Google Ads

  • Google Ads

  • Bible Wheel Book

  • Google Ads

  • Recent Forum Posts

    Scott

    9 1 1

    2 3 6 8 + 6 6 6 = 3 0 3 4

    3 . (1 4 . . . . . . . . . . { 9 9 4 digits } . . . .2 1 6 4)(2 0 1 9 8 9 . . . . . . .{ 1 5 9 0 + 4 5 0 digits

    Scott Today, 11:43 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    (3 . 1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . { 2 3 3 1 position's }. . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 6)(. . . . .{ 6 6 6 + 2 1 6 position's } . . . . [ position 3 2 1 3 ]

    Scott Yesterday, 12:53 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    3 . 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 6 3( . . . . . . . { 5 7 digits } . . . . . . . . )1 5 9 0

    1st occurrence of 1 9 6 3
    1st occurrence

    Scott 12-06-2019, 12:41 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    2 6 + 2 + 6 + Twenty Six + Two + Six

    = [ 1 5 9 0 + 5 8 ]

    5 8 yrs from conception, this spring of 2 0 2 0.
    If the

    Scott 12-05-2019, 10:35 AM Go to last post
    Silence

    Electric Universe Revisited - Birkeland Gets The Last Laugh

    This video documents more of the problems that are causing what even mainstream scientists are calling "a crisis in cosmology". The first part

    Silence 12-05-2019, 07:28 AM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    3 . 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 8(6 . . . . . . . . { 2 3 6 8 } . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6)

    3 . 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . .(8 6 .

    Scott 12-03-2019, 07:03 PM Go to last post
    Scott

    9 1 1

    3 . 1 4 . . . .(8 6 . . . .{ 2 7 0 1 + 8 6 + 2 3 6 8+ 1 5 9 0 + 6 6 6 digits} . . . . 2 3 6 8)


    3 . 1 4 . . . . . . . . 8(6 . .

    Scott 12-02-2019, 10:47 AM Go to last post
  • Say what? A Fundamentalist Defends the Sexism of the Bible

    In my recent article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible I presented a large body of evidence supporting my thesis. This presents a problem for Biblical fundamentalists because they passionately believe that the rule of males over females is the "Divine Order" instituted by God himself but balk at calling it "sexism" because sexism is wrong according to modern secular values. So what's a good fundamentalist to do? Twist words beyond all recognition, of course. That is the primary tactic in any defense of the indefensible. My response below picks up after our initial interaction where he accused me of "failing to understand the simple meaning of words."

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    You have no idea with whom you are dealing. I am a linguaphile - I love words and the study words. I use them with extreme precision. It would be a cold day in hell when anyone, let alone a simple-minded Bible believer, could catch me failing to "understand the simple definition of words."
    "simple-minded"? Hmmn--fallacy number One--Ad Hominem in BLACK AND WHITE. And this coming from a man that knows NOTHING about me, my education and intellectual attainments in this life. But it does suit your purpose, which is to exalt yourself and denigrate your opponent. That is not an argument, but a fallacy. Score 1-0. And notice the warning--that I have no idea with whom I am dealing. Uh, yes I do--a typical infidel full of himself and his self-professed intellectual superiority. I know with whom I am dealing--an arrogant, proud man who is blinded by his sin. People like you, who have an ax to grind, certainly CANNOT, and WILL NOT understand the meanings of words, and will conflate different words to suit their agenda. You are devoid of the Spirit of God, and therefore self-handicapped. You have tried to make the words patriarchy and sexism SYNONYMS, even though they are not, and none of your undocumented definitions are proof. Apples are not oranges. They may be similar in many ways, but they aren't the same. Your assertion is the Bible is SEXIST--as in IMMORAL. It is NOT. It teaches a LOVING, REPSONSIBLE PATRIARCHY, which by definition IS NOT THE SAME THING. Score 2-0.
    Hey there DT,

    As I said, I'm very glad you are pursuing this conversation because it helps demonstrate the truth of my article and the utter bankruptcy of arguments against it. Case in point, your assertion that I committed the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem is itself fallacious because I did not use any ad hominem in any argument. The comment that you called "ad hominem" was simply a statement of my opinion given in response to your unfounded and false assertion that I had "failed to understand the simple meaning of words." I did not use it in any argument.

    It is true that it was "ad hominem" in the sense that it was directed "to the man" (you) but that does not make it a fallacy. There is a double irony here because you followed your accusation with a gushing sewer of ad hominem attacks that would make Satan himself blush. This is a "double irony" because you have convicted yourself of two things: 1) hypocrisy, and 2) grossly violating the teachings of the Bible. More on this below.

    You also erred when you said that I know nothing about you. Your profile states that you are a "born again Bible believer" so that part of my statement is accurate. And if your posts indicate anything, it is that you are a very simple-minded fundamentalist. For example, you asserted that "Allah is Lucifer." This indicates a gross ignorance of the Bible since nowhere in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts or in any legitimate translation of them is any fallen angel, let alone Satan, called "Lucifer." That name is nothing but a mistranslation imported from the Latin Vulgate into the King James Version. I explained your error in this post but you have yet to respond. I would be very interested to know if you will admit your error. It is one of the most common errors amongst simple-minded Biblical fundamentalists who are typically quite ignorant of what the Bible actually states. And there is yet another error here. The word "Allah" is used by Arab Christians to refer to the God of Christianity. It is used in Arabic translations of the Bible. But that's another issue we will have to put off for another time. You have provided more than enough fallacious fish to keep this thread frying for quite some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    You err by not reading my posts carefully. I never said that mere "submission" was synonymous with sexism.
    No, you never "said" it, you just ARGUED like they were. Score 3-0
    It is good that you admit that your error, but your assertion that I "ARGUED like they were" is nothing but an empty and false assertion. You don't seem to understand how to refute an argument. You must accurately quote my words and then show where I erred. If you fail to accurately represent my argument you will have done nothing but construct a straw man, which ironically is what you accused me of doing. So again, we see you doing the very thing you accused me of just as you did when you accused me of ad hominem. This appears to be a fundamental characteristic of your psyche. It is called hypocrisy. The Bible explicitly states that such behavior is unrighteous. For example:
    Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
    And again:
    Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
    Your comments indicate that you despise the teachings of the Bible.

    And there is of course great irony in your self-serving running score in which you count all your errors as victories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    That would be absurd, as you rightly noted. Both men and women are instructed to submit to God. That is not sexism. Your assertion is irrational and it misrepresents I have written. It is, therefore, a textbook example of a strawman argument. You have consistently erred in this way. You have made many assertions that have nothing to do with anything I have written. As explained in previous posts, you need to quote the exact words I have written and show where I have erred. It is ironic that you falsely accused me of doing what you consistently do. This irony is amplified by your assertion that I don't understand the "simple definition of words." As it turns out, you are describing yourself, not me. Specifically, you wrote:
    I encourage you to go and learn the difference between patriarchy and sexism, for you clearly don't.
    Great! Let's look at those definitions. First, we have the etymology of patriarchy which is from the Greek pater (father) and archein (to rule). Here are a few definitions from various sources:
    Uh, no. You would qoute words in Scripture that tell wives to love and submit to their husbands, and then you scream LOOK, LOOK, SEXISM RIGHT THERE!!!! And so, to any rational, honest person, you are equating submission with sexism. FALLACY! You have conflated these words and their meanings, therefore YOU DON'T KNOW THE SIMPLE MEANINGS OF WORDS, or you choose not to, for puposes of deception. And since you are back in sin and accusing God, such diabolical purposes are not unlikely from you. Score 4-0.
    Again, you have created a straw man. You did not accurately represent my argument. As I explained in the very quote to which you replied, mere "submission" is not sexist and I never argued as if it were. It is the uniform teaching of the whole Bible that commands women must submit to men, not have authority over men, be silent in church, and so forth that is sexist. You have written nothing that addresses, let alone refutes, the facts I presented in my article. Your response therefore is proven to be a textbook example of a straw man argument.

    Your repetition of your empty and erroneous assertion that I "don't know the simple meaning of words" does not make it true. If you want that accusation to stand, you will need to accurately quote something I actually wrote and show me where I erred. You have not done that.

    And again you pour out more fleshly (to use the Biblical terminology) ad hominem from your pricked pride when you accuse me of being "back in sin and accusing God" and that I am motivated by "diabolical purposes" when in fact I am motivated by integrity, truth, goodness, and justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM

    • Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.
    • Patriarchy - A condition in which gender relations are characterized by the dominance of men over women, or masculinity over femininity
    • patriarchal - A social system of male supremacy. Power and significance resides in the father of a family group or clan, and this is passed down through the male heirs. Found in many primitive tribal cultures and fundamentalist societies (primarily Islamic and Judeo-Christian). The tradition of wives being named after their husbands is a remnant of the patriarchal history all of mankind shares.


    Now let's look at a few definitions and descriptions of sexism from various sources:

    • Sexism: Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their gender. The most common form of sexism is discrimination against females. However, it occasionally is manifested as preferential treatment for women. A secondary meaning is the belief that one gender - normally female - is inherently inferior to other genders (male and intersexual). See also racism, religism, and homophobia.
    • Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
    • Sexism defines the ideology of male supremacy, of male superiority and of beliefs that support and sustain it. Sexism and patriarchy mutually reinforce one another. ... Sexism stands in the same relation to paternalism as racism does to slavery.
    Well I could provide a few more definitions from other sources to round out this slanted selection from you, but even so, you refute yourself. At the end we see that sexism is about oppressing women, and the comment about male superiority is not patriarchy, and the comparison of sexism to paternalism with racism to slavery??? Who wrote that, a feminist? Back to that in a minute, but notice that sexism is about OPPRESSING WOMEN. It is rooted in a sinful prejudice against their gender based on mindsets that are outside the Bible and patriarchy. You people sure TRIED HARD to make sexism and patriarchy the same, but OBVIOUSLY they are not. Score 5-0.

    Lets quote something you conveniently FAILED TO QOUTE from Wikipedia. You quoted this:

    is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.

    But you left out this:

    Patriarchy literally means "rule of fathers",[2][3] from the Greek πατριάρχης (patriarkhēs), "father" or "chief of a race, patriarch".[4][5] Historically, the term patriarchy was used to refer to autocratic rule by the male head of a family. However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men

    Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Patriarchy refers to FATHERS, the heads of families, which are the basis of all societies. This changes things from the slanted definitions you gave, and shows the true idea of patriarchy, as revealed in the Bible, which is not about male rule and oppression over women, but the rule of fathers. It is only natural that as families stuctured in this way would be reflected in the communities, cities and governments that developed. And it is QUITE IRONIC that cultures developed along these lines all over the world. Patriachy seems to be the natural development of things. Hmmn. And how did that happen? Why does this happen? O my opponent won't like the answer, because he wants another one! So he must demonize the Scripture to justify what is obvious in nature and history, and Scripture. Such is the vaunted "intellect" I am supposed to be so in awe of. Sorry, but the score is now 6-0.
    I saw that part of the definition in the wiki and chose to leave it out because the patrilineal aspect of patriarchy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument, as is obvious to anyone who read my article. You are simply trying to divert the discussion away from the facts I presented. This is a textbook example of a red herring fallacy - the attempt to mislead or distract from the actual issue. I anticipated your move but chose not to waste space preemptively answering it since I really didn't think you would make such an obvious blunder. But now I'm glad I left it out since it gave you the opportunity to demonstrate, yet again, the fundamentally fallacious methods you must use in your attempt to defend the Bible.

    Your assertion that the patrilineal aspect of patriarchy "changes things from the slanted definitions you gave, and shows the true idea of patriarchy, as revealed in the Bible, which is not about male rule and oppression over women, but the rule of fathers" is ludicrous beyond description. It changes nothing because it relates to nothing I have written in my article or in my responses to you. And worse, it does not contradict the definitions I gave so your point is pointless.

    The issue is not the "definition" of patriarchy. The word "patriarchy" does not even appear in my article at all. And the definition you suggest has nothing to do with anything I've written, so again, you have not addressed, let alone refuted, anything I have written. The issue is the sexism of the Bible established from Genesis to Revelation as I showed in my article. You need to accurately quote something I have written and show where I have erred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Let go further. What else did you fail to quote from Wikipedia? Well this:

    Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women
    And the plot thickens. So we see that it all depends on WHO is doing the definitions! What Richard has failed to do is to point this out, which would be deceptive, or he is unaware, and so demonstrates elementary ignorance in general, and specifically with this subject, despite his own hype. We now see its the FEMINISTS WHO REDEFINED PATRIARCHY into something it is not, because that's how they "feel" about it. And Richard thinks this is proof. Score 7-0
    Yes indeed, your "plot" thickens (with gross fallacies). Once again you have made false and unfounded assertions. You gave no evidence that "feminists have redefined patriarchy." The fact that feminists see patriarchy as sexist does not mean it is not! It does not imply that they redefined anything. On the contrary, they have simply called it as it is in my estimation. If you want your assertion to stand, you need to show some error in the many linked definitions I gave above. You have not done that, so your assertions are empty and void. You consistently err in this way.

    The simple truth is that patriarchy is, by definition, sexist if it discriminates against women for no other reason than that they are women. I have given much evidence that the Bible discriminates against women in many ways. I listed many examples in a previous posts and you have not addressed any of the facts I presented. Here are a few of them again:

    1. Is there a male hierarchy of authority, with women at the bottom? Yes. That's sexism.
    2. 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.
    3. Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? No. Are men allowed to have authority over women? Yes. That's sexism.
    4. Is a woman allowed to teach? No. Are men allowed to teach? Yes. That's sexism.
    5. Is a women valued at approximately 60% of men? Yes. That's sexism.
    6. Is a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl rather than a boy? Yes. That's sexism.
    7. 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!).
    8. Is a man allowed to divorce his wife in the OT? Yes. Is a women allowed to divorce her husband? No. That's sexism.

    That's eight facts that you have totally ignored. And I could go on and on ... indeed, you have not touched any of the facts that show the Bible is sexist from beginning to end.

    You cannot defeat truth by mere assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Then Wikipedia cites explanations from "specialists" who try to account for the widespread order of patriarchy throughout history. Some are rather comical. But this quote is telling:

    Some sociobiologists, such as Steven Goldberg, argue that social behavior is primarily determined by genetics, and thus that patriarchy arises more as a result of inherent biology than social conditioning. Goldberg also contends that patriarchy is a universal feature of human culture. In 1973, Goldberg wrote, "The ethnographic studies of every society that has ever been observed explicitly state that these feelings were present, there is literally no variation at all
    EXACTLY. Its a natural law observed in all places at all times! This is the Divine Order, and it has played out in all societies. It has to be attacked and resisted and slandered to change people from this natual tendency is family and community. That last fact is a three-pointer, and so the Score is now 10-0
    First, it is not a "natural law." The book The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler gives a lot of evidence of egalitarian societies that were not sexist, and which were not marked by the primitive violence of brutal tribal war gods like Yahweh.

    Second, your point is irrelevant because the fact that something is common does not mean it is right or good. This should have been obvious to you as a Christian since you believe that all men are sinners. How do you know that universal sexism is not a manifestation of universal sin?

    Third, your point is a combo straw man + red herring since nothing I wrote in my article has anything to do with whether or not male domination over women has been "observed in all places at all times." You are avoiding the actual facts I presented in my article.

    There are your "three points" for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    So this next comment can be dismissed

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Your error is now self-evident. It is true that there is a difference between patriarchy and sexism because sexism could apply to discrimination against either men or women, whereas patriarchy is defined as male supremacy over women. Thus patriarchy is, by definition, sexist, whereas sexism is not necessarily patriarchal. A matriarchal system would be sexist.
    No, it cannot be dismissed. Patriarchy is, by definition, sexist if it discriminates against women because they are women. You have not written a single word that refutes this fact and I have shown that the Bible discriminates against women from Genesis to Revelation.

    How is it possible that you don't see you have not even addressed, let alone refuted, any of the evidence I presented in my article?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    And then we have this gem:

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Now you attempted to deflect attention from the fact that the Bible teaches patriarchal sexism by focusing on only one aspect of the definition of sexism, namely, the word "prejudice" when you said the "Bible does not teach prejudice against women." You may be correct that the Bible does not explicitly "teach" that people should hold prejudicial views against woman, but on the other hand there is much to suggests otherwise.
    Does anyone see a problem in the above? I do. Its called a CONTRADICTION. He admits what he then turns around and denies! Well, you would make a good Calvinist. Score 11-0.
    There is no contradiction. I was trying to correct your apparent attempt to quibble over the word "prejudice" as a means of avoiding the sexism taught in the Bible. It is true that the Bible does not explicitly tell men to be "prejudiced" against women in the sense that they should say things like "women are stupid and worth half a man." I felt a need to address this because you focused on the word "prejudice" and ignored the more fundamental idea of "discrimination" which is how the sexism of the Bible manifests most clearly. The Bible discriminates against women because they are women. That is the definition of sexism that you yourself posted. Now you want to say that I am "contradicting" myself because I am carefully distinguishing words that you deliberately confused?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    But Richard will offer one example of his "much to suggest otherwise". And here he engages in MISREPRESENTATION of what Paul said. Lets read Richard, then Paul:

    For example, Paul denied women the right to teach and explained it was because Eve had been deceived by the serpent.
    Paul said in 1Timothy 2:

    8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
    9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
    10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
    11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    Now much can be said about this drift of this passage--that women shouldn't be immodest, loud, and gaudy, but rather modest in clothing and attitude. It is apparent that some women wanted to take the reigns, and these same women were rather immodest in dress and attitude. So Paul heakens back to the beginning, and God's order of things. I explained man had the Firstborn, pre-eminent position. Paul said he didn't allow women TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER MEN. You see, he didn't allow women to take a man's role anymore than he would encourage a man to takes a woman's role. Its not sexism, but proper roles in family and church. And we also see that THE REASON Paul gave was not because Eve was deceived, but that ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST. I already explained this in a previous post, and Richard conveniently ignored it. Ignoring counter-evidence presented is rude and hardly an exalted way for such an intellect to argue. Score 12-0.

    Earlier I had said the Bible PLAINLY BLAMES ADAM. It is his sin that brought death and condemnation into the world and that in Adam, all die. Adam knew what he was doing, and the Devil used Eve, by deception, to get him to REBEL. Richard ignores this. Score 13-0.
    I have not offered only "one example" - I have offered dozens of examples that span the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and have shown how they mutually confirm each other. My argument is irrefutable, which I presume is the reason you have chosen to avoid most of the facts I have presented.

    Your assertion that I misrepresented 1 Timothy 2:14 is absurd because it explicitly blames Eve and says she, not Adam, was "in transgression." If you think that Romans 5 which blames Adam contradicts this verse, then your argument is with the Bible, not me.

    Your assertion that the "drift of this passage" is that "women shouldn't be immodest, loud, and gaudy" is false because there is much more than that being taught there. And it is irrelevant to my argument anyway. The fact remains that Paul taught sexism and based it on the foundational sexism found in the story of the fall. It is a consistent teaching throughout the Bible.

    Your assertion that "proper roles in family and church" is not "sexism" is false. Sexism is defined as discrimination based on sex, just as racism is discrimination based on race. It was racist for Mormons to prohibit blacks from the priesthood every bit as much as it is sexist to prohibit women from teaching. There is no way out of this. It is based on the basic definition of words. Your only hope to save the Bible is to assert that sexism is not wrong. And since that is what you believe - that men should rule over women - why don't you just come out and say it rather than pretending that you hold to modern secular values that say sexism is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    But Richard offers us this:

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    This and similar biblical teachings led countless Christians throughout history to write grossly prejudicial calumny against all women as I've shown in the quotes from Church leaders such as Tertullian who said "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway." You see no "prejudice" in that? I could fill a large book with similar quotes of gross prejudice against women based on the teachings of the Bible. By their fruit you will know them. Your point fails.
    We are talking about what the Bible teaches, and you are quoting non-Biblical writers. Another fallacy. BLACK AND WHITE. How is this "evidence" incriminating the Bible when your proof is by quoting something OTHER THAN the Bible??? Well, this is a kangaroo court you have the Bible in, and it is guilty from the onset, and will be guilty when you reach your "verdict". Score 14-0
    Yes, we are talking about WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. And how can we know if the Bible is a good tree or bad? You know the answer:
    Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
    There has been some exceedingly bad fruit from the Bible tree. It has been used for thousands of years to justify the oppression of women. The most prominent leaders of the Christian church have said abominable things about women and justified their comments by citing the Bible. They are the men that collected, translated, and handed down the Bible that you claim is the Word of God. They are your spiritual forefathers - the men who passed down the Christian faith. If not for many of them, there never would have been a Protestant Reformation and you'd probably be a Catholic since there wouldn't be any other option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    But even if your assertion were true it would be irrelevant because mere "prejudice" is not the essence of sexism, let alone the sexism I exposed in my article which is inextricably entwined with patriarchy that you admit is in the Bible. The fundamental point of my article was that the sexism was INSTITUTED BY GOD in the Bible.
    You are totally wrong, as I have now proven. You claims are akin to saying that since God institued captial punishment, the Bible teaches murder is OK. You are that off-base with your assertions, and they begin with your faulty definition of words. You got your definition of patriarchy from the Feminist handbook, not a real Dictionary! Score 15-0
    Your analogy fails because it is based on a false distinction between patriarchy and sexism. Patriarchy of the kind seen in the Bible is, by definition, sexist because it discriminates against women on the basis of the fact that they are women.

    To be perfectly clear: You are saying that the discrimination against women under patriarchy is not sexist. But discrimination of women is defined as sexism. Therefore, your argument reduces to the absurdity that "sexism under patriarchy is not sexist." I trust this is sufficiently clear that even you can see your error.

    You also err again by asserting that I am using a "definition of patriarchy from the Feminist handbook, not a real Dictionary." I am using the definition that YOU posted!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    So when Richard begins to conclude with:

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    That was the point of my article. I showed how everything in the Bible coheres with this sexist patriarchal view.
    We can now laugh at this claim. Nonsense. But notice how he now tries to conflate by JOINING these two words. Yeah, and capital punishment is murder. I get it. Score 16-0
    You are repeating the same error over and over and over again. You never presented any evidence that my definition of patriarchy was false or that patriarchy that discriminates against women is not sexist. And how could you, since I have been using the definition of sexism that you yourself posted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Then we have more big talk like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    It is based on the fundamental theology that views God and Christ as males at the head of a hierarchy of male authority with women at the bottom. I proved it by showing a systematic discrimination against women: they are literally devalued (monetarily) at about 60% the value of men. Women are unclean twice as long when they give birth to a girl as opposed to a boy. I presented a mountain of integrated incontrovertible facts that you have not touched in any of your comments. This is why your attempt to create a disjunction between "sexism" and "patriarchy" is so ridiculous. First, it is simply false, and second, it proves that you don't understand the "simple definition of words" - let alone the article I wrote.
    It appears Richard doesn't know what discrimination means. So why is it that only the High Priest could enter the holy of holies??? Why the "discrimination against all the others"? Is it discrimination based on an idea that he was a superior human to all others, who were inferior??? You see, to ask these questions immediately exposes Richard's claims as false, as well as his misuse of words. Score 17-0
    Excellent! You have now revealed a primary root of your endless errors and why you falsely accused me of failing to "understand the simple definition of words." It is YOU who does not understand the meanings of "discrimination." Google returns the two primary definitions -

    1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
    2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

    The literal meaning of "discrimination" refers merely to the ability to discern between things, to note differences (def #2). That's why Google lists "distinction - discernment - differentiation" as synonyms. This is the kind of "discrimination" any intelligent person would use when deciding which doctor to go to, such as one who graduated from Harvard vs. one with no education at all. There is nothing wrong or immoral about this kind of discrimination. It is definition #2, the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex" that is the kind of discrimination I have exposed in the Bible. The Bible teaches men to discriminate against women in matters of leadership, authority, teaching, and many other things, and it has led to 2000 years of unjust oppression of women. Nothing could be more obvious. And nothing you have written shows any failure on my part to understand this definition. On the contrary, I have consistently used this definition. All your comments have therefore been exposed as utterly and abjectly absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Women are not "devalued" at about 60% of men anymore than that other liberal lie that claims the Founders viewed blacks as 3/5th human. Both of these assertions are bald-faced lies. If Richard was as educated as he claims, then SURELY he has read many commentaries about these verses that would then enlighten him and keep him from misrepresenting the Scripture, just like had he studied the Founding Era and the relevant documents, he would know that the liberal lie about the blacks is akin to the feminist defintion of patriarchy! Score 18-0
    Again, you make empty assertions without presenting any evidence at all. I proved the fact that women are literally devalued (in a monetary sense) at about 60% in the article you are supposed to be refuting. Here it is again. The price schedule is as follows (Lev 27:2-7):

    Monetary Devaluation of Females compared to Males
    Age
    Male
    Female
    % Value
    20 - 60 years 50 shekels 30 shekels 60%
    5 - 20 years 20 shekels 10 shekels 50%
    60 years and above 15 shekels 10 shekels 67%
    1 month - 5 years 5 shekels 3 shekels 60%

    How is it possible that you could be so deluded and corrupt as to call me a liar when I do nothing but accurately report exactly what the Bible states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispensational Truth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    This exemplifies your error again. I never said that "submission is sexism." You have doubled down on your strawman. Note that I have proven your error by showing that you did not accurately quote my words. Indeed, you did not quote me at all! Therefore, I have PROVEN that you have created a strawman argument. If you want any credibility with our readers, you would do well to admit your error.
    Yawn. You did ARGUE AS IF submission is sexism. YOU DID. Go back and read your own postings. And when I called you on it, you have tried to qualify your assertions, while at the same time, denying the qualifications and asserting again that submission is sexism by citing feminists as if they are lexical authorities! Round and round we go. Score 19-0
    So now you TRIPLE-DOWN on your error! And without even trying to present any evidence supporting your false assertion. Merely saying "go back and read your own postings" does not constitute evidence. For the hundredth time, if you want to assert that I have erred, you need to accurately quote my exact words and show where I erred. When you made this same false assertion earlier I showed your error, and here you are misrepresenting the answer I gave. Nothing could be more obvious, or pathetic.

    I did not "qualify my assertions." I clarified your misunderstanding. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore and misrepresent what I said. Here it is again so everyone, including you, can see your error. You falsely asserted that I said "submission was synonymous with sexism." I explained that would be absurd and that I never said any such thing. So you were forced to admit that I "never said it" but went on to falsely assert that I "just ARGUED like they were" synonymous.

    On the upside, you have quite effectively shown everyone that my comment, which so pricked your delicate pride, was fully warranted: "It would be a cold day in hell when anyone, let alone a simple-minded Bible believer, could catch me failing to "understand the simple definition of words." Hell is as hot as ever.



    Thanks for tossing your grist in my mill. It will be feeding freethinkers for decades to come. I wouldn't be surprised if your demonstration helps free thousands of people from the shackles of fundamentalist Christianity which so profoundly corrupts both the minds and the morals of believers.
    Comments 2 Comments
    1. CWH's Avatar
      CWH -
      I would like to answer my views regarding what RAM feels about sexism in the Bible. I believe there is NO Sexism in the Bible. See my answers in red:

      Is there a male hierarchy of authority, with women at the bottom? Yes. That's sexism.
      The bottom is not the women but children and male and female slaves. The women is second in line in the family. The man being the leader is responsible for the welfare and care of the whole family as a whole. Of course, some men, abused or shred that responsibilty imposed on them as a leader of the family. That's not sexism if the man is made responsible for the welfare of the women.

      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.
      It's just a title which someone gave as a respect just like addressing the doctor as doc or a salesman is to call a customer sir. Does that mean we submit to the doctor or the salesman is submitting to you? Respect reciprocate respect; calling the husband "lord" in respect for being head of the family will probably be reciprocated with a response like, "Yes, honey?". Mutual respect is no sexism.

      Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? No. Are men allowed to have authority over women? Yes. That's sexism.
      Women may not have authority over men in olden times, but they are allowed to view their opinions. To have authority over the women does not mean they can bully them but they have a responsibility to care for them ensuring their protection and welfare. Have you ever read Abraham or Jacob or any great righteous men mentioned in the Bible who abused or bullied their wives?
      There are women in ths Bible who have authority over men such as the Queen of Sheba. Thats no sexism.


      Is a woman allowed to teach? No. Are men allowed to teach? Yes. That's sexism.
      No, women are allowed to teach as there are priestess in OT and NT. The duty of the men are ordained by God to do religious services and the women to look after the family. Therefore, religious teaching is best left to the men but women can participate also but somehow someone must look after the children and the family. God put great stress on the proper care of the family so as not to lose family values that are so important to ensure the well-being and righteousness of the future generations. That's no sexism.

      Is a women valued at approximately 60% of men? Yes. That's sexism.
      The women are valued less than men was because it was the men who must earned to pay the marriage dues. In the olden days, the men are more employable and commercially valued as the are required to due many menial jobs, soldiering that were not suitable for women or shunned by women. The women are more to do housework and look after the family unless of course if the husband died or was incapacitated and then the poor women have to do menial jobs as well. That's no sexism.

      Is a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl rather than a boy? Yes. That's sexism.
      The girl required more care to ensure their survivability as they are the ones will will look after the children and thus ensure that their generations survived. After all, most men in ancient days will die early due to wars and heavy work. That's no 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!).
      The Hebrew male slave is allowed to go free if he wanted. If he wanted to stay there is no stopping him. Going free as a slave may not be a good idea as they now have to fend for themselves and earn a living to support himself and his family unlike being a slave. The female was a slave for life as they are required to look after the family ensuring everyones was well cared and thus ensuring future generations for God's people. Could a female slave fend and support for herself if set free compared to a male slave? I doubt so. That's no sexism.

      Is a man allowed to divorce his wife in the OT? Yes. Is a women allowed to divorce her husband? No. That's sexism.
      Yes, a woman cannot divorce her husband in the OT but she can still forced a divorce by being unfaithful or by running away. That's no sexism.

      GOD BLESSED.
    1. Richard Amiel McGough's Avatar
      Richard Amiel McGough -
      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      I would like to answer my views regarding what RAM feels about sexism in the Bible. I believe there is NO Sexism in the Bible.

      See my answers in red:
      Hey there CWH,

      Your assertion that there is "NO Sexism in the Bible" indicates that you don't understand the meaning of the word "sexism." Your answers attempt to JUSTIFY sexism, they don't show it does not exist.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      Is there a male hierarchy of authority, with women at the bottom? Yes. That's sexism.
      The bottom is not the women but children and male and female slaves. The women is second in line in the family. The man being the leader is responsible for the welfare and care of the whole family as a whole. Of course, some men, abused or shred that responsibilty imposed on them as a leader of the family. That's not sexism if the man is made responsible for the welfare of the women.
      The fact that the man is responsible does not mean his rulership over his wife is not sexist any more than rulership over black slaves would mean that slavery was not racist. Your comment is entirely nonsensical.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      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.
      It's just a title which someone gave as a respect just like addressing the doctor as doc or a salesman is to call a customer sir. Does that mean we submit to the doctor or the salesman is submitting to you? Respect reciprocate respect; calling the husband "lord" in respect for being head of the family will probably be reciprocated with a response like, "Yes, honey?". Mutual respect is no sexism.
      It is not just a title of respect. It is a title that shows women must submit to their husbands as "lord." That is sexism. Again, your comment is entirely nonsensical.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? No. Are men allowed to have authority over women? Yes. That's sexism.
      Women may not have authority over men in olden times, but they are allowed to view their opinions. To have authority over the women does not mean they can bully them but they have a responsibility to care for them ensuring their protection and welfare. Have you ever read Abraham or Jacob or any great righteous men mentioned in the Bible who abused or bullied their wives?
      There are women in ths Bible who have authority over men such as the Queen of Sheba. Thats no sexism.
      We are not talking about "abuse" (though we have every reason to believe it happened). You seem quite confused about the basic meaning of words. The fact that the Bible teaches that men should rule over women is by definition sexist.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      Is a woman allowed to teach? No. Are men allowed to teach? Yes. That's sexism.
      No, women are allowed to teach as there are priestess in OT and NT. The duty of the men are ordained by God to do religious services and the women to look after the family. Therefore, religious teaching is best left to the men but women can participate also but somehow someone must look after the children and the family. God put great stress on the proper care of the family so as not to lose family values that are so important to ensure the well-being and righteousness of the future generations. That's no sexism.
      There were no "priestesses" in the OT or NT. Your comment only proves the Bible is sexist. How is it possible that you can't see something as obvious as this. It appears you have no idea what the word "sexist" means.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      Is a women valued at approximately 60% of men? Yes. That's sexism.
      The women are valued less than men was because it was the men who must earned to pay the marriage dues. In the olden days, the men are more employable and commercially valued as the are required to due many menial jobs, soldiering that were not suitable for women or shunned by women. The women are more to do housework and look after the family unless of course if the husband died or was incapacitated and then the poor women have to do menial jobs as well. That's no sexism.
      The fact that you admit that "women are valued less than men" proves my case, yet again. The values given in the table have nothing to do with "commercial value." You just made that up.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      Is a woman unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl rather than a boy? Yes. That's sexism.
      The girl required more care to ensure their survivability as they are the ones will will look after the children and thus ensure that their generations survived. After all, most men in ancient days will die early due to wars and heavy work. That's no sexism.
      The period of uncleanness had absolutely nothing to do with the amount of care given the child. It was a ceremonial uncleanness.

      I am constantly amazed at how freely Christians make up ludicrous and absurd explanations without any foundation in logic, facts, or the Bible. It shows how little regard they really have for the Bible.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      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!).
      The Hebrew male slave is allowed to go free if he wanted. If he wanted to stay there is no stopping him. Going free as a slave may not be a good idea as they now have to fend for themselves and earn a living to support himself and his family unlike being a slave. The female was a slave for life as they are required to look after the family ensuring everyones was well cared and thus ensuring future generations for God's people. Could a female slave fend and support for herself if set free compared to a male slave? I doubt so. That's no sexism.
      You have a very low view of the value of freedom. And you wrote nothing that supports your case. The slave laws in the Bible are both sexist and racist.

      Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
      Is a man allowed to divorce his wife in the OT? Yes. Is a women allowed to divorce her husband? No. That's sexism.
      Yes, a woman cannot divorce her husband in the OT but she can still forced a divorce by being unfaithful or by running away. That's no sexism.
      Again, you show only that you have no concept of the meaning of "sexism." You would do well to educate yourself. Your comments are just plain silly.
    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

    Please enter the number that rhymes with floor.