The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible

This article reveals the inextricable sexism of the Bible. It shows how it forms a fully integrated network of mutually confirming verses, and so cannot be extricated from the Bible without shredding the text itself.

I am wondering if the Qur'an is any different when describing the divine pecking order??
This is, of course a hot topic in the political arena, but I don't think the problem will be resolved by politicians. I have seen more executive level women since the '90s but in the last 5 years, I have seen many men asked to work for less money. Any new jobs are paying less regardless of gender. There is a reason why most big companies have moved their manufacturing plants to China (or some other country). They can hire children to do the work much cheaper than the US. We could say, equal pay regardless of gender.. but if there are no jobs... nobody has income. I have no beef with women making big bucks, but there are many women who are perfectly content doing trivial work for trivial pay. (Same is true for men).

Historically the men were the bread winners, and the soldiers, etc. and the women's job was that of homemaker. In these days, the stereo-typical roles are re-defined.

Don't you think the bible was divisive, manipulative in a way to control? Not only for the role of women, but men, and slaves, etc. It is written to teach people to be submissive to authority. It is easy to speak of this as a man, but I'd be curious to know what women think of the blog you wrote.

Genesis 1:27, "male and female He created them"

Was that already sexist?

Male and female are not equal.

When Adam was alone in paradise he didn't find satisfaction, although he tried to find with all the animals. (Which can be read from Genesis 2:23: "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh".
After having sexual intercourse Adam was satisfied and fell asleep. But Eve was not, and then the snake came in, making use of the opportunity.

Of Ruth the Moabitess on the contrary is said that she was satisfied (Ruth 2:14). That's why she became mother of the Messiah.

Originally Posted by Chris Stuber

I am wondering if the Qur'an is any different when describing the divine pecking order??

Hey there Chris,

The sexism in the Quran is at least as bad, if not worse, than that in the Bible. Of course, this is to be expected since most of the content in the Quran was lifted directly or indirectly from the Bible. And the sexism of Islamic societies is much worse than the Western Christian societies with the body bags they keep their women confined in. Islamic countries generally have no equal rights for women.

Sexism is a planetary problem that is seen in all cultures. Religion is an expression of male bias, not its cause. This is how we know that all religions are false. They all incorporate gross sexism that marginalizes half the human population and so cannot be an expression of divine truth. They may contain glimpses of the divine, but that's something that each person would have to judge for themselves. They certainly are not trustworthy as divine revelations.

Originally Posted by Chris Stuber

This is, of course a hot topic in the political arena, but I don't think the problem will be resolved by politicians. I have seen more executive level women since the '90s but in the last 5 years, I have seen many men asked to work for less money. Any new jobs are paying less regardless of gender. There is a reason why most big companies have moved their manufacturing plants to China (or some other country). They can hire children to do the work much cheaper than the US. We could say, equal pay regardless of gender.. but if there are no jobs... nobody has income. I have no beef with women making big bucks, but there are many women who are perfectly content doing trivial work for trivial pay. (Same is true for men).

I don't expect politicians to do much, though things like equal rights bills help a lot. We need a grassroots transformation that will come by properly educating our children. We need to expose the error of sexism which is fundamentally immoral because it violates the Golden Rule.

Originally Posted by Chris Stuber

Historically the men were the bread winners, and the soldiers, etc. and the women's job was that of homemaker. In these days, the stereo-typical roles are re-defined.

I think the root of sexism can be understood by our history. We were ignorant, brutal, primitive people. But now we are waking up from the nightmare that was our history.

Originally Posted by Chris Stuber

Don't you think the bible was divisive, manipulative in a way to control? Not only for the role of women, but men, and slaves, etc. It is written to teach people to be submissive to authority. It is easy to speak of this as a man, but I'd be curious to know what women think of the blog you wrote.

Yes, I think the Bible has been used as a tool for social control for nearly 2000 years. Women began to get rights only after the Bible was knocked off its pedestal as an unquestionable divine authority. You put your finger on the key - religion teaches people to submit to male human authority. It teaches people that blind faith is a virtue and to question is the greatest sin that could result in the eternal damnation of your soul.

If you are curious about a woman's view, you can check out my wife's blog. For example, check out her post called Rose's Long Overdue Rant.

My first post:

I don't understand this. You write a book showing the Divine Origin of the Bible with amazing facts and parallels, and then you write an article like this attacking the Bible and MISREPRESENTING what it teaches? Are you a Bible believer or an infidel? How can Paul telling men to LOVE THEIR WIVES as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, to cherish their wives be sexist? You sound like many of the demon-possessed feminists I have spoken with. There is a Divine Order. Men are to lead. Women are not. This is righteous and instituted by God.

Sure people have abused and perverted things, but to compare the Bible's teachings to Islam reveals to me you are ignorant of the contents of both books! Mohammed was a true misogynistic, lying, murdering pedophile and adulterer. His unholy Koran reflects his demented life and lies. Mohammed said women are stupid and like domesticated animals, and that husbands can beat them, just not too severely.

The Bible is holy and righteous and elevates all people. I have studied Islam and witness to them outside their own Mosques.

What brought me to this site was the Preterist issue, and I may chime in on a thread that hasn't had a post since 2009. I find Preterism to be preposterous, and the whole structure hangs upon the date of Revelation, which preterists MUST MAKE prior to 70ad, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Once the obvious is admitted, that Revelation was written in the 90s, your whole theory collapses and futurism becomes the only rational, consistent view.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

My first post:

I don't understand this. You write a book showing the Divine Origin of the Bible with amazing facts and parallels, and then you write an article like this attacking the Bible and MISREPRESENTING what it teaches? Are you a Bible believer or an infidel? How can Paul telling men to LOVE THEIR WIVES as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, to cherish their wives be sexist? You sound like many of the demon-possessed feminists I have spoken with. There is a Divine Order. Men are to lead. Women are not. This is righteous and instituted by God.

Sure people have abused and perverted things, but to compare the Bible's teachings to Islam reveals to me you are ignorant of the contents of both books! Mohammed was a true misogynistic, lying, murdering pedophile and adulterer. His unholy Koran reflects his demented life and lies. Mohammed said women are stupid and like domesticated animals, and that husbands can beat them, just not too severely.

The Bible is holy and righteous and elevates all people. I have studied Islam and witness to them outside their own Mosques.

What brought me to this site was the Preterist issue, and I may chime in on a thread that hasn't had a post since 2009. I find Preterism to be preposterous, and the whole structure hangs upon the date of Revelation, which preterists MUST MAKE prior to 70ad, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Once the obvious is admitted, that Revelation was written in the 90s, your whole theory collapses and futurism becomes the only rational, consistent view.

I would agree with your futurist position, but also add that Richard is not ignorant of the Scriptures, in fact, just the opposite is true, He is a rare one in that his study of the technical details of the Word of God exceeds that of many of today's scholars. Be prepared for a rather detailed reply from RAM. He can be a little feisty at times.

I too am a futurist.

John

By the way... Welcome to the Forum!!!

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

My first post:

I don't understand this. You write a book showing the Divine Origin of the Bible with amazing facts and parallels, and then you write and article like this attacking the Bible and MISREPRESENTING what it teaches? Are you a Bible believer or an infidel? How can Paul telling men to LOVE THEIR WIVES as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, to cherish their wives be sexist? You sound like many of the demon-possessed feminists I have spoken with. Their is a Divine Order. Men are to lead. Women are not. This is righteous and instituted by God.

Hey there Dispensational Truth,

I really appreciate your plain speech, thank you! It makes for fruitful discourse. I will follow suit.

I understand why you are confused since I did indeed write about book about amazing patterns in the Bible which I strongly believed was proof of its divine inspiration. I lived and breathed the Bible day and night for well over a decade. And the evidence in Bible Wheel book stands as far as I can tell. I've been presenting this information for over ten years on the internet and no one has been able to refute it despite much vehement opposition by both Christians and skeptics. I wrote the book when I was a convinced Christian who described himself as a "born again, blood bought, Bible believing, Trinitarian Christian." So how is it I now can now see and admit that the Bible is not perfect or even moral in many of its aspects? The answer is simple - the same integrity of mind that enabled me to discover the patterns compels me to speak the truth to the best of my ability, no matter where it leads. There is a great irony here - the folks least likely to admit what the Bible really says are those who claim most strongly to believe it is the very Word of God!

You can read my article Why I Quit Christianity to understand what happened when I honestly admitted what I saw in the Bible. If you are interested in my personal bio, you can read Why I became a Christian.

I don't understand why you say that I "misrepresented" anything. You yourself have confirmed that the Bible is sexist when you say "Men are to lead. Women are not." Our primary disagreement appears to be only that you don't think that there is anything wrong with sexism because it is a "divine institution." So please, if you want your charge to stand you will need to quote the exact words I wrote and show how they "misrepresented" something in the Bible. Until you do that, there is no way for me to know what you are talking about, let alone answer.

Case in point: I never said that "telling men to love their wives" is sexist. But in context the sexism is clearly seen because that exhortation is immediately followed by telling women to "submit" to their husbands and Paul based this on the fundamentally sexist male hierarchy of authority that begins with a male Trinity (God) who rules over men who rule over women (and children, and slaves). This male hierarchy of authority is based on the story of the Fall which blames the woman and makes her subject to men. Paul used this as the reason woman are not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim 2:11-15). I explained all this in the article. If there is something I misrepresented, you need only quote what I wrote and show my error. I then will be in your debt.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Sure people have abused and perverted things, but to compare the Bible's teachings to Islam reveals to me you are ignorant of the contents of both books! Mohammed was a true misogynistic, lying, murdering pedophile and adulterer. His unholy Koran reflects his demented life and lies.

The Bible is holy and righteous and elevates all people. I have studied Islam and witness to them outside their own Mosques.

Where did I compare the Bible to Islam? I didn't even mention Islam in my article, but I did say this in a comment above:

The sexism in the Quran is at least as bad, if not worse, than that in the Bible. Of course, this is to be expected since most of the content in the Quran was lifted directly or indirectly from the Bible. And the sexism of Islamic societies is much worse than the Western Christian societies with the body bags they keep their women confined in. Islamic countries generally have no equal rights for women.

Your comment that I must be "ignorant of the contents of both books" seems to reflect more on you than on me. If you had ever read the Quran you would know how much it has in common with the Bible. I wrote about this in a post called A Common Confession of Faith for Christians and Muslims where I list 19 points of agreement, including such fundamental points as:

• There is only one God
• God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, gracious, very forgiving.
• God gave the Torah to Israel and the Gospel to Jesus
• Adam was the first man, Noah built the ark, Moses was a prophet of God.
• Mary was a virgin, Jesus had miraculous powers to heal.
• Sinners must repent of their sins.
• God will raise the dead and there will be a day of judgment.
• etc., etc., etc.

Now don't get me wrong - there is no real comparison of the Bible to the Koran since the Koran is a confused mish-mash of Bible stories dictated by one man whereas the Bible was composed by many people over a millennium and it presents a profoundly coherent (despite many inconsistencies) "Big Picture" from Creation through the Fall to the Restoration of all Creation. But still, there are a billion people who take the Koran as the "Word of God" just as you take the Bible. So you must ask yourself, what makes your beliefs different from theirs? If you were born in Iran, would you be a Muslim fundamentalist? Your dismissal of the Koran as entirely "unholy" while the Bible is "holy and righteous" makes no sense in light of how much they have in common. Your comment sounds like mere bravado with no content since the Bible attributes many things to God that most certainly are neither right nor holy. The most obvious example is the command to kill every man, woman, and child of the Midianites, except for 32,000 virgins that were then distributed to the soldiers that had just murdered every person those poor girls ever loved (Numbers 31). And this returns us to the ultimate irony - the folks least likely to admit what the Bible really says are those who claim most strongly to believe it is the very Word of God!

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

What brought me to this site was the Preterist issue, and I may chime in on a thread that hasn't had a post since 2009. I find Preterism to be preposterous, and the whole structure hangs upon the date of Revelation, which preterists MUST MAKE prior to 70ad, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Once the obvious is admitted, that Revelation was written in the 90s, your whole theory collapses and futurism becomes the only rational, consistent view.

If Revelation was written in the 90s then it is simply false because the events did not happen "quickly" for the time was NOT "at hand" (Rev 1:1-3). Your argument therefore destroys not only Preterism, but the Bible itself. This is because Preterism is the only eschatological system that generally fits what the Bible says. Sure, there are some problematic passages, but every eschatological system has verses that must be "explained away." This is why I ultimately concluded that the Bible is logically incoherent on this question. But when I was a Christian who believed the Bible to be true, I concluded that Preterism was the only possible option since Futurism is entirely unbiblical.

I have been discussing Futurism with folks on this forum for over five years, and I have never seen a truly Biblical Futurist. Dispensationalism is entirely unbiblical and the hermeneutics it is based upon are entirely incoherent. I would be delighted to discuss this with you in detail in another thread.

Thanks for taking time to comment. I look forward to further discussion.

All the best,

Richard

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

This article reveals the inextricable sexism of the Bible. It shows how it forms a fully integrated network of mutually confirming verses, and so cannot be extricated from the Bible without shredding the text itself.

I take note that you [as other times] lift specific verses from their context and intention in order to make your point. AS Dispytruth has noted, in the same context as wives submitting to their husbands, Paul instructs husbands to submit to their wives and to love them [give themselves up for them] as Christ did the chruch. And the greater context appeals to a consideration for the unbelieving atomoshpere in which they lived. It is additionally subordinate to the previous verse 21.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

In the 1 Cor 11 passage you exclude vs's 11,12 from the context.

1 Cor 11:11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

And you read these things as 'command' and not encouragement and helps. Paul says in 2 cor that his words are not dominion and command but instruction and encouragement to those who believe, and I believe they are partly instruction and encouragement to that particular time period of leaving the law of Moses and how it would effect their culture and lives. And I believe that there may be further considerastion needed that Pauls instructions were tempered with intercovanental considerations until the open revelation of the fulfilled kingdom embodied relatively equally by both genders, though each gender may have strengths and weaknesses.

Ezekiel 14:22...Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, [both] sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, [even] concerning all that I have brought upon it.

When you quote from the OT, we need to take note that these instructions are given while mankind was still under temporary condemation and seperation from God's spirit until the seed promised through Eve [the woman] would come. AND, many of those were given as part of the temporary national covenant. Christ had not come yet, which coming was exclusively through the WOMAN to redeem and equate [generally speaking] both genders. Gnosis [experiential Knowledge] of God through Christ [John 17:3] nor the indwelling of the Spirit of the Creator had not yet freed them from that law and the curse.

Thus, though some 'churches' might even teach your perspectives, your arguments and accusations fail for your lack of understanding and comprehension of these and other factors. One cannot be justified by attempting to keep the encouragements, clarifications and instructions of Paul as command any more than they could be justified by keeping the law of moses as command.

Originally Posted by jce

Be prepared for a rather detailed reply from RAM. He can be a little feisty at times.

I resemble that remark!

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

I take note that you [as other times] lift specific verses from their context in order to make your point. AS Dispytruth has noted, in the same context as wives submitting to their husbands, Paul instructs husbands to submit to their wives and to love them [give themselves up for them] as Christ did the chruch. And the greater context appeals to a consideration of the unbelieving atomoshpere in which they lived. It is additionally subordinate to the previous verse 21.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

In the 1 Cor 11 passage you exclude vs's 11,12 from the context.

1 Cor 11:11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

And you read these things as 'command' and not instruction and encouragement. Paul says in 2 cor that his words are not dominion and command but instruction and encouragement to those who believe, and I believe they are partly instruction and encouragement to that particular time period of leaving the law of Moses and how it would effect their culture and lives. And there may be further considerastion that Pauls instructions were tempered with intercovanental considerations until the open revelation of the fulfilled kingdom embodied by both genders.

When you quote from the OT, we need to take note that these instructions are given while mankind was still under temporary condemation and seperation from God's spirit due to the condemnation of the garden law. AND, many of those were given as part of the temporary national covenant. Christ had not come yet, which coming was exclusively through the WOMAN to redeem and equate [generally speaking] both genders. Gnosis [experiential Knowledge] of God through Christ [John 17:3] nor the indwelling of the Spirit of the Creator had not yet freed them from that law and the curse.

Thus, your arguments and accusations fail for your lack of understanding and comprehension of these and other factors.

I find it quite ironic that you charge me with "taking things out of context" when in fact the purpose of my article was to show that the context of the entire Bible demands my conclusion. Can you deny a word I wrote? Here is the "Big Picture" -

1) The Bible presents a male hierarchy of authority: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This is, by definition, sexist:

• Male Ruler: God
  
• Male Ruler: Christ
  
• Male Ruler: Man
  
• Female Subject: Woman

Do you agree or disagree with this fact? DispyTruth said that it represents the hierarchy "instituted by God."

2) Paul appealed to this male hierarchy when he said women must submit to their husbands: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:22). The same hierarchy of men over women is confirmed in many passages. For example, Peter said:

For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)

You challenge this point by asserting that men were supposed to "submit" themselves to their wives. But the verse is not symmetric at all. Women, children, and slaves are all told to submit to the males that rule over them. There is no equivalence between male and female in those contexts. Paul explicitly based his exhortation on the male hierarchy of authority. If your assertion were true, Paul would be saying that men must submit themselves to their wives and call them lord! You know that can't be correct. So obviously, you are the one playing games with "context" to avoid an unpleasant truth. The interpretation of the "mutual submission" passage is subject to much controversy in modern times because it contradicts our modern morals, but not so much in the old days when sexism was taken for granted. All you need to do is review how Christian leaders have historically interpreted these passages. For example, here are a few quotes from my article:

• Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?) "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
• Tertullian (2nd-3rd c. Church father) In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell.
• Tertullian "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."
• John Chrysostom (349-407): "Amongst all the savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman."
• Saint Augustine of Hippo, Church Father and Bishop (354–430) "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."
• Augustine "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."

I don't see how there could be any honest interpretation that would contradict the plain message taught from Genesis to Revelation that women are to be subject to men and not in authority over men. This is what the Bible teaches in both the Old and New Testaments.

3) Paul appealed to the story of the Fall to justify male authority over women:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2:11-15).

This shows that your challenge to my OT quotes fails because Paul used them to justify the subjugation of women in the NT. Therefore, they cannot be dismissed as "part of the temporary national covenant" that was given before Christ came. Paul used those OT verses to support his teachings after Christ came.

4) You appealed to these verses:

1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1 Cor 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The fact that men are physical born of women says nothing about the sexism of the Bible and does not contradict a word I wrote.

5) The real issue is this: The Bible is fundamentally sexist from beginning to end. It classes women with property in the Tenth Commandment. Men could divorce women, but women could not divorce men. Women were literally devalued monetarily at an average of about 60% relative to men. Women were unclean twice as long when giving birth to a girl as opposed to a boy. These facts cannot be denied by an appeal to context, because it is the context that supports them.

I'll acknowledge your response and let my original reply be a counter to your response.

Additionally,
I don't rely on the ECF's interpretations and understandings.

Pauls letter to Timothy has context of the people to whom Timothy was to minister. These were particularly pagan in nature and had previously practiced rituals to keep them 'safe' during childbirth. That is the instruction to Timothy in vs 15. The proper wording is 'kept safe', not be 'saved'. There is nothing salvatory through childbirth implied in the text. It's your accusative and judgmental spirit that misinterprets and fails to do the inductive research necessary. The fact openly represents itself as you again refer to Eph 5:22 without noting that in the same context Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives out of reverence for Christ's love to them.

It's the same accusative and judgmental spirit in your appeal and usage of the OT law which was written to a particular, temporal people who were still under condemnation of the law of sin/death before the coming of the seed promised through the woman who had previously failed. They were [generally speaking] with blackened hearts and still in condemnation of the law of sin/ spiritual death from the garden until the coming of that seed.

Recall how God said to Moses.... Oh, that there were such a heart in you that they would do all these commands. Now get back in your tents. Recall that this was God's "BACK SIDE".

No, I do not agree that there is an overt male dominion/female subordination in the everlasting covenant. The male gender may be gifted with some logical attributes and characteristics and may be intended to be a 'leader' and headship due to those attributes, but the overt lord/submission; Master/slave relationship which you imply is not only not there, but is spoken against. You need to do a complete survey of all applicable information, including those which refer to the believing women as SISTERS; not just refer to selective ones which support your claims.

I'll not do this for you to attempt to 'contradict' or reprove you. It's your accusative spirit which is devoid of understanding and comprehension which needs adjusted.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

I'll acknowledge your response and let my original reply be a counter to your response.

It is not legitimate to offer a refuted post as a "reply" to the refutation. Sorry. You must address the facts that refute your response otherwise you are simply letting the refutation stand.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

Additionally,
I don't rely on the ECF's interpretations and understandings.

I don't rely on those things either. I offered them as evidence of how the Bible has been interpreted historically. They represent the "fruit" of the Biblical teachings about women.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

Pauls letter to Timothy has context of the people to whom Timothy was to minister. These were particularly pagan in nature and had previously practiced rituals to keep them 'safe' during childbirth. That is the instruction to Timothy in vs 15. The proper wording is 'kept safe', not be 'saved'. There is nothing salvatory through childbirth implied in the text. It's your accusative and judgmental spirit that misinterprets and fails to do the inductive research necessary. The fact openly represents itself as you again refer to Eph 5:22 without noting that in the same context Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives out of reverence for Christ's love to them.

There is no evidence in the Bible for you assertions about the "context" of the book of Timothy. Upon what are you relying for that information? Not the "ECF" I presume.

I said nothing about the meaning of keeping them "safe" during childbirth. I didn't say it had anything to do with salvation, so your comment does not address anything I actually wrote.

It is rude, logically fallacious, and false for you to say I have an "accusative and judgmental spirit." And even if I did, it would not affect the validity of the facts I present - that's why such ad hominem is a logical fallacy. You need to show some error in something I have written if you want to refute my argument.

You assertion that I cited Ephesians 5:22 again without noting the command of "mutual submission" is false. It appears you did not read my post. Here is what I wrote:

Originally Posted by RAM

2) Paul appealed to this male hierarchy when he said women must submit to their husbands: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:22). The same hierarchy of men over women is confirmed in many passages. For example, Peter said:

For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)

You challenge this point by asserting that men were supposed to "submit" themselves to their wives. But the verse is not symmetric at all. Women, children, and slaves are all told to submit to the males that rule over them. There is no equivalence between male and female in those contexts. Paul explicitly based his exhortation on the male hierarchy of authority. If your assertion were true, Paul would be saying that men must submit themselves to their wives and call them lord! You know that can't be correct. So obviously, you are the one playing games with "context" to avoid an unpleasant truth. The interpretation of the "mutual submission" passage is subject to much controversy in modern times because it contradicts our modern morals, but not so much in the old days when sexism was taken for granted. All you need to do is review how Christian leaders have historically interpreted these passages. For example, here are a few quotes from my article:

But now that I look more closely at your assertion, I see you have changed the words to say "Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives." The asymmetry of your comment shows that you are judging by an unequal and unrighteous scale. You have a double standard. Women are told to submit TO their husbands themselves, whereas you say that the men are told to submit to "loving their wives." That is a world of difference, and a very deceptive style of thinking. You will never find truth by trying to justify your preconceived beliefs through such tricky rhetoric.

Furthermore, your explanation does not refute any of the facts I presented. The book of Timothy used the OT teachings about the Fall to justify the idea that women must be silent in submission to men and not allowed to teach or have authority over men. It is interesting that this issue is currently being hotly debated in the Anglican Church which just voted down a change that would have allowed women to become priests. Here is one take on the issue published in the Gardian:

It is worth understanding what the objection to women as bishops is based on. Evangelicals believe that women cannot exercise authority over men. They use scripture (St Paul's letters) to justify this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Thus a man could never swear a canonical oath to a woman bishop. Other objections rest on the fact that Jesus chose only male disciples. Was Jesus sexist?

Are you arguing that the vast majority of Christian leaders over a span of two millennia have been consistently misinterpreted Paul? Or that the church policies are not sexist? Neither of those arguments will stand.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

It's the same accusative and judgmental spirit in your appeal and usage of the OT law which was written to a particular, temporal people who were still under condemnation of the law of sin/death before the coming of the seed promised through the woman who had previously failed. They were [generally speaking] with blackened hearts and still in condemnation of the law of sin/ spiritual death from the garden until the coming of that seed.

I already refuted this point. Paul appealed to the OT to justify his teachings about women. He applied and explained them. You cannot reject them without rejecting the teachings of Paul in the NT.

I understand that the truth is frustrating, but accusing me of being "accusative and judgmental" does not strengthen your case. On the contrary, it makes it look like you know you have lost. And it is rather ironic that you have twice accused me of having an "accusative spirit" - since you are the one doing the accusing! I think we need a little refresher course in symmetric relationships and how they prohibit such accusations:

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

It is impossible to attack another as an "accuser" without becoming one yourself.

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

No, I do not agree that there is an overt male dominion/female subordination in the everlasting covenant. The male gender may be gifted with some logical attributes and characteristics and may be intended to be a 'leader' and headship due to those attributes, but the overt lord/submission; Master/slave relationship which you imply is not only not there, but is spoken against. You need to do a complete survey of all applicable information, including those which refer to the believing women as SISTERS; not just refer to selective ones which support your claims.

You have offered noting but empty assertion in response to the facts I have provided. The male hierarchy of authority, which you say is "not there" saturates the Bible from beginning to end. I laid it out in my post, and you have not touched, let alone refuted, the primary facts that prove my case. You need to address these facts:

1) The Bible presents a male hierarchy of authority: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This is, by definition, sexist:

• Male Ruler: God
  
• Male Ruler: Christ
  
• Male Ruler: Man
  
• Female Subject: Woman

This hierarchy is confirmed and appealed to in many places in the Bible. You say you can't see? What do I have to do, use bold red font? It's right there. You have not addressed. How then can you say it is not there or that I am misinterpreting what it says?

Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32/70AD

I'll not do this for you to attempt to 'contradict' or reprove you. It's your accusative spirit which is devoid of understanding and comprehension which needs adjusted.

There you go again. You know you cannot refute a word I write, so you descend to accusing me of having an "accusative spirit which is devoid of understanding and comprehension." I wish there were a way for me to tell you how pathetic such comments are without descending to your level.

Let's stick to logic and facts, eh? It's no fun receiving false accusations from you, and I doubt you really enjoy writing such crap.

All the best,

Richard

Sexism according to Merriam Webster

: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women

Your accusation that the Bible is sexist is a lie. It is an attack on the morality of the Author and writers, and it is false, since nothing resembling the above definition is in Scripture. Its in the Diabolical Koran, which is a PERVERSION of dozens of Bible stories, borrowed Jewish legends and errors from other heretical groups. I have read more than the Koran, I have studied the Sunna of Mohammed and the Hadiths, which reveal all the truth about Islam, and without which the jumbled mess of the Koran cannot be understood. Islam makes people insane. Islam is misogynistic and sexist. Islam, like its founder, is of the devil.

The Bible is heavenly, righteous and true.

You compared the two, and you are totally wrong.

The Bible does not teach women are stupid, like domesticated animals and are to be beaten by their husbands. The Bible does not teach that Hell is mostly populated by women who were ungrateful to their husbands. Mohammed the pedophile taught such things as "divine revelation"

Your denigration of the Bible by calling it sexist is FALSE. It is not. Your agruments to support it are rather absurd.

So, what pejorative term do you use for the Bible's teaching that children are to obey their parents??? Is that bad as well? What liberal slander will you use for that?

Or you will admit that IT IS RIGHT for children to submit to and obey and honor their parents? Nothing wrong there. Your arguments are anarchy and would seek to overthrow any order in family or life. I call your position REBELLION.

Simple physiology proves what the Bible says is true--men are STRONGER and designed for hard labor. Men excel in Math, logic and philosophy. The best chefs are men. Almost all inventions were by men. I can go on and on. Men CANNOT mother children like women can, nor can they give birth. We are different. Men are clearly designed to lead, guide and protect. Women are natural followers. ITS OBVIOUS. I may not be really old, by I have lived a very full, well-read and observant 47 years of life and I KNOW WHAT I SEE. And what I see comports exactly with Scripture.

Paul did not blame Eve. This Feminist chestnut is unworthy of response, as anyone reading the Bible can see what Paul taught. Paul said he did not allow women to teach or USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN, like Eve did because Adam was created first, and had the firstborn priviledge and pre-eminence, and that Eve was actually deceived, and anyone knows that women can be played emotionally and led into error by some sweet-talk.

But Paul BLAMES ADAM-Rom 5. Adam DISOBEYED AND REBELLED. In Adam all die, not Eve. This means He sinned, its his fault, but also that He plunged humanity into this mess because he was the head and representative. So what are you talking about? Adam knew what he was doing. Eve was used to get him to disobey.

You have a probem with Order in family and society. So, is it wrong for Employees to obey their boss? Should they be at work as an asset and good Christian witness, or is that some kind of oppression in your view?

Is giving the kind of submission to governing authorities per Rom 13 wrong as well? Do you have some pejorative term for that as well?

If God made men to lead, and gave them the responsibility to lead, WORK AND PROVIDE FOR their wives and children, doesn't it make sense that the wife should HELP her husband, support and obey him? Women do that best, and I can tell you, when my wife is in my corner like that, I am high as a kite and will do anything(not sinful of course) for her! She defers to me for final decisions about things, and trusts God with that, and prays for me that if I am wrong, I will hear the Lord and correct-course. This works. Always has.

So you call sexism something that by definition is not. You see, I have submitted myself to people in my life that didn't know what they were talking about, but since they were in authority, and what they were saying was not sinful for me to obey, I humbly did so and trusted God. Submission is not sexism. It is divine order as spelled out in Scripture. Even Christ submitted to DEATH, something horrible, and death on a Cross for a noble, glorious purpose. A wife submitting to her husband is not a cross like that! The spirit of the age we live in is a REBELLIOUS, WICKED spirit, and the worst one is the FEMINIST SPIRIT. That spirit has wrought more destruction to the West than any other. The Devil knew if he could destroy the family unit, he could destroy nations and churches in those nations by turning everything on its head.

Feminism is wickedness. The spirit behind feminism is the Sodomite-spirit, because that was always the goal. Once the woman left her proper sphere from home and family, and sought to be like a man and seek careers, the destruction of the family via divorce and adultery ensued, children were wounded and confused, and now what have we here??? THE HOMOSEXUAL PLAGUE HAS COME UPON OUR NATION AS A RESULT OF THIS SPIRIT. It is the same spirit that lied to you and said the Bible is sexist. Look at the fruit of those who rebelled against the Bible and hold your mindsets! We are literally becoming Sodom and Gomorrah!

So I appeal to you to recant this foolishness. You can say you don't agree with what Scripture says, but calling it sexist is false by definition and NONE of your examples demonstrate this. I would further encourage you to go on a prolonged fast, humble yourself and seek the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you out of sin and delusion, and back to faith in Him and His word.

Also, may I recommend two books? One is by Paul Copan called IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER? It deals with some of the stories in the OT you find so objectionable, and I think you totally misunderstand.

And another is UNDER THE INFLUENCE by Alvin Schmidt. Here is a review that ought to help you:

It is common today for the church to be on the receiving end of much criticism. The church is blamed for many of the ills in the world, but is seldom given credit for any good it has done. Indeed, many argue that it is the church that is blocking progress to a more enlightened and peaceable world.

One gets the impression from these secular critics that Christianity has been a negative force in the world, while non-Christian and non-religious alternatives are somehow superior. However, those conversant with the historical record know better. While Christendom has had its dark moments in history, over all, it can be credibly argued that it has been a force for good in the world.



Buy this from Amazon: How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt Click Here


In Kenneth Scott Latourette’s massive 7-volume history of the expansion of the Christian Church, the Yale historian concluded by noting just how much good this expansion had contributed to the world. More recently D. James Kennedy wrote a brief volume entitled What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? The world would be much worse off, he argued, if it weren’t for this man Jesus.

The most recent and perhaps most thorough examination of the historical record is that of Alvin Schmidt. The American professor of sociology has assembled evidence from various quarters to demonstrate what a powerful influence Christianity has had on Western Civilization. In every area, be it law, government, economics, the fine arts, science, education or health care, the Christian faith has contributed enormously to the overall well-being of mankind.

In this well-documented volume of over 400 pages, Schmidt marshals the evidence for the transforming power of the Christian faith. He shows how Jesus has the power to transform men, who in turn are able to transform society. And on every level, that is exactly what has happened. Several specific examples can be mentioned.

In spite the claims of some today that Christianity oppresses women, the historical record shows just the opposite. Women were oppressed in almost every culture prior to the coming of Christianity. By elevating sexual morality, and by conferring upon women a much higher status, the Christian religion revolutionised the place and prestige of women.

For example, the great importance given to marriage meant that women were spared much of the abuse and mistreatment that they were accustomed to. By rejecting polygyny, prostitution, homosexuality and bestiality – all common during the time – the early Christians not only sheltered women but protected children and family.

The way Jesus treated women was in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. In Roman law a man’s wife and children were little more than slaves, often treated like animals. Women had no property rights and faced severe social restrictions. Jesus of course changed all that. The way he treated the Samaritan woman was one remarkable example. And this was not lost on the early disciples. We know from the New Testament documents that many women exercised various leadership roles in the early church. Indeed, during this period Christian women actually outnumbered Christian men.

Admittedly there were some anomalies later in the church’s history, when chauvinistic and anti-feminine views were allowed to re-enter parts of the church. But such aberrations must not detract from the truly revolutionary elevation of the status of women achieved by Christianity.

Consider also the issue of health care. Prior to Christianity, the Greeks and Romans had little or no interest in the poor, the sick and the dying. But the early Christians, following the example of their master, ministered to the needs of the whole person. During the first three centuries of the church they could only care for the sick where they found them, as believers were then a persecuted people. Once the persecutions subsided, however, the institutionalisation of health care began in earnest.

For example, the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 directed bishops to establish hospices in every city that had a cathedral. The first hospital was built by St Basil in Caesarea in 369. By the Middle Ages hospitals covered all of Europe and even beyond. In fact, “Christian hospitals were the world’s first voluntary charitable institutions”.

Care for the mentally ill was also a Christian initiative. Nursing also sprang from Christian concerns for the sick, and many Christians have given their lives to such tasks. One thinks of Florence Nightingale, for example, and the formation of the Red Cross.

Education, while important in Greek and Roman culture, really took off institutionally under the influence of Christianity. The early Greeks and Romans had no public libraries or educational institutions – it was Christianity that established these. As discipleship was important for the first believers (and those to follow), early formal education arose from Christian catechetical schools. Unique to Christian education was the teaching of both sexes.

Also a Christian distinctive, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included. There was no bias based on ethnicity or class. And the concept of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers. Moreover, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian educational endeavours.

As another example of the Christian influence, consider the issue of work and economic life. The Greeks and Romans had a very low view of manual labour, and so it was mainly the slaves and lower classes that were forced to toil with their hands. The non-slave population lived chiefly for personal pleasure. In these early cultures slaves usually greatly outnumbered freemen.

Thus there was no such thing as the dignity of labour in these cultures, and economic freedom was only for a select few. The early church changed all this. Jesus of course was a carpenter’s son. Paul was a tentmaker. And the early admonition, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” was taken seriously by the early believers. Thus work was seen as an honorable and God-given calling. Laziness and idleness were seen as sinful.

The idea of labor as a calling, and the idea spoken by Jesus that the laborer is worthy of his wages, revolutionised the workplace. The dignity of labor, the value of hard work, and the sense of vocation, soon changed the surrounding society; the development of a middle class being one of the outcomes. The development of unions is another result. Indeed, the works of Weber and Tawney, among others, records the profound effect the Protestant Reformation has had on work and modern capitalism.

More impacts can be noted. The commandment against stealing of course redefined the concept of private property and property rights. And the protection of workers and workers’ rights also flows directly from the biblical worldview. The early unionists were Christians, and concerns for social justice in the workplace and beyond derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Other great achievements might be mentioned. The Western political experience, including genuine democracy at all levels of society, equality, human rights and various freedoms, all stem from the Christian religion, along with its Hebrew forebear. The rise of modern science has been directly linked with the biblical understanding of the world. The many great achievements in art, literature and music also deserve mention. For example, how much poorer would the world be without the Christian artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Brahms, Dante, Milton, Bunyan, and countless others?

The bottom line, as Schmidt notes, is that if Jesus Christ had never been born, to speak of Western civilisation would be incomprehensible. Indeed, there may never have been such a civilisation. The freedoms and benefits we enjoy in many modern cultures are directly due to the influence of this one man. And besides all the institutional, cultural, social, political and artistic benefits, there is one last benefit: the countless millions of changed lives due to a liberating encounter with the risen Christ. It is this benefit, first and foremost, which of course accounts for all the institutional benefits.

One could argue that changed lives alone are a sufficient testimony to this unique man. But of course changed lives result in changed families, changed neighborhoods, changed societies. The transformation of individuals and nations for the better can all be attributed to this one man, born in a manger but soon to return as ruler of the universe.

In sum, Alvin Schmidt deserves an enormous amount of gratitude for this sterling collection of information and inspiration. Christians have made many mistakes. But they have also achieved many great things, all because of the one whom they follow.

Here is an Amazon review of Copan's book:

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

In short, God is a "moral monster."

Paul Copan begs to differ with Dawkins' evaluation of the Old Testament God, not to mention the similar critiques of other New Atheists--e.g., Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In Is God a Moral Monster? he uses these critiques as "a springboard to clarify and iron out misunderstandings and misrepresentations." More than that, he essays to defend the justice of God, properly understood and correctly presented.

Copan divides his work into four sections. Part 1 identifies the New Atheists and outlines their critique of God. Part 2 responds to critiques of God's character that revolve around his desire for the praise of his people, his "jealousy" for their fidelity, and his command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Part 3 tackles what Dawkins calls the Bible's "ubiquitous weirdness" and those passages he sees as morally monstrous. This section, the book's longest, deals with kosher laws, criminal punishments, relationships between the sexes, slavery, the killing of the Canaanites particularly, and the so-called "religious roots" of violence generally. Part 4 concludes the book by questioning whether atheism can provide a foundation for morality and by pointing to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Copan's response to the New Atheists utilizes the following types of arguments:

First, he situates the Old Testament narratives and laws within the "redemptive movement of Scripture." As a Christian, Copan reads the Bible as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is an unsullied creation, and the end is Jesus Christ. The historical and legal elements of the Old Testament take place in the middle, falling short of God's creational ideals and in need of Jesus Christ's redemptive work. Far from being "God's timeless wisdom," Copan argues, much of the Old Testament is "inferior and provisional," offering "incremental steps toward the ideal."

Second, Copan situates the Old Testament within its historical context, pointing out how its legal codes are often a measurable improvement on the contemporaneous legal codes of other ancient near eastern societies. Criminal punishments are less severe, relationships between the sexes are fairer to women, slavery is more strictly regulated, and warfare is less savage.

Third, regarding difficult Old Testament narratives, Copan points out that narration does not imply endorsement. Jacob married two women and used their maidservants as concubines, but this does not imply divine endorsement. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter because of a rash vow, but his action did not merit divine approval. Many New Atheist critiques of Old Testament narratives commit what Copan calls "the `is-ought' fallacy."

Fourth, regarding difficult Old Testament laws, Copan focuses on their context and their limited application. Take Deuteronomy 20:16-18, for example--where God commanded the Israelites to "utterly destroy...the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite." Copan points out several things worth keeping in mind.

* In issuing this commandment, God uses Israel as an agent of judgment against the Canaanites, whom God is judging for their wickedness.
* In addition to a concern for justice, God's concern is religious: Unless the Canaanites are destroyed, they will corrupt the monotheistic faith and practice of Israel.
* This commandment, and others like it, has limited application to the initial entry of Israel into the Promised Land. It is not used as justification for Israel's wars once they are established in the land.
* The commandment is not racially or ethnically motivated, since other passages of Scripture promise a similar judgment to Israel if she is disobedient to God and since Israel itself was a multi-ethnic host.
* The narratives describing the fulfillment of this commandment use "ancient near eastern exaggeration rhetoric," meaning that the descriptions of total killing are not literally true and would not have been understood to be literally true by Israel or her contemporaries.
* The targeted cities are best understood as military outposts rather than non-combatant urban areas.
* Canaanites could escape divine judgment by joining Israel (as did Rahab and her household).
* Although some verses in Joshua describe the total destruction of the Canaanites after Israel's entry into the Promised Land, other verses describe their continued presence. So, the Bible's narrative portrayal of Israel's "conquest" is itself ambivalent.

I doubt that New Atheists will think of much of this type of argument--focusing on context and limiting application. My guess is that they will still consider the commandment problematic, even contextualized and limited. Fine. But Copan's point is that they should correctly describe what the narrative describes and understood the limitations of the commandments before they simply condemn them. One of the most irritating aspects of New Atheist critiques is their fundamentalist-like citation of Scripture without bothering to understand its contextual meaning. Copan's argument helps expose the hermeneutical weaknesses of such New Atheist critiques.

In general, I found Copan's argument to be persuasive, even probative at points. I think he successfully highlights numerous weaknesses in the New Atheist critique of the Old Testament God. Results may vary for different readers. Nonetheless, I think this is a valuable book for both atheists and Christians alike. It is valuable for atheists because it offers them a nuanced interpretation of difficult Old Testament passages. Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against the Old Testament God based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, atheists need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream Christian tradition. The book is valuable for Christian readers because it helps them read their Bibles in a Christ-centered way, recognizing the less-than-ideal character of many Old Testament figures and the inferior-and-provisional character of many Old Testament laws.

lastly, let me add, that I will read your biographical information, for that is logically what I wanted to know about after I started reading the Bible wheel, and much more so, when I read this article and my heart sank. I do care for you and your soul, and I will be praying for you.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

It is not legitimate to offer a refuted post as a "reply" to the refutation. Sorry. You must address the facts that refute your response otherwise you are simply letting the refutation stand.

I don't recognize your interpretations and perspectives as 'facts'.

I don't rely on those things either. I offered them as evidence of how the Bible has been interpreted historically. They represent the "fruit" of the Biblical teachings about women.

Again, as noted before, interpretive principles and 'religious' christianity have wrongly sought to justify themselves by making Pauls epistles of encouragement, clarification and general support into rules and laws and then KEEPING THEM. Justification is by faith and faith alone.

There is no evidence in the Bible for you assertions about the "context" of the book of Timothy. Upon what are you relying for that information? Not the "ECF" I presume.

It was from at least two sources of well researched commentary that I read. I thought I had posted it here before, but perhaps not.

I said nothing about the meaning of keeping them "safe" during childbirth.

That is however what the text instructs to Timothy. Note that he is writing a letter to Timothy himself, not to a broad group of people.

It is rude, logically fallacious, and false for you to say I have an "accusative and judgmental spirit." And even if I did, it would not affect the validity of the facts I present - that's why such ad hominem is a logical fallacy. You need to show some error in something I have written if you want to refute my argument.

It's been written above. You do not see with your spiritual eyes the difference between commandments that were given to a temporary people of the mosaic covenant who were still in condemnation of the law of sin/death from the Garden as contrast with freedom from that law of sin/death to both genders equally after the cross. It's quite possible, though not proven, that the men of the mosaic covenant age like unbelieving or falsly instructed men of today would have had an attitude of blame on their female counterparts for still being in the curse of death. In Deut 4 or 5 they even say, "why must we now 'die'.... for we have seen that the Lord liveth. They were still thinking that physical life should be perpetual, thus blaming the woman for that condition. But God says that he created MAN [humankind] as MALE and Female, thus affirming generation procreation and lifespans [including birth,life,death] as part of his designed will.

You assertion that I cited Ephesians 5:22 again without noting the command of "mutual submission" is false. It appears you did not read my post. Here is what I wrote:


But now that I look more closely at your assertion, I see you have changed the words to say "Husbands are to also submit to loving their wives." The asymmetry of your comment shows that you are judging by an unequal and unrighteous scale. You have a double standard. Women are told to submit TO their husbands themselves, whereas you say that the men are told to submit to "loving their wives." That is a world of difference, and a very deceptive style of thinking. You will never find truth by trying to justify your preconceived beliefs through such tricky rhetoric.

I'll admit to changing the wording to instill emphasis which I find in the surrounding context. But you did not address the context in your post. Here is the context of the passage. Paul is not declaring women to be submissive to their husbands as a stand alone command, but as part of a mutual subordination to an emulation of God's design of unity, peace and harmony.

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27 Neither give place to the devil.

28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.,

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Here it can be seen that wives submitting to their husbands and husbands giving themselve up for their wives are both subordinate to all members of the body of Christ submitting themselves one to another. [VS 21] It is a subtopic of the context of the previous chapters. It is not a theme of the chapter and it cannot be taken out of the context of what the chapter and book is discussing. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE !!! He's using the husband/wife relationship to indicate one example of all the believers submitting themselves to one another out of reference to Christ.

They use scripture (St Paul's letters) to justify this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Thus a man could never swear a canonical oath to a woman bishop. Other objections rest on the fact that Jesus chose only male disciples. Was Jesus sexist?

Here again there is an example of Paul writing a specific instruction to a specific people and specific time period. We do not know all the context of what the people were previously discussing and to which Paul addresses and writes. Again, he is not writing command, but encouragement and support of the spirits work in their lives. I actually think that due to the seed of God coming exclusively through the women to cancel and reverse the law of sin/seperation from God incurred in the stipulations in the Garden, that there may have been an inclination in the believing women to perhaps joyously exhault and proclaim themselves as saviors of mankind through their faith. I am only speculating and gleaning this from an awareness of what the inner witness and freedom of the indwelling spirit would have meant to the women and female gender especially in contrast with their status under law and under felt responsibilty of the curse of the 'sin' until the seed promised to Eve would come. Thus some of Pauls words can be understood as a counter to that situation and context. He doesn't say: I demand that men Lord over their women, but that he doesn't permit women to teach or have authority OVER a man. It seems obvious that the circumstances of their situation could have been a tendency and desire for the female gender to do this due to their bearing the seed of God. And Paul is responding to these circumstances. Elsewhere he does say that the women should learn at home, but this too could possibly have partial context in countering the exhuberance that the female gender would have Known in their release from being accused by the male gender.

This is actually still a problem with our futurist and partial preterist friends. They view physical death [not spiritual ignorance and seperation] as the punishment incurred in the Garden, thus the present earth and mankind is still under condemnation and under 'curse' of death due to the 'sin' of the woman. They say mankind is in a 'fallen condition'. When in fact, the seed has come, only ONE VOICE of LOVE is in the New Garden, [Yay Steve Miller: Window] the stipulative, conditional law and the tempter is cast out of the inner man concerning their relationship with their Creator.

Are you arguing that the vast majority of Christian leaders over a span of two millennia have been consistently misinterpreted Paul? Or that the church policies are not sexist? Neither of those arguments will stand.

I'm not too intersted in changing "Christian leaders' misunderstandings and misinterpreting of Pauls letters. I dont' acknowledge many 'christian leaders' other than the Holy Spirit, the apostles and the inductive principles of interpretation. I hang out with them. Part of our differences of perspective is due to your lack of understanding the inductive nature of interpretign the epistles as a genre of "Epistole" which many times addressed particular cultural or covanental context issues .


Part of the reason for the male apostles could have been a replacement of the sons of Israel for the NC. There were many women disciples among his followers. The women were the first to seen him after his resurrection.

1) The Bible presents a male hierarchy of authority: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This is, by definition, sexist:

• Male Ruler: God
  
• Male Ruler: Christ
  
• Male Ruler: Man
  
• Female Subject: Woman

Richard

If Christ is also the 'son [servant] of man' then the man is also servant [lover and instructor] of the woman who is to build her up in Love as if from above. You can't refute this logic either. This is where I interjected the idea as a submission to Love. This is continually supported by the example of Christ's coming, teaching and giving himself up for us. The concept of ruler/subject is not in the New Covenant ideology other than ruling via Love and understanding of truth of the reality of his entity.

Though many concepts may come through the logic and reasoning ability of the male gender, I'd be a fool and a liar to even begin to think or claim that I've not been instructed/taught/supported by members of the female gender in my past and continually with particular regard to sensetivities and intuitions into the divinity of human life; but also into some of the allegorical understandings of prophecies through the softness and positiveness of God's intentions and Love evident in the end purposes of those prophecies.

There may be some considerations to the aspect that the male individual is not to be controlled by the females leadership of his instruction, but is to more highly regard his dependance on and instruction by the Spirit.

Again, you need to consider a whole survey of all relevent passages.

I expect that we'll continue to be at odds on this issue, and I may not have time for further refutations.

All the best also.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

lastly, let me add, that I will read your biographical information, for that is logically what I wanted to know about after I started reading the Bible wheel, and much more so, when I read this article and my heart sank. I do care for you and your soul, and I will be praying for you.

Thanks for the quotes from those books. DT.

Adam's bride was Eve, who was taken from his own body! So won't the 'bride of Christ' be taken from the church: the 'body of Christ"?

Abraham sent his trusted servant to fetch a bride for Isaac, and Rebekah was found watering the camels. Now the Holy Spirit has come seeking the Bride of Christ, and he's looking for the faithful who are feeding the Living Water to those who haven't heard.

The tribe of Benjamin (means 'Son of the Right Hand') was nearly wiped out, Judges 21, and it seemed that 600 men of that tribe wouldn't be able to find wives! What a strange and puzzling tale, but what a calamity today, if the Holy Spirit isn't able to locate wives for the REAL 'Son of the Right Hand', Jesus!

BOTTOM LINE? If there is one, it's probably this: Romans 7:2 tells us "the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband". So Jesus died on the cross! The Father sent the Son on purpose, and the greatness and complexity of the account of the Bride of Christ has been told so we'll know the Truth of the Holy Trinity!!

Hey there Dispensational Truth,

I'm really glad you are pursuing this topic. It helps demonstrate the truth of my article. I hope you continue.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Sexism according to Merriam Webster

: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women

Your accusation that the Bible is sexist is a lie. It is an attack on the morality of the Author and writers, and it is false, since nothing resembling the above definition is in Scripture.

I'm really glad you posted the definition, but I am mystified how you could deny that the Bible fits that definition precisely. You know perfectly well that the Bible does not give women anything like equal rights with men. You know this. It is sexism, pure and simple. That's why women have had to struggle for centuries to gain such basic rights as equal access to education, the vote, jobs, and the basic human freedom to live independently. Women could not even have a bank account in Christian America until the Twentieth century. Women have been oppressed by the Biblical teachings for 2000 years. This fact cannot be denied. Now don't get me wrong. Sexism is not unique to Christianity, but neither is Christianity free from it. I have given many examples that show "prejudice or discrimination based on sex, especially: discrimination against women." Here are a few of them again:

Is there a male hierarchy of authority, with women at the bottom? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a woman to submit to her husband and call him lord? Yes. Is a man to submit to his wife and call her lord? No. That's sexism.

Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? No. Are men allowed to have authority over women? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a woman allowed to teach? No. Are men allowed to teach? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a women valued at approximately 60% of men? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl rather than a boy? Yes. That's sexism.

Is a male Hebrew slave allowed to go free after six years? Yes. Is a female Hebrew slave? No, she is a slave for life. That's sexism (and slavery too!).

Is a man allowed to divorce his wife in the OT? Yes. Is a women allowed to divorce her husband? No. That's sexism.

I could go on and on ... it appears you don't understand the basic meaning of words. The Bible is totally sexist from beginning to end.

You cannot refute my argument by merely asserting falsehoods. You need to quote the actual words I wrote and show where I erred so that all rational people will have reason to agree. As it stands, you are merely making assertions with no foundation in fact.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Its in the Diabolical Koran, which is a PERVERSION of dozens of Bible stories, borrowed Jewish legends and errors from other heretical groups. I have read more than the Koran, I have studied the Sunna of Mohammed and the Hadiths, which reveal all the truth about Islam, and without which the jumbled mess of the Koran cannot be understood. Islam makes people insane. Islam is misogynistic and sexist. Islam, like its founder, is of the devil.

The Bible is heavenly, righteous and true.

You compared the two, and you are totally wrong.

It is never wrong to "compare" things. You just did that yourself! You compared the Koran to the Bible. It appears what you really meant is that is it is wrong to mention the Bible and the Koran without excoriating the latter.

You say the Bible is "heavenly, righteous, and true." I understand where you are coming from, since I believed the same thing for many years. But then I opened my eyes and saw things that I had overlooked when I was "blinded by the light" - for there truly is much in the Bible that is amazing and heavenly. But it has a dark side too, and if you can't admit this, then you are blind like I was. For example, how can you think that the laws of the OT are good? They allowed soldiers who found a pretty girl amongst the war captives to take her, have sex with her, and discard her if she didn't "please him." Here it is:

Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

The word "humbled" in this context means "had sex with." So this perfect, righteous law of God explicitly allows soldiers to take pitiful captive women, have sex with them, and then discard them like a dirty rag if they are not "pleased" by them. You call that moral? You don't see it as sexist?

Another example is Numbers 31 where God commanded all the men, women, and children be slaughtered except 32,000 sexy virgins who were then distributed amongst the Israelites, with half going to the very soldiers who had just murdered every person those poor girls ever loved. This is not only a murderous moral abomination, but it also is sexist - the girls were kept alive only because they were highly desirable FEMALE VIRGINS. It was all about SEX. We see a very similar abomination in Judges 20-21 where every man, woman, and child of Jabeshgilead was murdered for the explicit purpose of kidnapping virgins to give to the remaining 600 soldiers of Bethlehem after God helped the other tribes kill them. There are many moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

The Bible does not teach women are stupid, like domesticated animals and are to be beaten by their husbands. The Bible does not teach that Hell is mostly populated by women who were ungrateful to their husbands. Mohammed the pedophile taught such things as "divine revelation"

Your denigration of the Bible by calling it sexist is FALSE. It is not. Your agruments to support it are rather absurd.

I never said that the Bible says women are stupid. Your comment does not apply to anything I wrote, and so it does not refute anything I wrote. It would help if you addressed what I actually wrote.

But the Bible does list women along with domesticated animals and other property in the Tenth Commandment. Therefore, the Tenth Commandment does not even apply to women at all! The Ten Commandments were written for men, not women. Women are not treated with equal rights in the Bible. It is sexist.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

So, what pejorative term do you use for the Bible's teaching that children are to obey their parents??? Is that bad as well? What liberal slander will you use for that?

Or you will admit that IT IS RIGHT for children to submit to and obey and honor their parents? Nothing wrong there. Your arguments are anarchy and would seek to overthrow any order in family or life. I call your position REBELLION.

Again, you are addressing stuff that I did not write. That's not how you refute an argument. You need to respond to what I actually wrote.

But in answer to your question, the idea of "obedience" has nothing to do with morality. As the old saying goes, "Obedience is doing what you are told whether it is right or wrong, morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told." This is the primary error of the Bible. It does not teach "morality" at all, but rather OBEDIENCE which is the "morality" of the military. Hitler's troops were "just obeying orders" when they murdered six million Jews just as the Jews were "only following God's orders" when they murdered all the inhabitants of the "Promised land" that they were ordered to INVADE. This fact is often overlooked by Christian apologists. The Israelites were the invaders.

It is important for children to obey because they are children who have yet to develop sufficient maturity to act on their own decisions. It is not a value in and of itself, it is necessary to protect and guide the child until they reach maturity. After that, the concept of servile obedience to others is a handicap, not a virtue.

The fact that you think morality is nothing but OBEDIENCE and immorality is nothing but REBELLION shows how the Bible has corrupted your sense of morality. Those concepts are the morality that DICTATORS impose upon their subjects. True morality is the doing what is RIGHT regardless of what you are told.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Simple physiology proves what the Bible says is true--men are STRONGER and designed for hard labor. Men excel in Math, logic and philosophy. The best chefs are men. Almost all inventions were by men. I can go on and on. Men CANNOT mother children like women can, nor can they give birth. We are different. Men are clearly designed to lead, guide and protect. Women are natural followers. ITS OBVIOUS. I may not be really old, by I have lived a very full, well-read and observant 47 years of life and I KNOW WHAT I SEE. And what I see comports exactly with Scripture.

I wish there were a way to communicate the irony of your justification. Your assertion that "men are stronger" is only true in a statistical sense. There are women that are stronger than most men. Why should they not be free to use their strength just like a man? There are women that are better at math than most men. Why should they not be free to use their skill? Christianity has traditionally denied women equal rights even when they had equal (or better) skills. This is SEXISM, pure and simple. Women were denied EDUCATION. Women were denied the right to be heard! Mary Anne Evans had to assume the false male identity of "George Eliot" to get her works published.

Your answer only CONFIRMS the truth of my argument. And as an added bonus, it reveals why you cannot understand that the Bible is sexist. The sexist teaching of the Bible has entered so deeply into your mind, you use sexist examples to prove the Bible is not sexist! How ironic is that?

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Paul did not blame Eve. This Feminist chestnut is unworthy of response, as anyone reading the Bible can see what Paul taught. Paul said he did not allow women to teach or USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN, like Eve did because Adam was created first, and had the firstborn priviledge and pre-eminence, and that Eve was actually deceived, and anyone knows that women can be played emotionally and led into error by some sweet-talk.

But Paul BLAMES ADAM-Rom 5. Adam DISOBEYED AND REBELLED. In Adam all die, not Eve. This means He sinned, its his fault, but also that He plunged humanity into this mess because he was the head and representative. So what are you talking about? Adam knew what he was doing. Eve was used to get him to disobey.

Again, you only confirm what I wrote. The MALE Adam has preeminence over the FEMALE from the beginning. This follows the pattern of MALE AUTHORITY over women that is based upon the Biblical teaching of God as MALE who rules over MAN and MAN rules over WOMAN. That's sexism, pure and simple.

It is true that Paul blamed Adam in Romans 5, but in 1 Timothy 2:14 he blamed Eve: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." He said Eve was "in transgression." So your assertion that this is a "Feminist chestnut" that is "unworthy of response" is shown to be absurd. You would do well not to make such absurd statements that are so easily refuted.

And again, we see the core teaching of Biblical morality has absolutely nothing to do with "morality" at all, but rather OBEDIENCE and REBELLION which are the highest values of a SLAVE MENTALITY. Obedience cannot be "moral" or "immoral" because it's moral value depends upon what you are obeying. Therefore, the concept of obedience is utterly distinct from the concept of morality. The Bible has misinformed Christians about the nature of morality - and worse, the error taught in the Bible is the source of the greatest evil in the world that comes from HUMAN AUTHORITIES demanding OBEDIENCE to commands like the Crusades, witch burnings, and what ever. Let this sink in - the Biblical teaching that OBEDIENCE = MORALITY is what makes ARMIES that go out committing gross atrocities, such as the murder of millions of Jews under Hitler.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

You have a probem with Order in family and society. So, is it wrong for Employees to obey their boss? Should they be at work as an asset and good Christian witness, or is that some kind of oppression in your view?

I have no problem with "order in the family" unless it is a military style order that demands OBEDIENCE by the wife. Many Christians take this command so far as to say that a woman being abused should not get divorced.

As for obedience to an employer - there's no problem with that at all. It is part of the agreement. It has nothing to do with morality.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Is giving the kind of submission to governing authorities per Rom 13 wrong as well? Do you have some pejorative term for that as well?

Funny you should mention that. America was born in REBELLION against its CHRISTIAN RULERS (England) in direct contradiction of Romans 13. So much for the fantasy history of the great "Christian America" of the old days. It's all propaganda and lies. There was never a "Christian America" unless you are talking about the Christians who stole the land and murdered the natives who lived here. The Christians who kept Africans as slaves and tortured them mercilessly even as they read them Paul's command "Slaves, obey your masters" (Col 3:22).

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

If God made men to lead, and gave them the responsibility to lead, WORK AND PROVIDE FOR their wives and children, doesn't it make sense that the wife should HELP her husband, support and obey him? Women do that best, and I can tell you, when my wife is in my corner like that, I am high as a kite and will do anything(not sinful of course) for her! She defers to me for final decisions about things, and trusts God with that, and prays for me that if I am wrong, I will hear the Lord and correct-course. This works. Always has.

There is no need for the husband to RULE OVER the woman as if she were a child who could not think for herself. But that's exactly how the Bible says it:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them. 20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart. 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. (Col 3:18-22)

Women, children, and slaves are all commanded to OBEY their MALE RULERS.

Obedience is not morality. Obedience is for children who don't know how to care for themselves and for group endeavors like the military and activities that require cooperation. It is especially import for INSTITUTIONAL RELIGION which is based fundamentally on OBEDIENCE to a MALE HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY that is patterned on the theological view of God as a MALE RULER. Just look at the Pope, the Imams, the Pastors who rule over their "flocks." The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are thoroughly and completely sexist. You can deny this fact all you want - it won't change the fact. Anyone with eyes can see the truth ... except those who are willfully blind.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

So you call sexism something that by definition is not. You see, I have submitted myself to people in my life that didn't know what they were talking about, but since they were in authority, and what they were saying was not sinful for me to obey, I humbly did so and trusted God. Submission is not sexism. It is divine order as spelled out in Scripture. Even Christ submitted to DEATH, something horrible, and death on a Cross for a noble, glorious purpose. A wife submitting to her husband is not a cross like that! The spirit of the age we live in is a REBELLIOUS, WICKED spirit, and the worst one is the FEMINIST SPIRIT. That spirit has wrought more destruction to the West than any other. The Devil knew if he could destroy the family unit, he could destroy nations and churches in those nations by turning everything on its head.

I don't understand why you feel confident to continually repeat that I "call sexism something that by definition is not." You have not shown any error in my examples of the sexism that saturates the Bible from beginning to end. Paul said "It is good not to touch a woman." Obviously, he was talking to MEN, not women. He did not say "it is good for a woman not to touch a man." The Bible does not say that women are "defiled" by men, but it does say that men are "defiled" by women (Rev 14:4).

If you submitted yourself to FALLIBLE MEN when you did not even understand "what they were talking about" then you have abdicated your personal responsibility put yourself in great danger since you didn't know if those men were trustworthy or if their commands were moral.

And again, you exemplify the fundamental biblical confusion that replaces MORALITY with OBEDIENCE. You identify "rebellion" with "wickedness" when in fact they have nothing in common. And worse, you have identified the CRY FOR FREEDOM coming from the female half of the humanity with "wicked rebellion." These are the kinds of evils I was opposing when I wrote the article we are discussing.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

Feminism is wickedness. The spirit behind feminism is the Sodomite-spirit, because that was always the goal. Once the woman left her proper sphere from home and family, and sought to be like a man and seek careers, the destruction of the family via divorce and adultery ensued, children were wounded and confused, and now what have we here??? THE HOMOSEXUAL PLAGUE HAS COME UPON OUR NATION AS A RESULT OF THIS SPIRIT. It is the same spirit that lied to you and said the Bible is sexist. Look at the fruit of those who rebelled against the Bible and hold your mindsets! We are literally becoming Sodom and Gomorrah!

Wow - your comment reeks with sexism. Statements like "the woman left her proper sphere from home and family" is the essence of sexism. Your comments show that you have been indoctrinated with the sexist teachings of the Bible to such an extent you cannot even see them for what they are. Its fine if you want to defend the idea that God ordained sexism, but it is utterly absurd for you to deny that the Bible is sexist. Your own words PROVE that the Bible is sexist!

As for the "homosexual plague" - that's a perfect example of how the Bible corrupts the minds and morals of believers. What about the plague of slavery that marred our country from its beginning? Do you think that God is more concerned about sexuality or the enslavement, torture, rape, and murder of a whole race of people? You values are warped. This is most obvious when looking at the fundamentalists like the Southern Baptists. They LIE LIE LIE - spitting in the face of the Christ they claim to love - to protect their leaders who have been caught lying. This was something that really helped free me from the shackles of Christianity. I'm talking about Ergun Caner, the former President and Dean of Liberty's Theological Seminary. He had a Turkish father, Swedish mother, and grew up in Columbus Ohio from age three. When 9/11 happened, he knew he could make a lot of money and fame by pretending to be a former terrorist trained in Turkey to "do what was done on September 11" before he "found Jesus." He preached his lies from many pulpits and in his classes at Liberty U for nearly a decade before he was exposed. And what happened when his lies were exposed? Liberty U tried to cover them up. Their entire leadership is UTTERLY CORRUPT. When the lies could no longer be hidden, they finally had to let him go, but still refused to admit he lied. Many Christian ministries silently removed his videos to hide his lies. Prominent Christian apologists like Norm Geisler and John Ankerberg LIED to cover up his lies. His brother Emir, a president at another Christian seminary, knew all about his lies and chose to cover them up. THEY ARE ALL LIARS LIARS LIARS. PURE CORRUPTION saturates fundamentalist Christianity. And now the LIAR is teaching at another FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN COLLEGE. This showed me that there is a near ubiquitous spirit of LIES saturating many if not most fundamentalist Christian organization. You can read all about it in my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community.

Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth

So I appeal to you to recant this foolishness. You can say you don't agree with what Scripture says, but calling it sexist is false by definition and NONE of your examples demonstrate this. I would further encourage you to go on a prolonged fast, humble yourself and seek the Lord Jesus Christ to bring you out of sin and delusion, and back to faith in Him and His word.

I very much appreciate your appeal, but there is no way I can deviate from the truth. So if you think I have erred in something I have written, you need to quote my exact words and show precisely how they are false. Only then can I change a word of what I've written.

A good place to start would be your assertion that "calling it sexist is false by definition and NONE of your examples demonstrate this." Your assertion mystifies me. The examples I gave are true. Your assertion ha no basis in fact. You have shown no error as yet, so there is nothing for me to change. Again, let me appeal to you to quote something I actually wrote and show how I misinterpreted it.

Again, I'm really glad you are taking the time and effort to work with me on this. It is very important. If you are correct, then you posts will help people see my errors. But this sword cuts both ways. If you are not correct, then you will be confirming the truth of my words. This is why many Christians can't risk speaking in public about these issues. I hope you will persevere to the "bitter end" so that folks reading will be able to discern the truth of the matter.

All the very best,

Richard