born or bought to be slaves. That was how culture had developed after the Fall. It was far from the Divine intent which was for all men to be equal and that men and women were to be helpmeets for each other. Now, in Christ, there is no male or female, no bond or free.

I agree completely. I’m surprised by how positive your comment was. Most wouldn’t be.

I’m probably should have made by position clear. Oops. I’m completely new to this website.

I’m a Christian and I don’t think the Bible is Misogynistic at all.

When Skeptics try to argue that it is, they are usually flat out lying about what it says and/or taking the verses out of context.

Plus, on top of all of that, they don’t even have any basis for Misogyny in the first place, because why should Misogyny be wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview and especially without an Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard for Morality? All they have is their opinion and while they are certainly allowed to have their opinion, their opinions do not make/prove that anything is actually right or wrong.

Yes, making the distinction between the bible recording cultural historical events verses commands from God is the heart of the matter.

FYI, the Bible says in Geneiss 1:27 that both man and woman are made in God’s image.

What does “PC Version” mean?

probably , politically correct

Gabe can correct me if I’m wrong but I think he is using PC for Politically Correct.

I think the term “Judeo-Christian” is a misnomer. For most of the last two millennia Jews have lived in their own, insulated communities, lead by rabbis. Until Moses Mendelssohn and Abraham Geiger pioneered the Reform movement in the 18th and 19th centuries, Jews and Christians had very little interaction or common ground. Heck, take a look at the Orthodox sections of Israel today. I don’t see much commonality between that and Christendom.

I agree with what you stated, except I don’t think it is a misnomer. Please take a look at the thread I opened on what the world owes to Judeo-Christian principles. These a
are historically old, I agree, but foundational nonethless; they have been formative for most western civ for centuries.
The principles are old, but not old-fahioned, to borrow a phrase from CS Lewis.
I’d be interested in your thoughts!

I think you’re badly mistaken. If morality is grounded in God’s act of saying something is immoral, then morality is totally arbitrary. If divine command theory is taken to its logical conclusion God could make torturing people for fun moral. I find such a notion of morality absurd.

1 Like

All that I personally have read points to the fact of the commonality of morality in almost all peoples, which is what I would expect if all men/women are in some way God’s image. CS Lewis points this out but so do professional anthropologists.
It is true, I think, that trying to develop an ‘evolutionary ethic’ or some such is doomed to failure, as it truly must be arbitrary - there is a lot of literature on this.

1 Like

FYI, the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

FYI, you can make the Bible say what you want it to say.

The Lord is clearly giving me practice to learn patience, especially with seeing this type of a post for the millionth time. There is so much wrong in the post above, that I grow weary even trying to decouple it.

Your first mistake is attributing a skeptic with evil motives. Your second mistake seems to suppose skeptics are devoid of Biblical knowledge. In my experience, skeptics, agnostics and atheists know more about than the Bible than the average church goer. I, personally, have read it back to back multiple times and some parts as many as hundreds of times.

I have memorized huge portions of scripture, such as Matthew 5,6,7 - 1st Corinthians 13, Psalm 1 and Psalm 23. I can quote huge portions without references with relatively good accuracy to the point where a quick google search can find the rest for me with a few seconds. All of this was because I loved the Bible, and ate it up. One does not acquire memorization this by treating it as a basic document. I remember it all because I poured my being into it.

Your third mistake seems to ignore many scriptures that clearly place women below that of men. Just because you read those passages differently (by ignoring them, or re-interpreting them subconsciously) doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Women were treated as 2nd rate citizens in the ancient world, even in Israel.

Or do you think consideration is given to women who must be one of 1,000 wives of Solomon? Or David, whom had to send all his wives away because his son slept with them all? They were not allowed to get married, have children. They were damaged goods! You think that isn’t wrong?

Or when Jesus let a so called “disgusting whore” wash his feet? Clearly, he incensed a religious leader by doing that.

Your 4th mistake is the coupling of Atheism with Evolution as if they must go together, or that they are some secret plot to undermine the Christian faith.

Your 5th mistake is that you don’t see that all you have is your opinion. Your opinion that a book contains the absolute moral code of humanity is just that, an opinion and you are well entitled to it! But don’t pretend it is anything more than an opinion. You have no special revelation, only a special belief that smugly tells you that you have a special revelation and that anyone who doesn’t see it your way merely has “an opinion” and while I am so glad you grant me my “right to have it” it seems uncharitable and insincere to me.