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 donât think this witnessing by the two women is happenstance and i think it elevates their importance.
As far as âmisogynisticâ one should understand that the bible to a large extent is reporting historical events over the centuries and the culture was âmisogynisticâ and also slavery existed but the reporting of these things does not translate to support.
2 Likes
Dictionaries define misogyny as âhatred of womenâ and as âhatred, dislike, or mistrust of womenâ.
Letâs have that debate. Is the Bible misogynistic? What evidence would you âyesesâ put forward in support?
As a ânoâ 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 fatherâs 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 âteachesâ. The bible does not hide the facts of dominance, might-makes-right, racism and other warts on humanity; I think thatâs 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 ownerâs 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. Iâm surprised by how positive your comment was. Most wouldnât be.
Iâm probably should have made by position clear. Oops. Iâm completely new to this website.
Iâm a Christian and I donât 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 donât 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 Godâs image.
What does âPC Versionâ mean?
probably , politically correct
Gabe can correct me if Iâm wrong but I think he is using PC for Politically Correct.
I agree with what you stated, except I donât 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.
Iâd be interested in your thoughts!
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 Godâs image. CS Lewis points this out but so do professional anthropologists.
It is true, I think, that trying to develop an âevolutionary ethicâ 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 âA 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 childbearingâif they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.â
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) doesnât mean they donât 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 isnât wrong?
Or when Jesus let a so called âdisgusting whoreâ 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 donât 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 donât 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 doesnât see it your way merely has âan opinionâ and while I am so glad you grant me my âright to have itâ it seems uncharitable and insincere to me.
This is correct. I do not agree with the PC version of Misogyny. I think the left and feminists have taken it too far. There are indeed injustices, and there was unfair treatment. However, women and men are very different creatures and trying to remove the gender distinction is harmful, in my opinion.
My point was that in general, I donât think the Bible sets out a theology of unfair treatment to women. I think this was inherited from the patriarchs of the ancient world (Abraham and his peers) and never really was addressed. We can clearly see women as second class citizens in the Old and New Testament. Does that mean it was endorsed? Not exactly, and I donât think so - but I do think morality was mirroring the culture at the time. In other words, in culture it was important for women to be subservient, so Paul wanted Christianity to prove it was good! and so he ordered women to be that way to spread the gospel. I think this was mistake, but I understand why he probably did it. Certainly, the way Jesus interacted with women, he did not considered them second rate.
So my answer is somewhat complicated. If we use the Bible as the morale compass (which I donât agree with) then we can justify slavery and women as second rate citizens. However, if we look at the Bible as the way Steve suggested, talking about the resurrection and just fitting in with the culture and recording it, then I think we can safely say the Bible was NOT for slavery or treating women as property, but likely wanted to promote peace over personal rights. Sometimes, I have found, it is better to give up ones personal rights to maintain peace with others.
Christianity laid the ground work for women being able to finally come free, but some fundamentalists today want to keep them down and will use the Bible to do it.
I agree. What opened the door for me to admit such material was the work of Wheatonâs OT prof (required to sign inerrancy clauses), âBeyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Womanâs Place.â A chapter on the âDark Sideâ pointed out some perverse parts of the Law that God was believed to have commanded, with many of the primitive ideas others have cited, which were such a huge fall from the original concept of male and female partners created to jointly share the calling to rule the earth.
I realized that if even he could admit this and still argue for equality, I who was less conservative than him certainly could admit it also.