Biblical View Of Women And Gays

[R. S. Martin]

This topic pops up in many discussions where Kratos participates and the suggestion has been made to set up a separate thread for its discussion. I will copy a few quotes from the most recent discussion, Serious Question To Christians, The loving Father...., and let interested parties take it from there.

 

FROM Post 24

 

...I have repeatedly told you and others that women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul or mind which must be subservient to the spiritual mind of Christ and that any form of submission here in this age is soulical training for the next age where there will be no male of female... Romans 13 says plainly that every soul (male or female) must be subject to the higher powers for conscience sake before God. Submission is about training the soul for the age to come as God is no respector of persons.

 

The objection was raised that if male is not considered superior to female, why use the male allegory as the ideal spiritual model? The implication was that by using this allegory Kratos shows that he adheres to the belief that males are superior and that women must be subordinate to their men.

 

Men and women do not exist separate from the world view they hold--they exist inside the larger context of a view of the world or universe that they consider to be reality. For this reason, I consider it beneficial to also look at a few key posts from the same thread regarding Kratos's general world view. It is based on biblical passages.

 

FROM Post 63

 

God's goal for all of us as I understand it as it is revealed at the end of each message to the seven churches in Rev. 2 and 3 is that we become overcomers. There is sickness in the world so that we can learn to overcome sickness. There is poverty in the world so we can learn to overcome poverty. There is hatred in the world so we can learn to overcome hatred. There are wars so we can overcome man's desire for war and learn war no more.

 

As I see it, man was placed in a world full of darkness in hopes that we would overcome the darkness with the light. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God where righteousness dwells. Romans says that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. He not only preached this overcoming Kingdom to those still in darkness, but He demonstrated the superiority of His Kingdom by healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out devils, and healing the broken hearted.

 

Finally, He taught us to pray that His Kingdom would come as His will is done on earth as it is in Heaven. The mess that we see all around us is the result of man choosing his own way over God's way. But, as we yeild to His way over ours, His Kingdom overcomes the kingdoms of this world and we start to live on earth more like they do in Heaven.

 

Regarding the biblical texts on which Kratos bases his argument, according to what I was taught at the seminary where I studied, Grandpa Harley has valid points in the following post:

 

FROM Post 64

 

Interesting use of disparate writing written by wildly different people at different times to prop up what is actually a Darwinian wolrd view with the nice, safe, idea that there is a plan, other than our final decline and extinction... The Evolutionary 'special' view of mankind..

 

To pick out the the texts -

 

Rev - Written AD90-95 by someone trying make themselves feel special while hiding from Domitian's 'persecution'

 

Romans - Primero-Paul - AD50-60 - 30 years being kind on the dates before Rev, and there being no guarantee that either author knew the other's works or words...

 

To relate the two is the above author's opinion, with no grounding in history or even dogma at the time of thei respective work's authorship...

 

G.Matt/Mark - Lord's prayer Interpolated segment of writing that comes from Egyptian Amun texts, not Judaic. Primero Paul is unaware of the Matt/Mark tradition since he NEVER references any of them. To cite Matt/Mark in support of Rev or Primer0-Paul is like citing Bronowski as a source of inspiration for Jung. G. Matt AD80-100 G. Mark AD65-80

 

Those dates and world view also apply to the discussion of women and gays.

[DarthOkkata]

Hmm. I feel it might help if I simplify a bit. The original post had to do with suffering, and why god would allow it.

 

The crux of the argument that started all this was when Kratos mentioned his views about the christian dogmatic teachings about women and gays.

 

The idea is that women should be submissive, and that a male is by right of god, head of a home. In other words, it's the idea that marriage involves a woman giving herself to someone as property, or just transfers 'fatherhood' over to the husband as an authority figure.

 

Also, that homosexuals are unnatural, and affront of God's will for reproduction, and should be converted as such through prayer and made to feel dirty and evil about it, and shunned or forced if they refuse too.

 

The epic argument that both these ideas cause a great deal of suffering then began. Kratos seemed to take it personally, as if we were just picking on him about it, and not discussing common christian views on the subject. He was just the readily available example.

 

Many Christians seem to feel that these views are all right, so long as everyone in their relationship seems happy, and that they should be spread as truth, and an ideal way of life. Many also feel they can use 'discipline' to enforce it. Presumably, because 'god' says it's how it should be, and his word is more important than the law of the land.

 

The reasoning being, that he and his wife, and presumably those he worships with, are all happy and fine. So everyone else should be as well. Therefore, because being gay, or rebelling against the master of the home doesn't fit god's plan, or holy word, it should be legislated against in human law, and taught to future generations, in the hope of overcoming sin and living in peace...through suffering. O_o?

 

We are also already aware that there are moderate christians who don't feel this way at all. However, the ideas, and their proliferation, do cause a great deal of suffering. So, here we are, with a brand new thread to discuss it in.

 

They don't seem to understand that having these same views about someone of a different ethnicity would make them a racist, and that we'd not put up with the spreading of that crap either.

 

Well, a lot of them don't understand, some just don't care. [Especially around my area of the US, southern hospitality indeed.]

 

They don't seem to understand that it's got nothing to do with the fact that it's a christian belief, but rather that it's a disgusting, bigoted, uncivilized, unamerican, barbaric, and dangerous viewpoint for anyone to spread about.

[R. S. Martin]

Darth, thanks. Now let's see if Kratos actually wants to discuss it when it's offered to him in a thread all its own.

[Neon Genesis]

The reasoning being, that he and his wife, and presumably those he worships with, are all happy and fine. So everyone else should be as well. Therefore, because being gay, or rebelling against the master of the home doesn't fit god's plan, or holy word, it should be legislated against in human law, and taught to future generations, in the hope of overcoming sin and living in peace...through suffering. O_o?

I was thinking about this earlier. If we suffer through sinning and God "lowers" us into suffering because suffering make us stronger, then doesn't that mean sinning is good? Because if we commit a sin and we suffer through our sin, then we'll become stronger because of our sin, so shouldn't we be sinning more to be even stronger? If Jesus is God in the human flesh, then when humans crucified Jesus, his suffering not only made him stronger but made God stronger, too. Then, wouldn't that mean that humans committing the sin of murdering Jesus on the cross was actually a good thing because it made God stronger? Wouldn't sinning also be a form of worship as long as we are sinning against God for the purpose of making him stronger through suffering? So, wouldn't the true Christians be the ones who make God suffer the most to make him as strong as possible?

[Grandpa Harley]

Darth, thanks. Now let's see if Kratos actually wants to discuss it when it's offered to him in a thread all its own.

 

If he does the gentle hiss you hear will be the sound of Satan's Ice skates on his way to work...

[R. S. Martin]

I was thinking about this earlier. If we suffer through sinning and God "lowers" us into suffering because suffering make us stronger, then doesn't that mean sinning is good? Because if we commit a sin and we suffer through our sin, then we'll become stronger because of our sin, so shouldn't we be sinning more to be even stronger? If Jesus is God in the human flesh, then when humans crucified Jesus, his suffering not only made him stronger but made God stronger, too. Then, wouldn't that mean that humans committing the sin of murdering Jesus on the cross was actually a good thing because it made God stronger? Wouldn't sinning also be a form of worship as long as we are sinning against God for the purpose of making him stronger through suffering? So, wouldn't the true Christians be the ones who make God suffer the most to make him as strong as possible?

 

Wow!!! Neon, now I know why Kratos doesn't answer your questions. You ask original questions. NOT ALLOWED!!!

 

You stand god on his head. NOT ALLOWED!!!!!

 

You show up Christianity. ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED!!!!!!!!!

 

How do I know? Been there done that. His type think they're so smart but they hate my very guts. The way my thesis supervisor felt a need to use his physical bulk and position of authority to back up his attack on me at the oral exam tells me how very vulnerable these Christians must feel in the face of rational argument. He dismissed my personal opinion though he asked for it, and my factual answer though he asked for it, and my logical explanation though he asked for it--all because I was not telling him that faith is superior to logic.

 

These Christians need to be coddled and patted on the back and stroked to reassure them how good they are. And under no circumstances are we allowed EVER to oppose them or their god. Did you get that? NEVER EVER. I took their courses, read their books, listened to their lectures. Nowhere ever did they provide answers that made the theology hang together. In my thesis I made one reasoned argument for atheism. My supervisor said this was okay and that he was going to defend my right to write from my personal position and experience. Then he attacked me for that position.

 

Neon, in sinning we oppose their god. That, in and of itself, makes it taboo--from a Christian perspective. For that reason, the rest of your argument just floats above their consciousness and totally passes them by. So we can't even talk with them about the things that are important. Had my prof not acted so childish I wouldn't know this. At least I know now not to look to Christians anymore for answers. This prof had been the one person who had kept me from being anti-Christian.

[R. S. Martin]

Darth, thanks. Now let's see if Kratos actually wants to discuss it when it's offered to him in a thread all its own.

 

If he does the gentle hiss you hear will be the sound of Satan's Ice skates on his way to work...

 

He knows it's here and promised to look at it if he has time.

 

If he has time.

 

That's the royal excuse not to do what they don't like.

[Deva]

If he has time.

 

That's the royal excuse not to do what they don't like.

 

I am in total agreement. Obviously no time for this topic in this particular forum.

 

Women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul

 

Words cannot express my contempt for this statement. I wouldn't have believed this if I were still a Christian.

 

OK Kratos, come out here and defend it, when you have the time.

[Guest end3]

Hey Deva, RS,

 

I have a few thoughts about women and their role within the Christian context. Long story short, I think there is evidence that women are in essence the "temple" where man unites to find God. I believe Moses's tabernacle, as well as many church buildings, are set up to resemble a body, or parts of, and specifically the woman's body.

 

If you have interest in the other 1.75 cents, I will be glad to keep going. Just wanted you to know I feel there is a large message not told here and also explains why Satan hides the meaning through exploitation.

[florduh]

Hey Deva, RS,

 

I have a few thoughts about women and their role within the Christian context. Long story short, I think there is evidence that women are in essence the "temple" where man unites to find God. I believe Moses's tabernacle, as well as many church buildings, are set up to resemble a body, or parts of, and specifically the woman's body.

 

If you have interest in the other 1.75 cents, I will be glad to keep going. Just wanted you to know I feel there is a large message not told here and also explains why Satan hides the meaning through exploitation.

 

 

Excuse me, but Satan my ass. Men have have slanted everything in their own favor in all the Abrahamic religions. If it is so easy for Satan to make even devout believers misread God's Word, then either God shouldn't have made Satan so powerful, or he should have made his words clearer.

 

Mary got high marks for bringing Christ into the world, but even she was considered "defiled" by the male authors of the text: Luke 2:22: And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

 

The sacred womb is honored in some other religions, but Christianity/Judaism consistently puts women in second place. The list of verses that denigrates and weakens the power of women is long, and you know it.

 

- Chris

[Guest end3]

How is that in 2nd place? Men were unclean as well, were they not? And please specify your def of defiled, as I am understanding it can mean unclean or to violate the chasity of.

 

Give me some scripture and I will give you my best interpretation.....

[Neon Genesis]

How is that in 2nd place? Men were unclean as well, were they not? And please specify your def of defiled, as I am understanding it can mean unclean or to violate the chasity of.

 

Give me some scripture and I will give you my best interpretation.....

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like second place to me.

[DarthOkkata]

Here's a few more.

 

When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,

And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -

Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,

And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.

And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her.

 

and another...

 

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

 

and another...

 

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

 

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

 

More...

 

Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp, and Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live?

Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

 

a little further down...with human sacrifice this time...

 

Now the plunder remaining of the spoil that the army took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys, 35 and 32,000 persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him. 36 And the half, the portion of those who had gone out in the army, numbered 337,500 sheep, 37 and the Lord's tribute of sheep was 675. 38 The cattle were 36,000, of which the Lord's tribute was 72. 39 The donkeys were 30,500, of which the Lord's tribute was 61. 40 The persons were 16,000,

 

 

>>of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. <<

 

41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the contribution for the Lord, to Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses.

 

42 From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had served in the army— 43 now the congregation's half was 337,500 sheep, 44 36,000 cattle, 45 and 30,500 donkeys, 46 and 16,000 persons— 47 from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every 50, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who kept guard over the tabernacle of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.

 

Yet again...with baby killing!

 

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives (plural) while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'"

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." (The child dies seven days later.)

[DarthOkkata]

More still...

 

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

 

 

 

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

 

 

 

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

 

Still more! Wow, there sure is a lot...

 

I have two daughters who, as yet, have not known man; I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof

 

This is getting tedious...New Testament though...

 

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

 

still another...

 

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

 

more still, man, my fingers are getting tired. Who could have known there was this much?

 

In 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; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety

 

and again...

 

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

 

and one more, just for the heck of it.

 

How then can man be justified with God

or , how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman

 

Explain how this is not both sexist and evil at the same time? I'm sure I've not gotten to everything, but there's a lot isn't there?

 

Try and explain all that away would ya? I'd love to hear your illogical otherworldly explanation of how this isn't wrong, sexist, and downright barbaric?

 

That's just pure evil right there.

[Grandpa Harley]

How is that in 2nd place? Men were unclean as well, were they not? And please specify your def of defiled, as I am understanding it can mean unclean or to violate the chasity of.

 

Give me some scripture and I will give you my best interpretation.....

 

One of the reasons that the font is by the door of most old churches (sometimes to the extent of being in the entrance) is down to the 'fact' a woman is unclean following child birth for a period of time... same during menses... it's all in the OT, and until the 1960s in some areas it was a common view (certainly where I was born)... There are still some churches where women are not allowed in to the sanctuary for fear they make the altar 'unclean'... 1 Tim 2 etc...

[wonderer]

Neon, in sinning we oppose their god. That, in and of itself, makes it taboo--from a Christian perspective. For that reason, the rest of your argument just floats above their consciousness and totally passes them by. So we can't even talk with them about the things that are important. Had my prof not acted so childish I wouldn't know this. At least I know now not to look to Christians anymore for answers. This prof had been the one person who had kept me from being anti-Christian.

 

I think that's the crux of the matter. When I first left the church (Fundy/Pentecostal), I was really angry, and used to seek out bible thumpers and attempt to debate them with my own bible in my hand, but it was always a waste of time. No matter how logical and reasoned your arguments, they can't persuade someone who has traded reason for faith. It's like two people shouting at one another in different languages. Christians may pretend to be learned and intellectual, but when their backs are against the wall, they fall back on scriptures, and even if you can use scripture to clearly contradict the stand they're taking, they can use other scripture to defend not listening to you!

 

I was taught from the pulpit that the Devil knows his scripture. That's the Christian's way out, when all else fails. That, and "Confusion is not of the Lord." That's useful for when someone with common sense and reasoned arguments is getting through. Of course they feel confused! That's what happens when someone builds a belief system from a house of cards, and somebody in the room farts.

 

 

Rob

[Deva]

...I have repeatedly told you and others that women in scripture is a type of the carnal soul or mind which must be subservient to the spiritual mind of Christ and that any form of submission here in this age is soulical training for the next age where there will be no male of female... Romans 13 says plainly that every soul (male or female) must be subject to the higher powers for conscience sake before God. Submission is about training the soul for the age to come as God is no respector of persons.

 

In additon to defending the position of women being subservient, I would like a Christian to come on here and explain and prove just what a "carnal" mind is. This artificial division of the mind into the "carnal" and the "spiritual" is bogus in my opinion. There are just different mental states and they apply to both sexes. The Apostle Paul was raving throughout Romans so I hope that is not the only justification for this idea.

 

Women in scripture is of course a type of the lower carnal mind. That's actually true, because the Bible denegrates women and depicts them as property. The fact that it really is that way in scripture is bad enough but 10 times worse when you try to defend it.

 

End3, I confess its been years since I have done any extensive Bible reading. It may be true that in parts of the Bible women are depicted as a temple, as you say, but if so, this picture is not only counterbalanced but overwhelmed by the number of times women are depicted as inferior to men.

[florduh]

I told you there was a long list of verses . . .

[Guest end3]

lol, Chris....I have an answer, but am marginally busy at work today....I opened this can o worms, so trust me, I am going fishn' later today!

[florduh]

lol, Chris....I have an answer, but am marginally busy at work today....I opened this can o worms, so trust me, I am going fishn' later today!

 

Please surprise me with something new.

 

- Chris

[R. S. Martin]

In response to end3's statement that some houses of worship are built to represent the female body. Somewhere I read that the stained glass windows of cathedrals developed in Medieval Europe were designed to represent the vagina and the steeple is the penis. So much for Christianity not being a sex-based religion.

 

I could not stomach all the lists posted about women as property so this one might have been posted. A few that really got to me were:

 

Saul gave his daughter to David as a war prize. As a young girl I was screaming inside: DOES SHE WANT TO BE HIS WIFE??? Does she even LIKE him?

 

Abraham gave Sara to the foreign kings for the night to save his own skin. As a young girl I was screaming inside: DOES SHE WANT TO SLEEEP WITH A STRANGE MAN???

 

WHY DO THESE WOMEN HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER???

 

One thing I knew for sure. My mother would NOT have agreed to such a thing and my father, who knew what was good for him, would not have dared do such things to her. In fact, it VIOLATED sacred command.

[R. S. Martin]

Female inferiority starts with the Genesis story where Adam looked at all the animals and couldn't find a single one to mate with. So god made Eve out of his rib. Wedding sermons explain that Eve was not taken from his head to rule over him or from his feet to be subservient to him, but from his side to be a helpmeet to him. This raises the question: Why not tell the story the other way around so that Adam exists for Eve's pleasure and service?

 

Here's a suggested rewrite:

 

When God finished forming Eve he caused her to open her eyes and see the man Adam whom he had created to protect her from the wild beasts of the field, and to till the soil to bring forth fruit for her and her children so they might eat and not starve all the days of their lives. Eve began to say to Adam, This is the man whom God has given me to protect me and my children, and to build me an house where I and my children might eat and sleep in safety from the enemy and the wild beast of the field. He will bring me fruit from the tree and grain from the field and milk from the herd. He will bring me cloth for my back and a roof for my head. For God has given me Adam to be my helpmeet.

 

 

 

Now it doesn't have to be this way, either. Here's another suggestion:

When God had created Adam and Eve he placed them in a land with fruit and grain and flocks. They worked hard and built themselves a house, tilled the soil and harvested food for themselves and their children, and had milk and meat from the flocks. Their labour was divided so that Eve saw after the things of the house and Adam saw after the things of the field. But it was so that when Eve was sick that Adam looked after the things of the house until Eve was well again, and that when Adam was hurt Eve looked after the things of the field until Adam was well again. In this way did Adam and Eve toil and labour all the days of their lives until they were old and full of days. And then they died.

 

 

Of course, they could have worked side by side and shared responsibilities. Coming from an agriculture-based community as I do, I have heard many arguments for what arrangement works best. It seems that most people like some responsibility. Thus, it seems to work best if each party has an area over which he or she has the final word. Mutual respect, however, must underlye the relationship for it to work well.

 

However, the topic of this thread is the biblical view. And in the Bible, male superiority begins early in Genesis. For those interested in doing stats, if you ever get around to counting names and numbers of female babies born in contrast to males, and females given in marriage in contrast to males, I think you will be in for a surprise.

 

Here's an interesting twist.

 

Most geneologies in the Bible list anywhere from three to twelve sons and one or two daughters at the most for any given family. (Most families list no daughters; daughters are listed only if they give birth to an important man later in life.) However, it was quite common for a single man to have had two or three wives, or even a harem of concubines if he was rich.

 

WHERE DID ALL THESE FEMALE SEX TOYS COME FROM IF NOBODY HAD BABY GIRLS?

 

If women were considered to be just as important as men, why were they not listed???

[Justin]

I can't remember who or the verse, but this man and woman RIGHTLY criticised one of God's right hand men and what did God do? He chewed them out BUT struck ONLY the woman with lerosy!

 

Also, 11 out of 10 births in the Bible is a boy. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

[DarthOkkata]

The explanation for why female births aren't mentioned in the bible I've heard in the past is sexist and stupid, but probably true.

 

It's that mentioning female births was somewhat akin to mentioning cattle, sheep, or other livestock births. It's not important enough to write down or record, so they just skip it. Only males mattered as important births.

 

Women were property back then, something you owned. Getting a new wife was only mildly more important than being given five or six cows.

 

Now, if you got ten cows and some sheep, man, it was time to party.

 

Disgusting, but true.

[R. S. Martin]

The explanation for why female births aren't mentioned in the bible I've heard in the past is sexist and stupid, but probably true.

 

It's that mentioning female births was somewhat akin to mentioning cattle, sheep, or other livestock births. It's not important enough to write down or record, so they just skip it. Only males mattered as important births.

 

Women were property back then, something you owned. Getting a new wife was only mildly more important than being given five or six cows.

 

Now, if you got ten cows and some sheep, man, it was time to party.

 

Disgusting, but true.

 

So one wife was more important than one cow. Had to be, I guess, because there weren't as many of them to be had.

 

You're right, it is disgusting. However, the women depicted did not act like cows. There's the prophetess who went along to war with the captain who was too scared to go without her. She said, "Okay, I'll go with you but know this--the honour for the victory will go to a woman." And it did. A woman threw a mill stone or something from an upper story window and it killed the enemy captain who must have been walking the streets of town at the moment.

 

There's also the story of the woman who gave food to David and his men when they were fleeing from Saul. She sneaked it to them behind her husband's back because he was against David. That seems very un-cow-like behavior to me. She wasn't going to be cowed by anyone--least of all a macho husband.

 

Another woman confronted Elijah or which ever prophet it was who gave her a son in return for lodging him. Then the son got sick and died. She accused Elijah for taking advantage of her and playing with her heart. She told him something along the lines of this: I never asked for a son but you insisted. Now look what you did! You gave him to me only to take him away. You hateful s.o.b.!

 

So the prophet resurrected the boy and the mother was happy.

 

I'm thinking that woman was not your subservient submissive "woman of God" who never questions or challenges God.

 

Somehow, it seems Paul didn't know about these daring women when he wrote his instructions. Maybe the holy spirit who inspired him to write did not realize that a couple millennia later we educated women would read these stories and understand just how smart we really were and that we didn't have to be subervient at all. Women in the Bible were challenging men of god all the time. Even Mary, mother of Jesus, dared tell Jesus what to do--make wine.

 

Wow! the most famous Western woman of all time told the ruler and creator of the universe to make wine for a wedding. "All the king's horses and all the king's men" could not have turned water to wine for love or for money. But Mother Mary could instruct the ruler and creator of the universe to do it and he listened to her.

 

Maybe women weren't important enough to record their births unless they gave birth to an important man. But society simply could not have functioned without them. They could not even have a wedding feast without them. I'm glad I didn't live then. That's about the most enlightened thing I can say.