Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

You contradict, therefore you post?

There's a difference between intent and societal context. Is it possible that the writers of the Bible sat down and though, "hmm.. how can we make women's lives worse." However, given the society of the time was very anti-women, and most of the stuff in the Bible concerning women was a reflection of that society's values - I think it's much more likely that it was them, being part of the society they lived in - where rape was a property crime against the woman's owner and where women were no better off than slaves and the idea of men and women being equal would have been as ludicrous as suggesting that microscopic living beings were the cause of disease. Of course this is assigning intent to dead people so all speculative on my part and I am in no way excusing or justifying the treatment of women in the Bible especially in these times when most of us realise that women are human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

And we live in different times.

What Celoneth is trying to say is that the Bible isn't anti-women. The values of people of that time might have been, but the Bible does not advocate an anti-woman position.

EDIT: I posted this before I saw Celoneth's last post, so obviously trying to speak for C is invalidated by that statement. However, my position remains the same. The human authors believed (as do I) that they were composing a document that was the inspired word of God. Therefore, as a historical record, a book of law, a written foundation for a religion, and all other purposes, the intent of the Bible was of a timeless nature not chained to the culture(s) of the time(s) in which it was written.

Look at it this way: Hundreds of years from now, someone might by studying the newspaper headlines and electronic archives of today. What they might see are numerous reports and gigabytes of data concerning gang violence among, say, hispanic and black people. They might then draw the conclusion that ALL members of ethnic minority groups or at least those in particular were engaged in drug trafficking and prostitution. They might also draw the conclusion that all white people are wealthy racists.

We all know those things are contrary to fact. A closer reading of those articles would show that the subgroups of the examples I mentioned were, in fact, only a TINY minority in comparison with the rest of their respective populations. Yet those are the kinds of things that make the news. News reporting has always been disproportionate to actual populations. News reporting captures what's hot at the moment, e.g. gang violence, and reports that without respect to the boring day-to-day lives of the rest of us. Think about it: Ever turn on the news and see the headline "Today was a beautiful, sunny, summer day and marks the second day in a row that someone wasn't shot or stabbed to death"?

Therefore, if you were that person looking back in time, would you still then assume that gangs and racism were an established, accepted, and even expected faction of our society? Not if you had a good grasp of history. You would also take into account that news reporting in America is always biased and has been for most of its history. Most of the mainstream media will be liberally biased if not somewhat fickle, FoxNews is conservatively bent, public radio/television has even greater liberal bias than commercial media. To get an understanding of what is happening today, you have to take all sides into account.

As far as the status of women in the Bible is concerned, you have to look at the Bible as a reporting entity as well as a religious text. Yes, women were often traded as part of business deals. But take a look at the book of Ruth, for example. Ruth wasn't even a legit member of Israel society, she just married into it. But her story indicates she was well aware of Hebrew family law and tradition. She obviously loved her husband enough to want to at least keep his family name alive. She followed her mother-in-law VOLUNTARILY back to Israel. Her mother-in-law seems to have had free status in her own homeland. She was allowed to gather grain in someone else's field due to a convenient loophole in Jewish law.

The law in question states that harvesters must not pick up any grain or fruit that has fallen to the ground. It must stay there to be gathered by the widows and "fatherless" children, which I interpret as a euphemism for "illegitimate" children who would have been the outcasts of that society.

If the Bible itself is so anti-women, why are there laws contained within scripture that protect widows and children born from sexual misconduct? Why are there strict laws concerning the proper and humane treatment of servants (slaves), not just men but especially women? Even though one husband/one wife is shown to be the model for marriage, we all know that polygamy was a common practice (most prominently as a means of providing a surrogate mother in cases concerning infertility). If the Bible is anti-women, why are there laws that spell out proper and equal humane treatment of multiple wives (also serving to make polygamy difficult because of the increased responsibility of the husband)?

If women were nothing but baby factories, how do you explain that Elkanah loved his first wife Hannah more than Penninah even though his second wife was the Fertile Myrtle in the house? What about Jacob and Rachel?

If women had so little value, how do you explain the rape of Dinah? Jacob's sons slaughtered every man in an entire city over that (not saying that was right, either, but it is recorded).

If there was no mercy to be shown women, why didn't Joseph carry through with the law that says he was required to have Mary stoned (divine intervention aside, he could have made that choice)? If women were to have low/no status, how do you explain the fact that Mary Magdalene was such an active figure in Jesus' ministry as demonstrated in the Gospels?

In the NT, Paul writes that women are allowed to pray and prophesy and only advises women to be silent and submissive as a means of keeping order in a church meeting (in other words, be respectful and don't interrupt the speaker). So if women are priestesses and prophetesses, how is that anti-women?

I think the Bible is clear that women have a place in God's eyes on the same level as men and that male supremacy and dominance was not the intended plan. In fact, Genesis 3:16 is often misinterpreted as a Biblical mandate for male dominance. The truth is that it's a prediction that men and women will both be fighting for supremacy, i.e. the war between the sexes, and therefore it is a human-made (not God-made or God-sanctioned) condition arising from sinful nature. I think it's very plain that the Bible is reporting based on how women were valued by the culture they lived in, yet the Bible also promotes equal treatment of all people of both sexes contrary to what might have been the male establishment at any given point in time in history.

I'm not saying that it isn't anti-women - if one interprets it literally than it is anti-woman (also anti-democratic, pro-slavery, pro-genocide and a whole host of other things that we as a modern society no longer accept). The Bible has been used countless times to oppress women and is still used as an argument whenever there is an issue of women's rights. My point was only that the Bible, as a 2000 year old document, reflects the values and customs of it's time and should be interpreted as such. Though I agree with Angel in that it may have advocated for a better than status-quo existence for women at that time - certainly not in our age.

I'm not trying to be "that guy," but I can't help but disagree. If you interpret the OT literally, you have to see that much of it is reporting facts of the day, not advocating detestable ideologies (slavery, genocide, and so on).

I've already stated the Bible's position on genocide, so I won't get into that again.

I will address slavery, however. The Bible does not encourage or promote slavery at all, it only prescribes specific treatments and attitudes towards slaves in order to provide relief from an institution arising from a sinful condition. The Law says that "because we were slaves in Egypt" that Israel treat slaves with compassion. An Israelite was permitted to sell himself to another to satisfy a debt, for example. However, at the year of Jubilee (every 7th year) all debts were to be cancelled and slave brothers (fellow Israelites, that is) were to be set free. This is likely where "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those trespass against us" came from in the Model Prayer (sometimes trespasses is translated "debts"). If a servant wished to remain faithful to his master beyond that time (if his master could provide better for him than he could on his own, for example), he could go through a ritual in which he was literally nailed to the door! Similar laws applied to foreign captives with the exception that the Israelites weren't obligated to set them free. If the policy of God is freedom and mercy, how can it be said the Bible promotes slavery?

Same thing with anti-democracy. Beginning with Moses, all the tribal and clan leaders conferred with the prophets and judges to settle land disputes and protection from foreign invasion, not to mention a judicial system of appeals if judges couldn't settle matters on the local level. After the period of the judges, it was the will of the people that Samuel, the most influential prophet at the time, appoint a king (previous policy was that "God is King"). King David was never without spiritual, domestic and foreign advisors who represented the will of the people in addition to the will of God. Even David got run out of town on one occasion and was STILL able to win the hearts and minds of the people back. Even the people decided whether they would follow God's commands or not--and the Bible reports that when they didn't, disaster occurred. Times got better when the people willingly and wholeheartedly CHOSE to mend their ways. The book of Judges reports "There was no king in that day, and the people did what they wanted."

And, of course, same thing with women's rights, which I won't go into again as I've already stated what the Bible has to say.

Here's the REAL problem with the Bible relating to women's rights, slavery, and so on: Celoneth says that the Bible has been used to oppress women. This is very true. The Bible has also been used to justify wars, genocide, and even the unspeakable atrocities of the Inquisition. The problem is that certain people throughout history has twisted the words of the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, a practice still in place today. So if your country is a church-state, you don't like a certain wealthy Middle Eastern or Near Eastern country, and you want all that wealth for yourself, there ain't nuthin like a good ol' fashioned Holy War to bring home some gold. Need some tax money? Persecute the pagans and take their land if they don't convert (they have to tithe if they're church members, and there's nothing like forced conversions to increase church attendance).

Today people will take the Bible and say, "Jesus turned water into wine. That means he was a party man. So let's take our Bibles down to the local bar, drink some beer, smoke some J, and meditate on some Proverbs or something." The last time I checked the Bible promoted healthy living and clear-thinking.

The fact that the Bible has been used as a weapon against women only reflects the ignorance or bias of the reader. People still persist in taking passages out of context to make a case for or against whatever they want. We have to be watchful of this. There are too many people out there, perhaps even ourselves, that know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.

Please let me know if there is anything specific you take issue with. I'd be happy to address it.

Using the Bible to protect women would also reflect bias.

How?

What is a "woman's right" as opposed to a human right?

ruveyn

I'm interested in pandabear clarifying that statement, also. I don't agree with using the Bible to further any agenda other than it's own message, that is, a record of Israel's history, sacred writings of the Law and prophets, and the fulfillment of the Law in the New Testament.

I'd like to know more about what pandabear meant, but taken at face value, taking the Bible and using it as support for feminism (for example) would be a misuse of scripture that reflects the bias of the reader.

But on the other hand, the language of the OT concerning women in a male-dominated society is clearly slanted in favor of women. One might assume that a woman had written sections of the Law if history as well as clues throughout the Bible didn't point to a male writer: Moses.

This kind of bias is not necessarily a bad thing, though. In a male-dominated society, it at least acknowledges that the treatment of women is a delicate matter and is at the very least an early attempt at leveling the playing field.

I agree. We have to do something to give males a chance to bear children.

ruveyn

That makes me laugh! When my wife gave birth to our firstborn, I had hard enough time just providing comfort and emotional support through what undoubtedly is an excruciatingly painful and mentally taxing natural process. I can't even begin to imagine the prospect of being in the place of one giving birth.

I just meant that the Law regarding women (aside from being a God-given mandate) was an attempt for women to gain equal access to goods and services for the survival of themselves and their families, not to mention freedom from sexual abuse among other kinds of physical abuse. Though we often say women were property or no status, the reality was that certain situations gave women a frightening (to a man of the time) amount of power over men. As a man, you would NOT want to be on the other side of those laws.

For example: If a man and woman met outside a city in a secluded area, all a woman had to do was tell an authority that she was raped and no one was around to come to her rescue. That was it. The man was brought before the priests and killed. However, both parties were subject to the "two witness" rule. So if a man could bring two witnesses to say that she had consented or even led him out for the purpose of sexual misconduct, then that made them BOTH guilty and--guess what--deserving of death.

Certain reparations COULD be made, though. She could be bought from her father and be made a wife in the abusers home. But even that brought with it certain privileges and power. As a man, you'd really want to be careful with how you treated women because if you were forced to spend the rest of your life with the wrong woman due to a legal judgment, you'd live out your years in complete misery.

All of this assumes, of course, that men and women worked closely together. It's actually the opposite that was true. Husbands and wives didn't actually get to spend that much time together because a young man had military service and older men had duties to the estate (tending livestock or running a farm). In fact, it's owed to this fact that men were closer with each other than with their wives when King David says of Jonathan "his love was better than that of women." Though this is often twisted to imply a homosexual relationship, it's more like the way men today like to say "bro's before ho's."

Women were the administrators of the household and in practice exercised much more power than the men. When God's laws were being properly carried out in the family, men and women shared equal roles. Men were the figurative "heads" of the household while women made up the "body." While that implies that husbands "ruled over" their wives (to a degree that is true), it also means that neither entity could exist without the other (let's see you live with your head cut off!. That in effect does make them equals. Just as a human being cannot live with the head separated from the body, men and women were expected to give the same kind of importance to their relationships. Ideally the gender roles that were assigned to men and women were to be regarded as complimentary, not unequal. That's why I say laws regarding women were an attempt to level the playing field.

It would reflect a bias in favour of protecting women.

The other way would reflect a bias against protecting women.

Whatever one's point of view, it is extremely easy to find a few passages here and there to support one's point of view. In fact, writers of the New Testament did this all the time.

Anyone can take scripture and twist it to suit one's one purpose. Writers of the New Testament were knowledgeable of the spirit of OT teachings and were careful to preserve the intended meaning. The New Testament reports that the religious leaders of the various prominent sects of Judaism not only viciously interpreted and enforced law, they even enforced laws about laws, i.e."laws of man" that probably started out innocently enough as clarifications of or extensions of the "Law of God." By Jesus' time these laws were used as a means of oppressing people they didn't like rather than a code of proper behavior and justice. If there is something you believe New Testament writers took out of context, you need to be more specific.

As to laws governing women, look at Deuteronomy: 21:10-16 (fair treatment of captive women, marriage ritual); 22:13-30 (sexual misconduct, rape laws/penalties, restitution for virginity--important to note are instances in which men could be permanently barred from asking for divorce! You do NOT want to mess with this law); 23:17-18 (cult prostitution); 24:1-5 (Marriage and divorce); 25:5-12 (intended to provide an heir for a man who died without a son, this law effectively provided protection and support for widows; the book of Ruth documents an actual application of this law); 24:10-27, with particular attention to 24:17 which shows these laws are extended to women, and 24:19-22 establishes the equivalent of a welfare system in which women were included (in addition to what might have been certain undesirables of the nation).

I believe all or most of these laws are paralleled with the earlier book of Leviticus. Some of the other laws that I'm leaving out concerning women have to do with sanitation and purification rituals, like what to do when you have your period, cleaning up your business after sex, and how to go potty (the last two pertained to men, as well). Aside from common sense kinds of needs for those things (i.e. why bother including them in a sacred text?), those particular laws were concerned with men and women being clean and pure before God's assembly in the holy place (within the tent of meeting). If you and your husband just couldn't help yourselves on the day of a sacrifice, you'd have to wait until the next day (or after sunset, I think) to present it. No one would check your business to see how clean you were, you were just expected to take care of it on your own! It wasn't a big deal, you just took a bath. Besides, only men were REQUIRED to appear before the Lord as representatives of their families. That way, an "unclean" woman couldn't be punished because of a monthly visitor. It appears that women were intended to be included as much as was possible, not oppressed because of natural bodily function (or for any other reason, for that matter).

The New Testament writers would have echoed the Law as it pertained to the Jews. Try Matthew 5:17-20 (from the Sermon on the Mount), in which Jesus reaffirms the importance of the Law. 5:27-30 addresses the sinful nature that spawns adultery. Though this particular passage probably should be understood as pertaining to women as well as men, Jesus SPECIFICALLY calls men out on this one. 5:31-32 is a clarification of divorce law, suggesting that abuse of divorce laws were common by Jesus' time. Jesus SPECIFICALLY points out that abuses of divorce law harm women ("...causes her to commit adultery). Matthew 9:18-26 recounts Jesus healing a young girl and a woman, which displays women as well as men are valuable in God's sight and should be treated the same by believers. Matthew 15:21-28, in which Jesus shows mercy to a foreign woman's daughter, demonstrates that His mercy is not just for the men and women of Israel, but for all who are faithful. Matthew 19:1-12 is further clarification on divorce law. His disciples figured out the point He was trying to make: If all a man is going to do is throw away his wife like trash, it's a better idea to just not get married at all. Saves a woman a lot of heartache, wouldn't you think?

If the words of Jesus aren't clear enough, the best sources of further clarification of Christ's message and application are the writings of Paul. Let's try I Corinthians. 6:12-20 expands on sexual purity. While this pertains to both men AND women, the implications on how this is favorable towards women are unmistakable. 7:1-16 runs the gamut of issues related marriage and marital sex. Again, while not "favoring" women, it does treat men and women equally. 7:25-39 is clarification of issues related to unmarried and widowed women (Paul admits he isn't crazy about marriage). It's a fairly neutral passage, but the most important feature relating to this discussion is that it's not an inferior treatment of women. Paul hints that the same principles apply to men as well. 11:2-16 should not be read as oppressive, just instruction as to proper gender roles. Basically, men should look like men, women should look like women. This has its roots in Hebrew Law--and remember Paul was among the earliest of Christian persecutors. He was well versed in Hebrew law and carried it out to the letter. It also emphasizes the role of women as legitimate teachers not entirely unlike their male counterparts. 14:26-40 has often been misinterpreted throughout the history of the Christian faith as relegating women to an inferior status. To properly understand this passage, one must recognize that it is directed specifically at the Corinthian church. Apparently what happened was that men failed to establish a strong, consistent order to worship meetings, and the result was incomprehensible chaos. Their women were only filling a void, but it only served to denigrate the men's role in teaching. They were interrupting meetings and shouting down male preachers. All Paul was trying to do is help establish order in a chaotic church by suggesting women save their questions for a more appropriate time.

To wrap all this up, I've tried to give specific examples more than a few passages in support of women's rights. You find it in Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Law. You have Jesus as an advocate for all people in need, especially women. For the sake of brevity I picked representative passages from Matthew, though Jesus' message is stated in the other Gospels as well which in turn all relate very similar and sometimes identical messages in regards to many things not the least of which includes women's issues. Paul, among our first significant experts in Christian theology (hey, he's included in the NT) even addresses the issue of Christian spirituality with regard to women. All of these things serve to portray women in a positive light. I only reviewed three books of the Bible, but those are ONLY a few passages out of many that concern women. I even pointed out one oft misrepresented passage that has both been used by Christians against women and as a way for unbelievers to portray the Bible as an oppressive document, the point of doing so to clarify the proper context of the passage and attempt to expose its true meaning.

Anyone willing to read for themselves should easily find other passages that have been proven questionable in their popular use throughout Christian history. I'll be delighted to examine them in a similar way.

would you like to give a mature, logical explanation for this pearl of wisdom? what exactly is it about us that makes us less deserving of rights and why are you so violently against WR?

women have always had to prove something as obvious as rights for half of humanity, while men have never had to explain their reasons for oppressing women.

if WR is "against common sense" then i suppose you think that honor killings and child prostitution are acceptable.

if we really were less than men, than why are men so afraid of women gaining equal rights?

perhaps you are just a sociopath that feels the need to victimize people that you perceive as lower than yourself in order to inflate your self image.

And thank you for showing lack of common sense.

Ba bye now.