Skip to main content

The Bible and the Oppression of Women


The Bible and the oppression of women.

It seems to be a fact that almost all primates live in male dominated societies. There have been a few female dominated societies among mankind, But it is generally thought that hunter gatherers were mainly egalitarian.

That all changed in the Middle East with the advent of complex mixed societies that started to arise around 3000 bce, and is reflected in the Jewish bible. That’s why it took until the 1920s for most women to get the vote in Western civilization.

The feminist movement has made a lot of inroads in the last century, but it is difficult to fight literally centuries of being considered inferior and even evil by men in society. It is even harder to fight the religions that foster and resign as holy that very concept.

That is why it strikes me as strange that more women are religious than men, and yet men dominate religion. The bible and the church fathers from all three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all find women repugnant with only one duty, to produce male off spring and cater to the men in their lives. They are property.

The list of passages putting down women in the bible is almost endless. To me it is amazing that women can believe and pass on this information about themselves and even agree with it. No wonder that women often suffer from low self esteem and low self worth.

Society is changing, but the history of religion does not. Let’s look at some of the biblical history of this oppression. Genesis 1:27 tells us man and woman were created at the same time, meaning that they would have been equal and both created in god’s image. This was due to one of the factions of Judaism who believed that to be true. But they were not the majority and lost the battle to another group who brought us Eve.

In the Eve story god says it is not good that Adam does not have a partner. It seems he created all other animals male and female but he produced man in the image of god so he was alone. After showing Adam all the animals in the field, Adam still couldn’t find a suitable mate. Little wonder.

So does god create a woman from clay and breathe life into her too? No. He takes on of Adam’s ribs and makes her in the image of man, instead of the image of god. She is called woman, because she is made from man. Let the oppression begin. In Genesis 3:16 it tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

1 Corinthians 11 "Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

Scroll to Continue

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

In the Middle East it is common for men to have more than one wife. Usually the wealthy have more than one as a status symbol. The more money he has the more woman he can rule. Many of the old biblical figures had more than one wife. David had many wives, for example.

In the Garden of Eden story it is Eve who eats of the forbidden fruit, and then gives it to Adam. For ever after women are seen as evil in the bible.

Thomas Aquinas said: "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Augustine wrote: "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

But the Protestant Church has nothing to brag about either. Martin Luther wrote: "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there." Nice guy.

Fundamentalism is no different: Jerry Falwell "Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line." Go Jerry go.

So what does the OT tell us about women? Well here’s a general indicator. When the men of Sodom gathered to demand Lot send out his visitors so they can rape them, what does Lot offer to do instead? "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Really? Rape them if you think it is a good thing to do? Really? And god let him live?

But he wasn’t the only one. The same story is told in Judges 19:16 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." Don’t harm the man, but you can have these lowly women.

All through Exodus women are treated like property. In fact, the ten commandments tells us they are property. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Wife and ox… same thing. Woman were property and nothing more. Woman were often sold or given away, even to servants. Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." She was also never given her freedom, while men only had to serve 6 years. If a man raped a woman but her father would not give her to the rapist, the rapist had to pay compensation. Again. Woman are clearly property according to the OT.

They are also unclean. When they have a menstrual cycle they are to hide in a hut away from everyone else. Men are forbidden to go near her. She is not allowed to go into the priesthood nor even learn the Torah. That’s for men only. Numbers 3:15 tells us only males were taken in the census. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 tells us that a virgin who has been raped is required to marry her rapist.

Women are temptresses and evil. Genesis 19:30-36 tells us about Lots daughters who get him so drunk he doesn’t know what he is doing, so they can have children. He didn’t know what he was doing? Judges 16 tells us Delilah seduced Samson to find out what made him so strong, and eventually kills him. 1 Kings tells us Solomon’s wives are the ones who convince him to worship false idols. It wasn’t his idea. Same as Adam who wimps out and blames Eve for his eating of the fruit. Men just don’t take blame in the bible. It’s always the woman.

What did Paul have to say? : 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

1 Timothy 2:11-14 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

St. Tertullian in the second century said it all: "Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

How can any woman with a bit of self respect be a Christian? It astounds me.

My new book


The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on January 21, 2020:

(Continued) Like it or not, you do live in a world with differing views, and the very fact that you seek to change it to views that coincide with your own further proves that atheism is far more akin to a faith than the "lack of belief" you seek to assign it.

If it were simply a "lack of belief", then why is it almost universally presented with an attack on belief, as you yourself have done quite extensively here? No, it would actually be more like agnosticism if it weren't accompanied by such attacks, not atheism.

Because, as an ex-agnostic, I know full well I never sought to change anyone's ideas about God, while I have yet to meet a single atheist who DIDN'T seek to do exactly that, just as you have here. This is why all your semantical dancing with terms does you no good, no matter how many of you try the latest version of the word twist; people know it means nothing when you are so vehemently and unreasonably against religion. It shows that you are not merely apathetic or undecided, but anti, and quite rabidly so in many cases, as anyone who has been online longer than five minutes can attest.

As long as this goes on, no one will believe you about anything that you say, since your own actions prove all your words to be lies. What's truly amazing, and not a little puzzling is that you are the only ones who can't see this.

Your own refusal to even acknowledge the article link I posted showing the blatant sexism among current atheists, while blindly insisting that:

"Atheism isn’t communism, nor is it a culture that has treated woman badly regardless of government."

only shows your own adamant refusal to deal with things like...facts. And this from those whose claim to "superiority" lies in "logic and reason".

I would have to suggest that it's actually people like you who are part of the problem of the ills of mankind. Instead of seeing the human tendency to blame others as part of the problem, you simply engage in yet another round of blame-placing, as if the group which you personally favor had nothing to explain to the world about its own behaviors.

But, unlike those who would throw stones while living themselves in glass houses, you would lob nuclear bombs destroying completely every house but your own, while glibly tossing out, "Oh, we won't miss it" to those who would miss it very, very much.

Like I said, atheism is unfit to rule. Unfit, because it is vastly ignorant. Ignorant of societies and how they actually work when they work well, ignorant of history, including their own, ignorant of the tenets of every field of study of humanity in existence, and sadly, most ignorant of all of its own state of ignorance.

Here is a beginning of wisdom for you, if you can bring your pride to receive it: a little knowledge in one field does not make you an expert in what's best for mankind. That is confusing knowledge with wisdom. Knowledge is simply knowing a thing. Wisdom is knowing, after taking stock of all your own shortcomings, how best to use it.

This is an essential tenet of most religions. And it is the main reason why they are, and always will be superior to the blind bullying through of atheism. Simply put, atheism uses a cannon to swat a mosquito.

No person, or group, however smart it may think itself, can do this without looking both a bully and a fool.

Which is why

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on January 21, 2020:

"Not at all. I’m simply explaining how religious people think. If you believe from the OT that god thinks women are inferior, then you believe that’s what god wants you to think too. I don’t believe that even were there a god that we should follow it if what it does or thinks is contrary to logic, reason, and morality. Were a god to say woman are inferior because he proclaims it so, I still wouldn’t agree."

No, actually, you're doing far more. You're dismissing and condemning both an extremely complex book, which can't really be understood without research in many cases (and places), and you are dismissing as invalid the lives and life experience of anyone different from you.

Is this a sample of all that "tolerance" we have heard atheists going on about for years? And I must say, it's very typical of the standard response I've heard from atheists for over four decades, which is why even as an agnostic I simply couldn't take atheists or atheism seriously. I've yet to meet an atheist who has more than talk, and I've dealt with a lot of them through the years. Come right down to it, when you scratch beneath the surface, I have found atheism to really be about a bunch of selfish people wanting to impose their own likes on everyone else, with absolutely no regard for the likes or difficulties of anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

"I read it as Witten without trying to interpret the words beyond what’s required for reading comprehension. Telling someone how to interpret words with obvious meaning in a way which alters that meaning is an old ruse. A ruse used every day now by the current President of the US, and perfectly explained in the story: The Emperor’s new clothes. ."

No, actually it's what's taught in every University on the planet that has anything to do with subjects such as anthropology, sociology, archeology, history or paleography, which is the study of ancient writings, of which the Bible is one. This is because cultures differ from one another, and you can't read a book from one ancient culture and expect to really understand it looking at it solely from the vantage point of your own culture.

This is true even of today: a missionary I knew of once went overseas and was waiting to be met at his train. He was whistling a tune while he waited. A man had started toward him, but stopped and seemed shocked, then shook his head and advanced toward him again. He was there to meet him, but was very short, almost rude.

Finally the missionary asked, "Have I done something to offend you?"

The guy looked at him and said, "Look, you are new here, so I will tell you. Only fools and lazy people whistle."

It's generally a lot harder than that to get to the truth of what's being said in an ancient writing. This is held true around the world by educated people. I think, because of the interest in archeology, many people actually realize this by now, even though we live in times where, for all their "knowledge" most people are more ignorant of history and the Bible than at any time in history.

So, if it's a 'ruse', it's one agreed on by those with the most knowledge in the fields associated with the study of mankind. Your answer does, however, give insight into the reason we have so often seen atheists try to kill off all the educated people when they grab power, like they did in Cambodia. It's the most savage and ignorant response man is capable of: kill off or obliterate anything or anyone different. No wonder people have become so vicious and feel they have the right to take away the rights of others, even to free speech. No, your answer doesn't impress: quite the opposite, sorry.

As to your response on hallucinations: Dr. Persinger? Really?

Now, let me see: you're dismissing the experiences of most of the world's population based on a guy who did research in parapsychology? So you, on the one hand, dismiss supernatural experience you don't happen to like, no matter how many people attest to its validity, but you jump right on the unproven ideas of one lone guy who thinks ghosties are real? Sorry, lol. And this right after dismissing the entire fields of anthropology, archeology, sociology, paleography and the like?

Let me just ask: are you serious? Lol.

You certainly do cherry pick your, um "academics" is all I can say.

"Thing is, we know now that we don’t need gods to teach us. We can innovate on our own."

That's like a toddler saying because he has learned to walk (with mom & dad's help), he no longer needs mom & dad. This universe is a lot bigger than we can even conceive. Unless you can prove you know all there is to know about it, I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss that statement as hubris.

What folks who are unschooled in studies such as anthropology, sociology, history, etc. don't realize is that, in every generation, a lot of generational sifting goes on.

Each one tests ideas old and new, and only what has actual and intrinsic value remains. Religion has been tested to the nth degree, and is still being found to be of social value in fields like anthropology, where anthropologists have found that in times of famine and the like, societies that had religion outlasted those that did not. This was their conclusion, after examining the archeological evidence.

In our own last century, there has been one idea which has been tested perhaps more than any other: the new idea of atheism/socialism. It has universally failed, and produced some of the worst atrocities seen in the history of mankind. To the tune of over a quarter BILLION deaths in about one century-this while atheists decry the mere 6000 the Inquisition was able to accrue in FIVE centuries (according to recently released records).

Yet atheists are still blindly beating that dead horse, hoping against hope that people worldwide will suddenly get mad enough at themselves to adopt it. Now THAT'S a twisted fairy tale, one where the troll under the bridge is the hero, at the expense of pretty much all life on the planet, judging from atheism's own history. And, as usual, you drag out the "atheism isn't communism" when everyone knows communist governments are-well, let's let the Wall Street Journal say it: "An atheistic ideology, communism is not only irreligious, but anti-religious." (

Everyone knows this. So why persist in the disingenuous semantics, which fool no one, not even yourselves? It's lame, and someone should tell you guys that.

So when you say: "Atheism is not a belief system or a political system, nor has it ever failed."

That's completely untrue. Communism/socialism are systems built upon the tenet, or premise of atheism. Anyone who has studied government, sociology or history knows this is true, and there is no debate about it anywhere except within the framework of atheists online, vainly pleading the imaginary utopian virtues of atheism's adoption.

It's like pleading for a serial killer (with innumerable MASS murders laid to his account) that, "Oh, he won't kill again! Just let him in one more time and he'll show you."

Thanks, we've been shown quite enough. The wonder is that no evidence of the failure of an idea seems to be enough for some people to abandon it. Sitting around pointing out the lesser imperfections of opposing ideas may work with the gullible, or those with little to no real world experience, but after a while, there's no one left in the village to scam. So eventually, someone is going to step out and say, "Dudes, get the giant redwood out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in our eyes."


Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on December 11, 2019:

“I agree that history and man has been vicious to women. You say the church didn't change that-which isn't really true. Here's an article which covers the history of women in the church”

I understand that in the beginning of Christianity women were very involved and high positions in certain communities. So things started out fine, but that was before Rome took over, and yes, before Greek influence. And it lasted a very short time: It also didn’t help that Christianity also adopted the OT.

In any case, the religion didn’t solve the problem, and in fact came to endorse the oppression.

“And I have to point out, that by saying: "either god thinks woman are inferior and that’s represented in the OT, or it was added to firm up the status quo. Hey, if god says women are inferior, he should know, right? So it becomes entrenched in the culture and its behaviour, not only as normal, but as declared by god.."

you are actually guilty of the exact same type of thinking that let men get away with manipulating scripture to their own advantage.”

Not at all. I’m simply explaining how religious people think. If you believe from the OT that god thinks women are inferior, then you believe that’s what god wants you to think too. I don’t believe that even were there a god that we should follow it if what it does or thinks is contrary to logic, reason, and morality. Were a god to say woman are inferior because he proclaims it so, I still wouldn’t agree.

“These words condemn men for reading their own preferences into scripture, rather than reading it with an open heart and mind of fairness and compassion.”

I read it as Witten without trying to interpret the words beyond what’s required for reading comprehension. Telling someone how to interpret words with obvious meaning in a way which alters that meaning is an old ruse. A ruse used every day now by the current President of the US, and perfectly explained in the story: The Emperor’s new clothes. .

I mention this because you say that you LEARNED to manipulate your mind so you could experience anything. But how do you explain so many similar experiences by so many people from all races, cultures and economic backgrounds who have never had such training?

Biology. We all have similar brains, needs and life experiences. We also have great imaginations and similar desires: which are all due to our genetics and their predispositions set against environment including culture, traditions beliefs of others, etc. People who have mental illness experience generally the same sort of issues. Hence why we can categorize them. Do you believe all spiritual experiences are about reality?

Yet Dr Persinger can place an EM pen on your head in certain places and give you ultra real spiritual experiences. Talk to god, Buddha, angels, demons, alians, dead people, etc. Problem is, some people reported having conversations with someone they met in the waiting room, or someone in another country, etc. . Obviously they didn’t. Yet most people believe it was real, when they come out of it.

You can have the same experiences from drugs, brain tumors, and if you really want to, you can train your brain, to do it naturally, so to speak. And the advantage there is, you can control them and turn them off at will.

“And in fact, it can't be mass delusion. The general population only experiences hallucinations at a rate of 7 percent-and this is including about 2 percent who only ever hallucinate once, in a time of great stress, such as a death (NIH). So you may be under the impression that people can manipulate their minds any way they want, but that is simply not true of the general populace, and statistics bear this out.”

One of the main reasons we believe in spirits, gods, etc, is because our brains are made of two parts: a conscious and a subconscious. What does god say to Moses when he tells god he wasn’t up to the task. He’d never find the words. God tells him that he puts words in our mouths and not to worry about it. This shows a phenomenon all religions seem to have come up with. Even today natives will tell you that they are taught by their religion that good/innovative ideas come from the gods. We can can only know what we experienced, so if you invent wine or bread, a god taught you. How could you know on your own?

When you ask a writer about a character, you often hear” it’s like the character wrote itself. Same with artists and musicians. Once you know your craft, it’s in the subconscious. But it also feels like it’s coming from elsewhere. Thing is, we know now that we don’t need gods to teach us. We can innovate on our own.

“”And the facts are that atheism has treated women horrifically, beyond imagination of most people. The atrocities toward women in atheist regimes have been legend. Not just women, but even kids, such as in Cambodia in the 1970's where they were brainwashed to help kill their own parents and half the entire country.””

Communist countries. Atheism isn’t communism, nor is it a culture that has treated woman badly regardless of government. Atheism isn’t anything other than a lack of belief in god. It’s not a belief. Not even the belief that there is no god. It tells you zero about what a person does believe, if anything.

“To think that atheism holds answers after it has been tried so often (and failed abysmally) in just the last century, is to be wilfully blind.”

Atheism is not a belief system or a political system, nor has it ever failed. In fact, separation of church and state is an atheistic style of government that works well to protect all beliefs from each other by not allowing any of them rule the others. That’s progress and freedom. Believe what you want, but don’t force it on me. Same goes for everyone in a multi religious and non religious society.

“Even the intolerance we see atheists display toward others online, such as where you advocate the abolishing of religion, quite as if this did not and would not profoundly affect and most often destroy the lives of the majority of the world's people who believe in a Higher Power, shows a group which has not matured to the point of even practicing itself the tolerance it preaches at others.”

We wouldn’t be any worse off without religion. In fact, it might be better. What would be worse would be living in a theocracy where heretics like you and myself are burned at stake just for our beliefs. I advocate the slow natural demise of religion. I do not and would never advocate outlawing it. In fact, I’d actively fight against that.

“But this is what clamors for the replacement of values and beliefs which the majority of mankind finds of benefit. I might also point out the following article:”

Utter nonsense. Sorry.

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on December 05, 2019:

Thanks for sharing your views and experiences, Ron.

I agree that history and man has been vicious to women. You say the church didn't change that-which isn't really true. Here's an article which covers the history of women in the church:

John D. Garr, who wrote God And Women, traces the poisoning of attitudes toward women in the church after Apostolic times to the Hellenistic influences coming in via Greek culture, so those attitudes weren't Christian at all, and can't fairly be described as such.

And I have to point out, that by saying: "either god thinks woman are inferior and that’s represented in the OT, or it was added to firm up the status quo. Hey, if god says women are inferior, he should know, right? So it becomes entrenched in the culture and its behaviour, not only as normal, but as declared by god.."

you are actually guilty of the exact same type of thinking that let men get away with manipulating scripture to their own advantage. Christ said that the strictures placed on women were done to protect them from the hardness of men's hearts. But He said that from the beginning it was not so.

These words condemn men for reading their own preferences into scripture, rather than reading it with an open heart and mind of fairness and compassion.

I recently was told by a guy that women were slaves. He said this was true because all the prophets and leaders in the Old Testament were men (they weren't) and that none of the apostles were women (he also didn't know that Paul lists Junia, a woman, among the apostles in Romans, or that Philip had daughters who were prophetesses).

We see the Pharisees doing this type of "specialized reading" to Christ Himself, by saying, "Search and look! No prophet arises out of Galilee!"

But the guy who said this about Jesus didn't know his Isaiah, especially chapter 9, vs 1&2. These are both examples of how people will ignore, twist or put the worst connotation on even the best things if it's advantageous to themselves. And I would point to this and other fulfilled prophecies of Christ as part of the reason I came to believe in Him.

One big one for me was the approach to man of the God of the Bible. I know from my studies in pharmacy that babies are born with just enough synaptic connections to recognize the shape of the human face and have a fear of falling. It is the experiences of sight, sound, taste, touch and smell that help more synaptic connections to form, and it works this way all our lives.

All learning is experiential, as it must come through one of these five senses. And the only two religions that have God approach man experientially are Judaism and Christianity.

I mention this because you say that you LEARNED to manipulate your mind so you could experience anything. But how do you explain so many similar experiences by so many people from all races, cultures and economic backgrounds who have never had such training?

To me, your argument is a cop out. It clearly doesn't apply in most cases, across many different strata of life.

And in fact, it can't be mass delusion. The general population only experiences hallucinations at a rate of 7 percent-and this is including about 2 percent who only ever hallucinate once, in a time of great stress, such as a death (NIH). So you may be under the impression that people can manipulate their minds any way they want, but that is simply not true of the general populace, and statistics bear this out.

Which is why I say your argument is a cop out.

And the facts are that atheism has treated women horrifically, beyond imagination of most people. The atrocities toward women in atheist regimes have been legend. Not just women, but even kids, such as in Cambodia in the 1970's where they were brainwashed to help kill their own parents and half the entire country.

To think that atheism holds answers after it has been tried so often (and failed abysmally) in just the last century, is to be wilfully blind.

Any group that starts/abets/fosters 63 wars in under a century clearly has nothing to offer mankind in the way of living in harmony with ANYONE.

The reality is that atheism has had its shot-and quite a few of other groups' shots too.

And generally used them to exterminate anyone who stood in their way.

Even the intolerance we see atheists display toward others online, such as where you advocate the abolishing of religion, quite as if this did not and would not profoundly affect and most often destroy the lives of the majority of the world's people who believe in a Higher Power, shows a group which has not matured to the point of even practicing itself the tolerance it preaches at others.

But this is what clamors for the replacement of values and beliefs which the majority of mankind finds of benefit. I might also point out the following article:

It's obvious atheism has a great deal to learn before setting itself up as teacher of anyone else. Particularly when it hasn't even learned the elementary truth of the blind not being not being able to lead the blind.

As I said earlier in another post, it's a case of "physician, heal thyself", or getting rid of the log in your own eye before taking tweezers to the splinter in the eye of another.

Another aspect of atheism which has always given me rather cynical amusement is its condemnation of others for "blind faith" while expecting them to abandon the societal safeguards of past generations for atheists' ill-defined delusions of future Utopia. All of which we are expected by atheists to faith.

You see the issue I (and I think many others) have with atheism?

Atheists mock believers for believing in "pie in the sky by and by" while wanting us to swallow whole the promise of..."pie in the sky by and by", with the single difference that it's supposed to manifest itself after the next great atheist revolution, despite never having done so 63 times before in just the last hundred years.

So, why should we believe its promises for women now? It has not only lied about such promises too many times in the past, its followers won't even acknowledge that.

At least in religious groups, you see them acknowledge and repent once in a while. I don't see how atheism can ever even improve on its past record, since it refuses to do either.

People generally believe what they believe for personal reasons, whatever other arguments they may use to defend their beliefs to others.

I think, really, the types of belief a person chooses show a lot about himself, and his goals in life. Man isn't able to even choose unselfishly without Help, in my observation.

Which is why anything short of a relationship with God is really a waste of time: it simply doesn't work for anything but the most selfish of lifestyles. This includes religion, whether secular/atheist or not.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on November 25, 2019:

Let me tell you first that your interpretations of the bible are fine, but again, not how they have been interpreted or used historically. Is religion the sole cause of the oppression of woman? No. As I think I said: Since we started building cities in 6000 bce, society changed from egalitarian to patriarchal. That’s been pretty much established. My point is, Christianity didn’t change that, and in fact it used it to keep woman in their place till the middle of the last century, and even today among the religious.

Look at Islam. Same thing. Woman have few if any rights even now. Same god, they follow the same history as represented in the OT. So either god thinks woman are inferior and that’s represented in the OT, or it was added to firm up the status quo. Hey, if god says women are inferior, he should know, right? So it becomes entrenched in the culture and its behaviour, not only as normal, but as declared by god..

Only when the civil rights movement started did woman’s lib start in earnest as well, though suffragettes had been around since the 1920s and slightly before. And none of that would have been possible had the church remained in charge of world governments. When Protestants left the church, the religion split up and lost power. That allowed anyone to interpret the bible any way they wanted. And that led to atheism and agnosticism which is growing every year, and woman are gaining freedom and equality, though there’s a long way to go to change an entire culture.

So yes, I’m an atheist. But the simply means I’m not a theist. I have no beliefs on the matter. No one knows with certainty whether a god exists or not, and no one can. Hence, why believe anything about it? I do not believe a god does exist , but nor do I believe it doesn’t. It’s unknowable at this point, so why believe either? Belief meaning giving one idea or the other a degree of faith.

Sure we can form conditional opinions based on logic and the facts we have, but we needn’t put any faith in them either way.

As for my alternative to religion, I have several, including a religion for atheists I helped create in the 1990s called Scientific Pantheism. No god in this one, or that is to say, everything together as a totality qualifies god, so there is no god. That is to say nothing is above or below objectively. Subjectively is a different matter.

Most people have a natural reverence for nature and life, as well as an awe for the universe and it’s complexity. No religion is required for people to be moral or to have empathy.

Pinker recently wrote a book about how, amazing as may seem, life has gotten far safer than any time in history. We are evolving, as are our views and culture, despite the breakup and decline of western religions. And, in fact, probably because of it. So religion is not required for people to be moral. The bible and god seem fine with slavery. We’re not, any more. We’ve evolved beyond Christian morality.

As to experience, I started studying religion and spiritualism when I was 6. I studied Eastern religion and spiritualism in my teens, and through meditation and other techniques I had every spiritual experience the gurus talk about, including the ability to leave my body almost at will. I even experienced Jesus talking to me. After many years I discovered I could train my mind to give me any experience I wanted, I started to understand that it was probably all mind, not necessarily reality. So unfortunately I can’t avoid being suspicious of anyone else’s spiritual experiences. Our minds/interpretations of our experiences can’t be trusted.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on November 25, 2019:

Ron, if you want to knows my life's story you can click on the house on my profile, go to the contents page on the left of your screen, find the action called THE BOOK OF ELIJAH: A LETTER TO THE WORLD and begin with the first topic under it and you will find out most of my experiences. everything on there can be verified but know, I stopped adding to it about 2010. I find it easier to tell the truth about my experiences which have provided with my understanding than to be a pretender.

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on November 24, 2019:

Elijah, my own past experiences with atheists have shown me that they often create fake profiles online, even pretending to be Christians in order to sidetrack discussion points other atheists can't answer, make Christians look silly or even attack the ones who most threaten their own agenda as being "unChristian". I've even come across some who pretend to react with mass hysteria over a cussword when they have just been told of attacks on the lives of even little children and not batted an eyelash. Needless to say, I find all this less than credible.

You may very well be legit-who knows? I'm not saying you aren't. But because of having seen such things firsthand, I find it hard to take you so. Particularly when your own posts seem designed to side rail the legitimate questions I have just asked Ron.

So, if you don't mind, I would prefer to see what realistic replacement for religion he can suggest. I could really care less about politics or dissecting pet political peeves, nor is that the subject of this hub.

When you're ready, Ron.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on November 24, 2019:

I agree with you, Bible Unchained, and what we have in theUSAs White House today is a prime example of what you are saying. He is none of the knowns groups of "psychopaths" but the one "God" (Luke 17:20-21) put in power to show just how it works. As long as anyone can get psychopaths from other places to follow them they will destroy "the illusion of peace" that isn't verified by following the governing laws, the U.S. Constitution on this case. So you can see just how connected this president is to all the other psychopaths of the world are working to end this nation, as bib locally prophesied (see

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on November 23, 2019:

Well, Ron, if you're expecting me to chime in and defend religious leaders, you're going to have a long wait.

But your contention that they alone are responsible for the treatment of women is flawed and unsustainable, as I've already shown.

I've also shown that, bad as religion is, what the world offers is 100 times worse.

So, what else ya got?

Socialists and atheists are always trying to grab power by decrying the evils of religion (it is a unifying force, and one which anthropologists have stated helps societies survive where others do not) and the inequities of a society in general.

The inference always is that they could do better, if they only got the reins. Then when they get power, they inflict the kinds of abuses mankind has never seen until the last hundred years. To the tune of over 60 wars and a quarter billion (yes, with a 'b') deaths in that century-and this doesn't include the French Revolution, the ongoing deaths, or the (always more numerous in wartime) maimings, imprisonments and other atrocities of these wars.

Meanwhile, the Inquisition they gripe about only managed to kill off about 6000 people in 500 years according to recently released records.

So the oft-repeated cry of "set us free and we'll do it better" with the vague implications of Utopia always alluded to has been definitively proven beyond any doubt to be nothing more than yet another cheap power grab by yet another bunch of greedy murdering psychopaths.

Again, religion wins it hands down.

So then, Ron, what's your alternative?

Who do you have standing in the wings to grab power this time?

Yourself, maybe?

Tell me seriously. You've advocated openly getting rid of religion. So what's your replacement? What REALISTIC alternative do you have?

Or are you just another utopian wanting your own piece of the power pie?

Please. Be specific about your alternatives.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on November 23, 2019:

Yes, Ron, it's the religious leaders who causes our sinning by "brainwashing" people into their concepts at such a young age that it is difficult for us to know what is of god and what is of human. As for God's directing sin, read Isaiah 45:7 where God said HE (Luke 17:21) does all actions through us which means he intended these things to be done because each life-force will receive in any body everything done to it or it does to another in body human life-force.

That exactly the point, "sin" is disobedient to God, the religious has made it a sin to disobey our parents although the Bible say" honor" parents but we are to do what our hearts (Luke 17:21) instruct them to do. To sin is to go against the supreme lawgiver while going against our temporal guardian is only disobedience.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on November 22, 2019:

Again, all well and good for an argument against the oppression of women. But not how the bible has been interpreted and used by the religious and their leaders, which is the point of this hub. .

And you make a good point about reincarnation, but it's definitely not a Christian idea, as you know.

As to Eve not being the first to sin because Adam informed her, not god,.if that were true no one could sin unless god directly told them not to do something. That doesn't happen these days. We all get these supposed laws second hand from other humans and a book written by humans.


Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on November 22, 2019:

Ron, you said "The fact that Eve is the first to sin" but she did not sin because she got her instructions from Adam, sin in the true sense is to disobey God and not human. History does the truth of The Bible Unchained's know of history does ring true to the reality of life on earth even to this day. It was Adam's accepting what Eve had received from the serpent rather than clinging to the instructions from God. But, the spirit of things can only be interpreted by the things made (Romans 1:20) and the Bible is about a never ending cycle governing earth, all of this was intended from the beginning.

The Bible is also about reincarnation that almost no people see because the law of "reaping and sowing" (Galatians 6:7-8) can not happen otherwise since it suggests everything done to someone by another will also be done to them (see my the way that is done is one has to be giving or receiving what he did to the other when in another lifetime at the exact time period they gave or received it. What that does is give everyone, through multiple incarnations, the opportunity to experience all human attributes and every combination of them before they are qualified to become one of the 10 virgins (man to ascend to the next plain of existence) who survives civilization by going into Armageddon while the "Battle That Great Day of God Almighty" is destroying this half of the world before Rev. 21's alternate waterless, painless, and sunless world begins.

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on November 21, 2019:

No, Eve eating the fruit did not condemn them both. Adam ate of the fruit, and it was through his loins (lineage) that mankind was condemned. Had he not eaten, only Eve would have been condemned.

You choose to focus on the early church fathers, etc., as if they were evil, while the REAL WORLD was out there treating women like gold.

But were they?

In the Enochian times you speak of, Baal worship flourished, far more than true followers of God did. Baal worship was centered on the male, specifically the male phallus.

In those days, men raped women as they chose. The inbreeding via incest and other gross practices was so bad that this is given by scripture as the reason for the destruction of man by the flood.

Even after this, man didn't change. Ever wonder why the Israelites destroyed the male, but not the female when they went into Canaan? Because of Baal worship, which could not exist without the male.

In many of those cultures children under 6, or even 4 years of age had no legal rights, and WERE FAIR GAME FOR EITHER SEX. Incest was once again rampant, resulting in horrible deformities. Live babies were fried to death on a super-heated stone idol as an offering to Molech.

Women had no legal rights, and when a man died they would take the widow and children out, carve a hole in the side of a cliff-face, shove them all in, then use a big rock to seal them in, where they would suffocate to death.

A friend of mine, now deceased, helped excavate such graves in Palestine, where there are thousands of them.

I really don't think you want to be trying to indict the church over the world in the case of women's rights: the church will win it hands down.

The ancient pagan world never educated women; this was at least occasionally done under the Jews-although there were some examples of pagan 'priestesses', who, coincidentally I'm sure, also served as temple whores whose most sacred 'duty' was to serve as a whore to any man who wanted to so 'worship' there.

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I see that as more an exploitation than an honor.

I've heard this same stuff from atheists for years. Meanwhile, there's a reason why I'm an ex-agnostic who believes in Christ, and not an atheist.

And it for SURE isn't because atheists-or even garden variety non-Christians-treat women like gold.

Quite the opposite, in fact. In the town where I live, a group of them were breaking up Christian marriages so they could sleep with the women because they were afraid of getting AIDS from the college girls. They drove some of those women to suicide, with no more regard for what happened to those women, or the kids from those marriages than if they were dogs-less, probably. I got this firsthand from a local cop, who told me about it.

Sadly for the guy targeting one of these women, he (non-physically) got his ears slapped around the other side of his head for trying it. As a result, these wonderful worldly men you seem to think compare favorably to the church have targeted the family ever since, killing animals, stealing everything not nailed down and breaking what was, and a lot of other things I won't list here.

So please: spare me the violins playing the "It's A Wonderful World" tribute to the supposed superiority of men in the world over men in the church.

The REAL point of my posts, which you seem to have missed, is that man has something clearly wrong with him, shown by the hostility with which he treats women (and other men) and his environment itself. Nothing but the fall can explain this.

While religion can't do anything about this, the only thing I have seen that can is knowing Christ. Even with that, it takes time to work out this poisonous leaven (belief system) of entitlement men imbibe via the culture.

This is why even the religious treatment of women has been poor, though definitely better than the self-righteous world, despite the lies to the contrary. I expect this will continue, mainly because most are presently far more in love with their appendages than with anything else-even their own good, as the many arrests on a daily basis shows.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on November 21, 2019:

Both of you have interesting and somewhat logical arguments about the interpretation of the Genesis story. The idea that woman is a man with a womb is a reasonable assessment of the wording of the story. Thanks for your comments.

But the point is that Eve ate the fruit and gave it to Adam, condemning them both.

Now, whether you believe the story or not it’s well known that the church fathers viewed woman as inferior and even evil because of this. Have either of you read Enoch? Lilith? It’s clear that early man thought women were inferior, temptresses, and somewhat evil. Particularly the priests .

The fact that Eve is the first to sin, and to doubt god, thanks to the snake, is obviously added to enshrine the idea of male superiority into the religion as well as the culture. And it’s been used to keep woman suppressed for 3000 plus years. Women weren’t even allowed to vote till the mid 1900s. Even if it wasn’t added for that reason, and it all really happened, it’s a fact that ancient man blamed Eve and thus all woman for their hard lives, and used that to suppress them.

But we know that the culture that created Judaism, Christianity and Islam was a patriarchal society before the religion existed, and Islam still is, while we are too, though much less so since Christianity lost power in the west. Only since then have women started to have equal rights and opportunity, though there’s still a long way to go. So it wouldn’t surprise me if it was just added to the story to keep women in line.

Just read the words of even the apostils on the subject, then the founding fathers of all the religions and denominations. Their interpretation is far different from yours., and unfortunately they and their interpretations created our history, and still influences our world today, not yours.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on November 21, 2019:

The Bible Unchained (Forgive my Error), your "when in fact the Hebrew word "Ishah" which we translate as "woman" means "man with a womb", thus a man with something extra" may be what that word means but when you take Adams words, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" The bible had already defined woman to mean "woven from man" because of 'it came out of man.' I am taking the words of the Bible to define the word, not the fact that it is defined because girls have a "womb." Because it was a part of Adam before being removed is why it makes both Adam and Eve woven from each other. That is what the full concept imply especially when both genders were made before Adam's "FORMING". That doesn't leave room for inferiority or superiority, a HELP MEET is an equal but opposites is why that was used by God and both are inferior to both genders of man of chapter 1 who, by observing certain species of the earth, could change into either gender by their recognition of a need to while the descendants of Adam and Eve can't.

Then look at what follows that. Adam had no knowledge of a parent (Spirit was his father and earth his mother) yet it say "a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh," have you ever seen a boy and girl become one again? NO! Then that must mean an attribute (femininity or masculinity) of Adam was removed and can become reunited in both genders. They were hairy all over like Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:33) and had no shame (2:25) until Eve began to like and dislike (the knowledge of good and evil) and the other judgmental adjectives in chapter 3 after which she came into puberty and Adam became erected but his penis didn't exit the fore skin which, in their observing the other animals mating, Eve would not allow the hair to penetrate her. Thus, rather than asking the "voice" how to mate they became ashamed so God spelled them out of the garden and removed the hair and required them to be cut away from ALL attachments (sword) and minds purified from judging.

Like I said, when we follow Isaiah 28:9-13 we will take precepts from all over the Bible and the things made, as Romans 1:20 advises us, we would know via our experiences "how to correctly divide the word of truth" if we want to comprehend what the scriptures are telling us. Follow it in reading. Abraham was instructed to circumcise himself and son, why? because God wanted to reveal why man became hairless. If we were wise, rather than following instructions blindly without questioning causes, we would see that if we took only that subject to the end of the Bible while questioning everything closely related to that we would awaken to the will of God.

One reason God had it written that way is so "woman" wouldn't know what it mean and change the wording of it. I'm 74 years old and have seen many words changed in the Bible through my 68 of studying it. One is Micah 5:2s "though thou be LITTLE AMONG the thousands of Judah" read "LAST" then changed to "LEAST AMONG" before becoming what you see above.

I hope that helps you in your study of the book.


Elijah "NatureBoy"

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on November 20, 2019:

Elijah, your comment illustrates a lot of what's wrong with society today. If I wrote a book to communicate something, and someone just took it and made up a bunch of stuff about what it said, then went around claiming that's what I wrote, it would really tick me off. How much more do you think it would tick off a Divine Being Who had engineered such a book (collection really) through thousands of years to have that done to His efforts? To profess any respect for God while doing any such thing is disingenuous.

Scripture itself defines itself, its purpose and how it is to be interpreted. It states very plainly that it is of NO private interpretation, meaning it is not subject to man's opinion, whether yours, mine, or the Pope's. Scripture in fact defines itself and how to study it, "comparing spiritual with spiritual". It is as we search out all that it says on any given subject that we begin to get a glimmer of light on that subject.

But we also have to know things like hermeneutics, involving context, which includes such varied things as who is being spoken to and why, customs, religious and political climes, linguistics and archeological info-the list is endless.

It's not enough to simply read or study scripture, you have to know how to do so. Does this mean God by His Spirit can't communicate to you, including about the Bible? Of course not.

But scripture says to study to show ourselves approved unto God, and that those who LABOR in the word and doctrine deserve more abundant honor for a reason. It also states that not many should be teachers because teachers are held to and judged by a higher standard by God.

For instance, one of your other posts describes woman as inferior, or an "incomplete man", when in fact the Hebrew word "Ishah" which we translate as "woman" means "man with a womb", thus a man with something extra. That is the exact opposite of what you said.

The fact is that this need to define one half of the same being as either inferior or superior is a western cultural bias which is rooted in the many paganistic influences of Hellenism and its own Baal influenced beliefs.

Think about it: why would two halves of the same being compete for supremacy? It's like your right hand wrestling your left to prove which is better, when in fact you need BOTH, though you may use each for different functions at various times. Scripture says that two are better than one, because if one falters then the other can hold him up.

This is as applicable to man and woman as it is to scholars, as "in a multitude of counselors there is wisdom".

One further thing: the handle is not "TheBibleUnchanged" it is "TheBibleUnCHAINED". I belong to no denomination, as I don't care for chains either. I am a scholar of about half a century, not a denominationalist, or one of the myriad pipsqueak false prophets trolling the net for a following. I post the things I post because I know Truth sets people free, and for no other reason. I could care less about sacred calves, denominational or otherwise.

This means I am not politically or religiously correct, nor do I care about being so. If people want that, let them stay with their groups, parties, or church social clubs. I love the Bible as I love God: for what they ARE, not for the perks some false shepherd promises from them. The real treasures they offer are more than enough.

Does this sound dogmatic? Well, so is scripture, and its Author, in many ways.


Well, because He's God...and we're not.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on November 20, 2019:

The Bible Unchanged,

Carefully read Genesis 1 and then 2 carefully and you should find six days (thousand years) of creation with man being the last in chapter 1. In 2 you will find God resting while man repopulated earth for a day then a creation of woman or human by one child not know it's mother and had only a memory of being somewhere where the earth was plantless who was taken to a place with plants, birds and animals and told to name them. In doing it, once he entered puberty, he wanted to do reproduce and live in a group like he saw the birds and animals doing so God said "it is not good for man to be alone" and decided to make him a help meet but didn't tell him. He was put to sleep and provided the knowledge through a dream which caused him to say "this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh so I will call her wo(woven from)man or hu(hewed from)man "because she came out of man."

What that should tell you is because those man of both genders in the first chapter had "Dominion" (the ability to exceed) over the entire creation they were Gods but didn't know how to use their god powers properly so God took one boy and created the deception you revealed for why we are required to be Born Again ( Adam and Eve, as the tree of "The Knowledge of good and Evil" reveals, were dead and to man what Tadpoles are to Frogs, an incomplete specie so Jesus told us we must become Born Again.

When we read the Bible based on that principle we are able to follow Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall (God) teach knowledge? and whom shall (God) make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk (religious teachings), and drawn from the breasts (religious teachers).

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet THEY WOULD NOT HEAR.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The Bible Unchained from Above The Sun on November 18, 2019:

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

What you're missing here is that woman was still part of man when God made man in His image; thus both male and female are made in God's image, which explains the Hebrew word for woman, "womb man" or "man with a womb".

In addition to the designation of being made in God's image, woman also has the designation of being "panah", or "skillfully builded" while man is only "yatsar", or shaped/formed out of the dust or "rubbish" of the earth. Woman is actually presented as God's refinement on man's initial design, not an afterthought, but the crowning gift God gave man, a reflection of man himself, just as Adam was a reflection of Himself. It is as if God presents her to man, "Here, treasure your image as I treasure My image in you."

He had already brought each of the animals to man to name, for all the world like a father delighting his son to see what he will call each. And most of all, Adam walked with God Himself in the garden.

Yet God says, "It is not good for man to be alone."

Alone? When man walked in the very presence of God?

Perhaps God is telling us a little bit about His own heart's desire in creating man here. Love always seeks more avenues of expression. God wanted Adam to have such avenues too.

Thus the Hebrew saying that woman was not taken from man's head to rule over him, nor from his feet to be trod on by him, but from his side to walk with him, from under his arm to be protected by him, from near his heart to be loved by him.

Does this mean man has valued this gift? No more than we see him value any other of God's gifts, unfortunately. Genesis records that enmity between the serpent and the woman would be in effect after the fall, and throughout history we can see that it has been.

Men who hate women have the same serpentine spiritual parentage as those who hate anyone do. Christ said that the reason Moses allowed divorce was because of the hardness of men's hearts, but that from the beginning it was not so. In this He makes clear that many of the proscriptions put upon women were in order to protect them from men.

As an example, a few years back an account was published in the paper that a man who was involved with a lap dancer outside his marriage had insured, then murdered his wife in order to collect the money to spend on the lap dancer. How many women do you think would have died had Moses not allowed divorce?

This is carried over into the Epistles by Paul, where he writes of it being a disgrace for a woman to teach, he also wrote he would not allow a novice, or beginner to teach. When I read things like this article, it becomes apparent why.

Most women in Paul's day were uneducated. Scholars have stated that the women Paul said were to remain silent were likely uneducated, and, as the men and women sat on different sides of the church back then, they were calling out and interrupting the service, "Hey, Thaddeus, what's that guy mean?" This is what Paul said was disgraceful, and goes on to say, "and if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home", a phrase which only makes sense within such a context.

The proposition put forth by many that this passage means that Paul never allowed a woman to teach or preach is absurd. Get a Strong's concordance out sometime and look up the word "prophetess"; you'll find it means "female preacher".

In the Old Testament we see Deborah judging Israel, and in the New we see a woman, Junia, listed among the apostles (Romans 16:7) BY Paul himself. We also see women as the first to see Christ in the temple (Anna) and the first to see Him risen, as well as seeing them as prophetesses (Acts 21:9).

Under the Roman law women were not allowed by law to speak in public; this could get the whole church in trouble. As many of Yeshua's early followers also still worshipped alongside Jewish congregants in local synagogues, the wish not to pose offense to an already established order may have also played a big part in Paul's directive here.

Contending that no woman should be a Christian because some selfish or ignorant people abuse a good thing is like saying no woman should have children because rape exists.

The abuse may be horrible, and should be decried, but as a former agnostic, I assure you that such abuses have only one geographic, spiritual, mental or emotional place of residence: the human heart.

In fact, anyone who knows anything about predators knows that they often seek out the most trusted positions to carry out their abuses. Shall we abolish football teams, Olympic coaching, comedians, and even the positions of professional chefs then? Each of these positions has suffered scandals recently. But no one would dare suggest we get rid of any of these professions; they'd be looked at as in need of mental help.

It's time people hostile to the Christian faith quit hiding that hate-the same hate that activates those they profess to denounce-behind moral posturing as a smoke screen for their own anger, preference or, in many cases, bigotry.

Such things do them no credit, and only serve to show their own need for the same remedy as those they decry.

"Physician, heal thyself."-Jesus Christ

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on October 10, 2018:

Thank you for your comments. I couldn't agree more with what you said.

Catherine on October 10, 2018:

Thank you! As a woman, I know the cognitive dissonance of religion and struggled all my life as most women do over the contradictions. Women involved with religion will defend it to the end, as Muslim women also do even though it's design is not in their interest. Notice every person here fighting the truth in this article can only use their own indoctrination as "proof". Sad how backwards we still are and how women still fight to demand their subservience using the man made Bible or other religions doing the same using their writings. It's always the devil according to them if your start to wake up. Pitiful regurgitators of bias and hatred, surely not of God, as the victims justify this to their own detriment.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on April 23, 2018:


I couldn't agree more. Men oppress women. And they tried to set in stone by .writing it down in the bible, and saying god told them to. It's disgusting.

Zaasijiwanook from Misi zaaga'iganing, Mnisota on April 22, 2018:

Hmm, the bible don't oppress women even though it was written in the times and by the men who oppressed women. Jesus didn't oppress women but his disciples did. They didn't know any better. In the time of Jesus, women were only supposed to be in the home. Sounds oppressive me. Take the story of Mary Magdalene. She was not the sinful woman in the bible. That woman was unnamed. Jesus himself spoke to a women in a time when men and women were not supposed to speak to each other. Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman by a well. Pope Gregory is the one that made Mary Magdalene sinful. She wasn't sinful, she was beloved and blessed of Jesus. She was the Apostle to the Apostles. So, it is the men of the bible who oppress woman and the time in which the bible happened, women were oppressed. I am not religious, I just study the bible because it is a good story. I am a believer in God, not a believer of Jesus. There is not enough historical proof for me to believe in Jesus.

Elijah A Alexander Jr from Washington DC on March 13, 2017:

Slarty O'Brian,

Shortly after my "new conception," 1973, spirit told the read the entire Bible and record every time I found contradictions, Genesis 1:1-8 & 1:9-13 was the first one, 1:1-3 & 1:14 was the second one and 1:26-28's creation of man of both genders and 2:4-3:25's creation was the third with many others that did not agree. Once I completed it I had a stack of contradictions that Exodus 3:14 plus Isaiah 45:7 caused me to ask spirit "What the ... [whatever you want to put there] what. What are you saying here." The reply was, over time, "this book is a book of metaphors, allegories, parables and symbol/types [MAPS] which must be interpreted." Once spirit began to show me how to interpret them I saw the message of the whole book.

I had noticed girls [adult feminine forms of man] almost always out numbered boys [adult masculine forms of man: our off-springs are babies, children and adolescents {less than adults}] and when the foregoing definitions were revealed to me it made sense. Girls seek the spirit of things where as boys seek the physical of things and this was to become a materialistic world. That was why Eve was able to partake of "the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil" when Adan should not, he had no interest in the spiritual nature of things. That explained the curse that girls [spiritualism] would be subject themselves to boys [materialism], so, now that we are near the end of this world's 84,000 years of existence's, the events of the 1920s revealed it's approach and leads to the "girl's ruled" spiritual civilization (Rev. 21).

I have several hubs interpreting Genesis 2:4-7:24 as the "sunrise of this civilization. They include ...

"Understanding The Knowledge Of Good And Evil"

"The Prophet Like Moses"

and "Revelation Chapter Twelve" where you will see, if you choose to read them, woman is an "incomplete man" unable to comprehend all things and represents both genders because what was "woven from man" left what it was woven from less than a whole, that would also include human in that definition since "hu" means "cut out of" man.


Elijah or The0NatureBoy

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on November 17, 2016:

Yeah. The typical double standard. If god says it's good it's good even if it's clearly evil. Sorry. Not buying it. Sounds twisted to me.

Emily Cravat on November 17, 2016:

The Bible doesn't support the oppression of women. I totally agree with Jennine! Why do you say that God's Word is oppressive?--when it brings the message of salvation?! we shouldn't contradict what God says or even criticize it because God is perfect and righteous--cannot err and therefore the Bible is perfectly FINE!!!!

Jennine on September 23, 2016:

You hippacrytes! God sent you Jesus to save your lifes and this is how you repay Him? I myself have an abusive sextist father. I question God sometimes but I never contradict Him. He knows what is best for you. If you don't belive that then you need serious help. I suggest using common sense. Oh wait... according to everything above you don't have that. Open your eyes people! I am a Christian feminist because God loves me equal as everyone else. I pray that someday ya'll can understand that and God will take pity on you to save you from an eternity in hell. Idc how you respond to this message but I hope to see you in heaven someday.

Kiss andTales on September 13, 2016:

Easy because your defintion is not a fact or the situuation that applies

Being a genuine christain is not for any man to judge but only the Heavenly Father knows who are genuine from the heart with real action of faith.

You give your inteptation based on your opinion , it certainly is not Gods. Of all things we can be greatful for life

Many people man or woman will never be born , we can be greatful that our Heavenly Father shared his power to keep us breathing.

Yet you complain of things you know little of shame on you. Why not mention the good in your life ! Instead of negative things you judge wrong.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on September 13, 2016:

The bible is contradictory to be sure. Original Christianity included woman in central roles. But men in the middle east, Hebrews and Arabs etc had patriarchal societies. They entrenched that with their religions.

After Roman take over it was back to patriarchy and the hate of the Eve figure. All the churches including the protestant ones have traditionally treated woman as second class and not to be trusted. Woman didn't get the vote in England till 1928. Why? Because of male attitudes entrenched in religion.

Joseph Ebedmelech from Nigeria on September 12, 2016:

The Holy Bible gave women honor through Mary the mother of Jesus. Here, the one who would be God and king was portrayed to be born by a woman. That shows that while a man was portrayed as the image of God, a woman was portrayed as his mother.

Likewise, God came to Abraham asking after Sarah. He honored her by declaring that she would be the mother of those who would be kings. This means that the Bible was about balance between males and females.

Kiss andTales on September 08, 2016:

Well you are doing a good of it yourself promoting the idea that is the case. I am a woman I do not live my life groaning about first class second class treatment.

I live my life with purpose and I am greatful God gave me an opportunity to be alive.

The old saying you show people how to treat you.

I never gave a reason for any human to treat me less.

But since we all are children of God I am conscious

of what he wants and what is acceptable to him.

Mistreating what he has created would be a wrong move on anyone part.

Because everything belongs to him.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on September 08, 2016:

Daniel :

I encourage anyone to read and think for themselves. If that makes them leave the churches lies, so be it. You just want to keep them oppressed.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on September 08, 2016:

Kiss andTales:

Oh I understand it's what men did. And they enshrined it in their religions.

And you are just spreading the nonsense believing woman was made for man who came first. That's part of the lie and the conspiracy to keep woman second class. .

Kiss andTales on September 08, 2016:

People have to understand the treatment of women is what men have created not the Heavenly Father.

True when you think about seniority Man existed before Eve . But to be a complement to her husband.

Ge 2:18 Then Jehovah God said: “It is not good for the man to continue to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”

1Co 11:8, 9 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.

So a woman seniority is after Adam.

But She was a complement.





a thing that completes or brings to perfection.

So how wonderful the woman's meaning in life.

Also let's think about women who played important roles in History .

(MARY )birth Jesus into the world.

(Ester) Delivered her people from a mass distruction.

(MARY and Martha ) close friends to Jesus preached about his Kingdom.

(Sarah ) Abraham wife.

(Ruth) (Rachel ) (Dorcus )outstanding in loyalty.

So many more just a few .

And the Heavenly Father did not forget them

He recorded their names in his word the bible.

Daniel on September 08, 2016:

okay so if women are inferior to men then why does the second half of proverbs 31 call the wife a STRONG AND DIGNIFIED WOMAN!!!!!! also with the whole Lot thing, even though he was the only good man left in Sodom and Gomorrah he still had major flaws and was wishy washy. and with Eve God used Adam's rib to show how similar men and women are(not to mention you could say that the origin of woman was Adam going all WOW MAN!!!! a.k.a. it was something spectacular) also women have done amazing things in both the old and new testament, just look at the woman who Deborah prophesied would kill the philistine general when Barack(insert Obama joke here) questioned God's promise of victory, or the prostitute(yeah you heard me a prostitute) who helped those two spies in Jericho who was spared because she helped them hide, orrrrrr....... if that is not enough for you the bible has this special little book about a Jewish girl who became queen and also ummm how do i put this...... PREVENTED AN ENTIRE GENOCIDE AND GOT THE GUY PLANNING THE GENOCIDE HUNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! take that how you will but your argument that the bible is sexist is FEMINIST BULL####. and for the strong wife argument you could say that the new testament says wives submit to your husband... look the job of the wife is to keep the family together while the husband is supposed to be the spiritual head of the household, but here is what the very same passage says about husbands that they are required to unconditionally LOVE their wives so even though wives may have to submit to their husbands it does not say that they have to love them( well we have to love all humans, in fact Christians tend to forget this but they are supposed to hate the sin NOT the sinner) and for all you free thinkers out there think about what Islam says about women, and no Islam is NOT THE F*#KNG same as Judaism Or Christianity because a lot of their doctrines go against what God says(including what He says about women) oh and also may I say that feminists do more harm than good, yeah men can be jack@&#$s(I know because of my dad who is such) but yeah here is what I have to say to people who use the bible to tear down women or use it to turn them away from God(and i will not censor this bit) okay here it is........... FUCK YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there i said my peace.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 27, 2016:


'You've left out the context of each verse "

This is what some religious people say. Yes context is important. But I don't see anything out of context here. Certainly the church fathers own comments show that if I'm taking things out of context so did they.

So no, sorry, the context argument doesn't work in this case.

Waithera on May 24, 2016:

I also feel sooo hurt of how women are regarded by the Bible. Am still searching for answers that will give me peace.

Shane McCausland on May 07, 2016:

As a christian I would agree with you. Those scriptures read on their own are oppressive of women, and this is in the new testament as well. Religious people get really pious about the bible, and tend to take its passages as literal truth and should not be questioned or challenged. This breeds a culture of inequality, feelings of inferiority, and feelings of superiority towards your fellow human being. Most religious people cant even admit this, they wont even let themselves go there for fear of going against the holy bible.

In my opinion, the message of the cross and Gods salvation plan are far more important and essential then the specifics of a handful of scriptures. I believe the bible is God inspired, and his spirit is real, but ultimately the bible was put on paper by a human being.

If God literally told men word for word what to put on the paper (instead of just having an angel do it or something), this is a dangerous view of thinking because you could just take one scripture and build a doctrine off of it, claiming this is the way God himself wants it to be. Thats not what Jesus taught and thats not the message of the cross.

Jesus rebuked the literal religious bureaucrats of the time, claiming that they were far from God, despite their doctrines apparently being built around what God, the creator of the universe, had said. God is a spirit and he is more about motives behind the words then he is about literal doctrines in my opinion. Jesus speaking in parables is a great example of this I think.

If God wanted a literal doctrine to fit all things in life inside a box, then Jesus would have spoke more plainly, instead of emphasizing the motives or rather the spirit or intentions behind a persons spoken word or actions.

Kiss andTales on May 04, 2016:

Quin thank you for clearing up some good points here. That is a problem that people tend to read a few verses come to opinions that are totally off course and judgmental on wrong infomation.

I believe that is not the end of the matter if you mislead what is the real meaning of the Author.

People need to be more careful what they say.

Quin on May 03, 2016:

If this thread is still active, I'd like to have a discussion of the verses you used from the Bible. It's in my opinion and knowledge that you've misinterpreted them. You've left out the context of each verse and when doing this, it's easy to misinterpret what the Word of God is saying. One example comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 10:23. If I simply took the one verse and didn't explain the context then it reads, "Everything is permissible". If you look at what Paul is writing though in Corinthians and if you finish reading the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 10 you see that Paul isn't saying that everything is permitted by God. You've done the same thing with the scripture you included in your article. You took bits and pieces of scripture and interpreted their meaning based on the lone verse opposed to the intended meaning. I hope that you know your worth and your value. In Genesis, God made man and women equal in worth and value as they were both created as image bearers of God. But due to sin "women desire their husbands and men seek to rule over the women" (paraphrased). Meaning the Bible views men's dominance over women as a direct result of sin, not as commendable by God. The Bible does include historical accounts of how ancient Rome and the Jews mistreated women, but it's clear from God's word that women are to be loved and respected. Ephesians 5 states that men should lay down their lives for women as Christ did for the church out of love. It's here we see gender roles: men as the leaders in the church and in the marriage (Que the verses about women not leading in the church) and women as someone who respects her husbands leadership and seeks to help the man. The difference is needed. God recognized that leadership is needed for order- this is true in government, businesses, schools, the military, and even churches and marriages. Without leadership there is bound to be confusion and a lack of order. So God created man and women differently and gave men the role of leadership and women the role of following and helping the men. Comparable to a sergeant and a private in the military- the people in the uniform are of equal worth- but the uniform and rank is different so that there can be order and not chaos. God is a loving Creator and He died on a cross and bore man and women's sins so that anyone who recognizes that and follows Him, will be saved and restored into His inheritance which is eternity with a relationship with Him. I pray you can study the scriptures you used in more detail and see that God really did do this- for men and women alike.

NB on September 22, 2015:

Sorry for the spelling errors my computer wont let me go back and edit anything.

NB on September 22, 2015:

I was born and raised Catholic. I went to a Catholic School, Church, and Sunday School. I have since renounced my faith. I am no longer Catholic or Worship God or his Son Jesus. I realized long ago that the bible did oppress women, and women how overlooked these passages and horrific atrocities that occurred in the bible (many of which god himself says to do) because they either do not know about them (Because the preachers never teach you these verses, i never learned about them even in school. I had to read the bible for myself to discover them.) or they know about them and choose to ignore them. The bible was written by men period. So seeing as how the bible was written by men how could anyone possibly know where gods will/word ends and the word of man begins or vise versa? You really cant. There are so many versions of the bible its ridiculous and all have different variations of scripture written within them. I can not worship a god or believe in a scripture that is continuously changing. For me Gods word should not change...ever. Man has corrupted the bible and the teachings of god to the point where there is no clear guidelines as to what god truly intended. Even in the OT and NT there are many contradictions that make it difficult to decide upon which passage to follow. I feel Christianity of any kind is flawed, and its truly not a religions for women.

jeffery sander on May 22, 2015:

i am so digging this much truth in it....the knowledge is right on point....and my man thumbs up...been study this book and its meaning for some time...this astrotheological hybrid...or Biblio heliotec,,,the study of the sun....thank you sir....

Suzie from Carson City on May 15, 2015:

You're welcome. I have completed my job as the grammar police.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 15, 2015:

Agreed and thanks. I'll make the corrections.

Suzie from Carson City on May 15, 2015:

Slarty......All due respect Sir, the plural of "woman" is "WOMEN"....One WOMAN......many WOMEN.

Once,twice or even three times is tough enough to tolerate. You have misused "woman" when you meant "women" numerous times, over and over throughout your hub.

Every and any sort of grammatical and/or spelling error in a writer's work, may tend to diminish enjoyment for the reader while also lessening the writer's credibility.

You should know this.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 15, 2015:

There is no way to interpret it wrong unless you think it means other than what it says in black and white because you don't like what it says.

Kiss andTales on May 14, 2015:

Your Comment (open for 4 minutes)

No people interpet the meaning wrong to oppress women, like people who say money is the root of evil, but really they interpet wrong , it says the love of money

That is the difference. People do the same with scriptures as you have with Jesus emblems. Sad.

Kiss andTales on May 14, 2015:

No people interpet the meaning wrong to oppress women, like people who say money is the root of evil, but really they interpet wrong , it says the love of money

That is the difference. People do the same with scriptures as you have with Jesus emblems. Sad.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 14, 2015:

You haven't read the OT then? Or you don't take it literally? I agree. It was written by men to oppress you.

Kiss andTales on May 14, 2015:

No it is people who interpet that thought by acting this imperfection out. God is love.

Mistreating woman is not applying Love.

So do not blame God for disobedience of humans.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 14, 2015:

Well my antiquated thinking and opinion is that woman are not property and are equal to men in every way. which is why I wrote this hub. I find it amazing that woman are so loyal to the religion that has been used to oppress them for several thousand years.

Barbara Purvis Hunter from Florida on May 13, 2015:

I am no man's property and you and your antiquated thinking is just a bore to me. And, at least you did research that Jesus lived.

I have nothing else to comment and I cannot say its been a pleasure, but a least you commented on your actual beliefs---as did I.

Have a great day.

Bobbi Purvis

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 13, 2015:

Good for you for being a proud and free woman.

Yet you still believe in a god that created you to be men's property, even in the 21st century?

And unless i'm mistaken, Jesus supposedly died around 31 ad. He may have been born as early as 4 bce though. If he was an actual person, of course. We're not 100 percent sure of that. But hey, who cares 2000 years later, right?

Barbara Purvis Hunter from Florida on May 13, 2015:

Society was socially backwards during the woman's suffrage; because at the time most men were afraid to speak up for their wives.

We now have a voice that will be heard. Around the world literate women were granted suffrage before all men received it. So, we really did not take a back seat, and as the tortoise we beat the speedy rabbit, again.

We women thank our Great- Great-Grandmothers; Great-Grandmothers and Grandmothers for their part in the 19th Amendment that granted Women's Right to Vote in 1920 of the United States of America.

The Church Fathers are men---they voice their opinion---we women can read. I take little comfort in their opinion. The Old Testament is the History of the beginning ~ Biblical times and the New Testament is about Jesus. We are living in the 21st Century and Jesus died in 4 B.C.

Bobbi Purvis

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on May 12, 2015:

I’m sure woman feel like equals in their church. And sure the new testament has a kinder more liberal outlook toward woman in some passages. But the OT is the problem from beginning to end.

If you don’t take it literally then fine. But it is the reason you didn’t get the vote until relatively recently. Why woman’s lib had to come about.

And you read the church father’s opinion of woman: all woman are daughters of Eve. In other words not to be trusted. And that’s from people who are supposed to know the NT.

Woman had to fight to get the rights they have. And the reason they had to fight is directly related to the bible.

Suzie from Carson City on May 11, 2015:

Bobbi......You are a courageous woman. I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole (or anything else). I simply will not hear of any insanity about any sort of "inequality" between the genders. Period the end.

It's so damned evident, rational and indisputable that men and women are human beings, being different solely in gender/sex and their corresponding hormones, body parts & functions.....there truly can be no argument nor discussion of EQUALITY. ALL people (lives) are precious, worthy, valuable and equal in terms of humanity.

ALL the rest of this is .....mumbo-jumbo~nonsense~insignificant~"FLUFF"~ plain old BS ~ fabricated~wishful thinking~ imagination......did I list enough? LOL

Love ya Bobbi! I guess I made my statement!......Peace, Paula

Barbara Purvis Hunter from Florida on May 11, 2015:


I normally do not reply to hubs like this one, but this time I will.

God never said a woman was inferior in the Bible nor, did Jesus. Jesus treated all women with great respect as he showed by speaking to the woman in Samaria called Sycar as she got water at the well. Current times then in the Bible forbid men speaking to women, but Jesus did not let that stop him. Jesus even taught women and treated men and women equally.

God considered Adam and Eve as partners~ they were equal. He created man and woman in his own image and blessed them both.

All the books of the Bible were written by others who recorded the events as they saw them. God will one day tell us his opinion that women shall be treated with respect and honor.

Until then, what others write about the Bible is their opinion also; as I have my belief and faith in my God and my Jesus. The Bible has been translated from the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The name Eve is only seen first in the Greek translation. So much is lost and added in the translation of 534 times of the entire Bible, and over 2000 times different parts of the Bible into different languages.

Bobbi Purvis

Kiss andTales on May 11, 2015:

Notice also Heirs with you of the undeserved gift of life. Both are equal on the grounds that you both share God's gift of life.

Yes Adam was created first as complement to him the woman was given as a helper. But does not mean at anytime to disrepect what

Her position. For women are loved and favored by the heavenly Father, it is only man. That changes the meaning of love and respect for her .

Kiss andTales on May 11, 2015:

Eph 5:28-29

28 In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it,d as the Christ also does the congregation,

A man's prayers may not be accepted by the heavenly Father due to how he treats his wife.


1Pe 3:7 You husbands, in the same way, continue dwelling with them according to knowledge. Assign them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since they are also heirs with you of the undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered.

Hindered as like the example.

La 3:44 You have blocked approach to yourself with a cloud mass, that prayer may not pass through.

that is a very serious scripture.

Certainly you have interpet the treating of woman wrong in God own eyes.

This is saying men are to love the woman as his own body.

Or his prayers will not be accepted.

Many prayers are not heard based on that fact.

YVETTE on December 29, 2014:

Get your true facts about the bible, Instead of making fictional tales. Or maybe you are not reading the correct bible and a fake version upon your hands.

sabin on December 11, 2014:

It's funny how I was thinking about just this subject this morning and accidentally popped this subject up. As I read the article I agreed completely with its view of women's place in society and religion. I can't help but think how they freed the blacks from tyranny and oppression yet still kept women as victims of it till today. They saw how they had no say in their lives and how they were treated yet women were treated just the same since god knows when and this was okay. Why could they see that what they were doing to the blacks was so wrong yet not for all women? They could free the black man but what happened to all women? Who frees all woman? How is the very being that you were formed and grew in become of less value then man? Why do we still not have a female president when we outnumber them all? Why are there not more women running? If a woman is good enough to raise a child, why is she not good enough to raise a country? Because given the opportunity it is exactly what she would do. Raise a whole country that needs raising in all aspects.

Pharmb775 on December 22, 2013:

Hello! bgdcddc interesting bgdcddc site! I'm really like it! Very, very bgdcddc good!

anonymous on December 18, 2013:

I have written for cruelty of the christian god hubsite. I write about the evil and cruelty of the Bible God. This hub is about women. Women are evil NOT because the Bible says so and not because a semi-myhtical person named Eve ate a forbidden fruit with Adam thousands of years ago. Women are evil because they are evil. Plain and simole. Its not because of what a semi-myth or a semi-fairy tale from the Bible says they are. How are women evil? Lets see. First of all they are unfriendly, unkind, uncaring, vain, aloof, selfish, heartless, cruel. Amercian women are the most unfriendly women in the world and there are more lonely guys here than in other countries. God forgot to give women a heart. I know of what I speak. Im a lonely guy who is ignored by women. Im physically ugly and mentally ill. This is God's fault or the creator's fault. Why bother creating women to keep men company if you're not going to give every man a woman? This is how the Bible God "manages" His creation. Its mismanagement. The Bible God is cruel, careless, negligent, unfair, unreasoning, insane, irresponsible, incompetent, and stupid. This God has no common sense and He has no reasoning. He continues to punish and neglect His creation because Adam and Eve ate a forbidden fruit thousands of years ago. Its beyond stupid. He allows loneliness, mass starvation, human cruelty, and other horrors. While Im angry and disgusted at women, Im even more angry and disgusted at the creator for creating or for allowing thousands to millions of years of evil, sin, pain, suffering, and death.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on October 07, 2013:

@Olivia Chen

I have read it all. It is pretty consistent in its put down of woman. The OT more so, of course. But the NT isn't a recant of that view.

Olivia Chen on October 06, 2013:

You cannot base your opinion on a few verses. You have to read the whole Bible to have a better and more objective view.

notastereotype on August 28, 2013:

Ok... just one point about theology/bible reading:

Unlike many religious texts, the Bible (especially the Old Testament!) is not a manual for how one is supposed to live. It isn't like Confucian Analectes, nor like the Dao De Ching.

The Bible is a collection of histories and autobiographies. This is extremely significant to what you are saying.

If women are treated like property in the Old Testament, it is NOT saying "women *should* be treated as property." It is only saying that this is what these people did at this time. There is no rational reason to conclude therefore that 'women are property' is a belief held in orthodox Christian doctrine. That is a mistake that some Christians have made, and many nonChristians.

The old testament is FULL of lots of examples of people doing terrible things, usually clearly against God's desire for their well-being. It's a record of events, not a manual for good behavior.

Also note: near the Genesis quotations you mentioned, the author writes "male and female, He made (both) in His image" referring to Eve. Then, the term EZER is applied to her. This is a very powerful term, poorly translated as "helpmate" but is actually a very powerful appellation indicating importance.

These meanings would have been obvious to an ancient Hebrew, and a bit more transparent to the ancient Greeks/Romans in Jesus' time.

But, of course, our modern populace is so ill-educated that it is completely lost on us, leaving us to sputter and invent misogynistic intentions never imagined by the original authors.

notastereotype on August 28, 2013:

It is well that you bring up many of the harsh requirements of women in Christianity, and then ask the question “why would a woman want any part of this?”

There are many reasons and much evidence of course, but there is one particular assumption in your perspective that needs to be examined before any of that history, context, or theology can even be brought to light.

You assume freedom, leadership, self-direction, independence, strength, being first, commanding, receiving honor, dominance, being praised, and making money as being ultimately good. In short, all the characteristics and roles traditionally assigned to men you call good, and wonder why a woman would ever allow someone to deny her these opportunities.

But Christianity does quite the opposite. It calls meekness, submission, giving up oneself, interdependence, charity, taking care of others, feeding hungry mouths, peace-making, servitude, gentleness, child care, putting yourself last, poverty, and reliance on others … these things are what Christianity calls really good. (Do I also need to compile the list of quotes? These should be fairly obvious.) These anciently ‘feminine’ traits are considered so absolutely good, that they are demonstrated also by God’s own actions in Jesus. In short, Christianity affirms and exalts those traditionally female roles as being the greatest virtues for both men and women. Christian values and ethics expect all people to be more like women were expected to be.

For myself, I now wonder why any woman still wants to be a part of feminism, which seems to always say “What is masculine is best. What men do actually matters. To have any value, you should be more like a man.” When I was a feminist, I also assumed that Christianity oppressed and devalued women, discouraged questioning or thinking, allowed only blind following, and suppressed the best parts of life. A thorough study of pre-Christian history, and early theology cured me of that unexamined stereotype.

Of course, this point doesn’t really matter. Who cares if it’s what we prefer, or what is politically correct now. What matters is whether or not God is real, whether or not any of the writings reflects truth. But, I’m sure many of you all will assume I am merely a brainwashed fool so that you can continue to congratulate yourself on being superior ‘freethinkers’. But, if you care for learning reality more than a pompous self-image, I recommend the chapter about women in Sarah Ruden’s book Paul Among the People. At the very least It will give you more to think about.

newenglandsun on April 09, 2013:

You seem to be uber-fascinated with John Piper and his fellow cult members. You focus on what only particular parts of the Bible have to say. Ironically, the secular (non-Christian) scholars of the Bible don't buy many of these verses you have listed as being oppressive to women challenging that either they don't exist or don't reflect accurate views of Christian/Judeo views on women. Leave out 1 Cor. 7:1-5 and you will always come to the conclusion that Piper has come to. Piper is forced to call women "Satan" because of his self-delusion. Unfortunately though, Piper is not the heretic in Christendom but any one who opposes Piper and the power he has is. Logically messed up this world is, eh?

John King IV on December 18, 2012:

Very interesting exposition on hate:

For the most part I agree with you on this issue. However, I would like to say, that I believe certain kinds of hate are in fact good! I would argue that hate against "sin" (the ancient word for crime), can be a good thing. It is hating people, or stereo-typing them, that is evil. However, their are some cases, where individuals went so far, that I believe they merit just hatred. (example the case of the nazi atrocities towards many innocent people).

I would even argue that a philosophy of pure love is not good and dangerous. It decieves people into dropping their guard and to be victimized by criminal predators. (example womens rights and love of women....does this mean we ought to support prostitution?. Gender bias and gay rights...does this mean one should support and love gays? If politicians are serious about defending gay rights I think they should really demonstrate it by having a public gay experiences with homosexuals and become one with them. This will send a positive message towards gays and their place in society. Again, I say politicians should give up their wealth and their wives, and become one with harlots. This will proove their good will, and help to improve the status of women in sex industry, and gays.

As for me, I will give my support to any religion that promotes hate of sin, and sinners who sell their souls to a life of sin. I do not support fanatics, who commit murder! Only peacefull demonstrators of hate, who have sound and reasonable arguments in favour of hate.

As for your views on religion. Again, I agree with you for the most part. I see the Christian nation in particular as "loving on the outside", but in fact full of paganism and hostility to modern people, to science, to free thinking, to other religions, to athiests, and many other non christian things. They truly can be intolerant, and aim at assimilation and enslavement.

I think I will read that article of yours and comment soon...

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on December 14, 2012:

Secular society does have laws against some forms of offensive behaviour. Most of them are a throwback to the bible’s attitude toward nudity and sex. But some countries have laws against hate speech as well. Speech can be very offensive. Particularly when it promotes hate and/or insights violence.

But for the most part people in free countries can say pretty much what they like, and it’s too bad if others do not like it. For instance I might find much of what the religious fanatics say as being offensive, but that’s just too bad for me. I’m certainly not going to start telling my government to ban religious speech and ideas, or ban it’s constant evangelizing just because to me they are a bit nuts and might offend me intellectually as well as morally.

Even religious fanatics have a right to believe what they like, as long as they don’t try to force their ideas on me. Oh wait. The religious do try to force their morality and their belief in god and satan and sin and hell and salvation down my throat. They would like to teach their fantasy as reality in my kid’s schools, and take over the government. But they are allowed to do most of that for some reason. Really they should be happy just keeping their so called good news to themselves, but they are not.

That’s ok. I’m free to give my opinion too and I am very sure they find offence in hearing it. We’re even. But I wouldn’t have to argue with Christians if they didn’t try to get in my business. If they left me alone I would have no reason not to leave them alone.

Well maybe I would have a reason. After all, one of the things people do by their nature is pass on information to others in the hope that it is of some help. It certainly has become my opinion that many Christians need a lot of help.

Taking offence though is a fool’s game at best. It shows you do not have the understanding of the situation and you are having an inner struggle. This inner struggle can cause hate in a person if they don’t resolve it and actually come to an understanding of the things they struggle with.

Hate eats at a person and consumes them like cancer. It is to be avoided if one is to have a happy life and healthy relationships. Only understanding can wipe hate away. But it take’s work to reach that point, as well as the will. Of course one has to know and understand that there is a problem they need to resolve. Before that there obviously can be no will to resolve it.

I used to hate hate and violence. Now that was really futile. Such attitude’s lead some people to do stupid things like blow up an abortion clinic. I had to learn to understand them and what they do to the individual, as well as what they are before I could resolve my issues with them.

Gays scare and offend you like black people offend racists. There is no real difference. The problem is that your religion breeds your confusion and hate, and fuels it. That’s why religion is dangerous. Particularly any religion that tells you what to hate, and who to hate.

Religion is a meme. It is a mind trap. But it is that more for some than for others.

May your beliefs evolve toward understanding .

If you want some help, read my book: “The road to becoming a warrior” or read my series of hubs by the same name.

John King IV on December 14, 2012:

Mr. O'Brian:

I feel I need to explain myself better. My last response was rushed.

I wish to inform you that I am still fairly young with a lot to still learn. My views have been, and still are evolving.

This is my official position to this date: I believe that their ought to be gay exclusive communities, and that this type of separation is a good thing for everyone, both gays and non-gays.

Deception and offence is a cause of great evils. If you have different peoples intermingling and living together, I believe it will inevitably lead to serious conflicts and calamities. By difference I merely limit it to a social lifestyle, and not to a racial category.

You do not care if your boss is gay, but there are many others who do care. You seem to be comfortable in close proximity with these people, but not all people agree with you or are like you. Perhaps you would not mind living together with them, but others would find it unbearable.

You seem to emphasize about "caring about other peoples bussiness". I do not see this as the problem. The problem I see, is in other people who offend, upset, or attempt to impose their lifestyle on others.

It is true that nobody forces me to do things. But by bringing these things to the public sphere, one is forced to co-exist with offensive things.

I emphasize an importance in security. Security does indeed involve some degree of segragation. My home for instance is filled with locks, and with a strong man as its guard. Why, to protect it from the plunderers and un-wanted invaders. This is my bussiness, to defend my own freedom and rights to live free from the contamination of the heathen peoples and their lifestyles. I desire a similar kind of environment in the courts, schools, job sights, etc. The freedom to be free from obscene things.

I am sure you are very aware that even the modern secular laws have things dealing with offensive things or obsenity laws.

Take the gay parades for instance. I find them to be illigal and offensive. Why should my tax dollars support this? Why is their a need to show the world abominations? Why can't the government have religious parades that promote inquisitions and hate towards sin and the sinners who sell their souls to sin? If you find that distasteful then too bad for you!

John King IV on December 13, 2012:

Yes segregation to segregate oneself is what I defend, and even teach. Do not worry about me, I am fine. Worry about the infection and affects of sin/crime on your own life. (That is what I recommend to my own). I do not wish to be infected or under the power of the sinners. I am not interested in taking away the rights of others, only in survival and in being free from the tyranny and oppression of the sinners.

As for you, I respect your decisions and views of these matters.

Motown2Chitown on December 13, 2012:

Hiya, Slarty. Nice to know you're still kickin'! :)

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on December 12, 2012:

Well if all you are talking about is keeping ones self to ones self why use a hot button word like segregation? You seemed to be implying that gays should live in a separate state or removed from your kind of society.

There are religious people who live that way. The Mennonites for example. You have that option. Heck, there are communes and cults all over the place that have their own take on what society should be.

Why not consider segregating yourself?

I could care less if my boss is gay as long as he doesn't try to force himself on me. As long as a teacher teaches who cares if he or she is gay or a whore on the side? Not my business. I don't care. Why do you? Do you think it is your business unless they are forcing you to do something you don't want to do?

That's the thing about freedom. You have to give something up for it; that being the right to think you can take it from others just because of your sentiments.

If someone does harm then society has every right to protect themselves. But if they do no harm but do things you find distasteful, too bad. You probably do things they find distasteful. You're even. They have no right to tell you you can't believe what you like or do what you like in your own privacy as long as it is legal.

Do you see what I mean?

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on December 12, 2012:

Hi Motown. ;)

John King IV on December 12, 2012:

You make it sound so ideal and perfect.....the modern order of things. Everyone should do what they want and respect each others decisions.

I see flaws and errors in this so called idea of what it means to be civilized.

People with their pants to their knees? You mean people who have to go to the washroom? Perhaps to urinate, to produce dung, or when they are on their menstrual cycles? Where is the crime and controversy? I would infact defend the right to their privacy from any perverted peeping tom.

Civilized people are people who establish justice. This means an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Yet it can also mean giving mercy when appropriate. The educated judges and politicians I assume know how to practice justice much better than your average bozo.

Many people who hear the word segregation, immediately think of recent history. Example the case of Rosa Parks, and racism in the United states. This is obviously un-just, and I agree it encourages hate and violence. But consider this: Is it not good, just, and civilized to have a mens room and a ladys room? Would it not be unjust to end this segregation of the sexes, and have everyone go to the same washroom? I would argue that this is pretty much the effects of fornication in society.

I repeat, I am not talking about what goes on in the privacy of ones property. I am talking about public places. I ask you this, why have segregated nude beaches? Why not bring nudity to the court room? To the classroom? to the place of employment? Why not have our tax dollars all go to promote the complete integration of homosexuality and prostitution in the government, the courts, the schools, companies, etc. Their ought to be laws saying that your boss is a minority homosexual or whore, and therefore must be your boss, your teacher, heck even your partner. If you refuse to accept your boss, teacher, and judge, you are a bigot who hates, and ought to be fined or thrown in prison.

If someone wishes to open a brothel beside your home, accept it. If pimps and whores move into your school, accept it. If gays have sex at your work place, accept it. You really call that civilized? I call it an urban jungle of madness. A new Sodomite state. Many might even say, the modern system.

Motown2Chitown on December 12, 2012:

I love it when two people (a professed Christian and a professed Atheist) have a discussion that comes to this.

"Inclusion and understanding is. And isn't that the core message of Christianity?"

It's a sad commentary when the Atheist is the one who recognizes the message of Christianity better than the Christian. And tries his best to actually live it, despite his lack of belief.

Ron Hooft (author) from Ottawa on December 11, 2012:

I think there is a better way. If you do not want to fornicate, then don’t. If you would rather not be gay then by all means don’t have gay relations. If you feel abortion is wrong don’t have one. The list goes on. Perhaps people who wear their pants down to their knees should be segregated? Segregation is not the answer. Living your convictions is. Well, as long as you don’t strap a bomb to yourself for god and walk in to a crowd. That’s just nuts.

That is what civilized people do. They live and let live. Segregation breeds hate and violence. We have seen it time and time again throughout history. No need to try it yet again.

Segregation is again the easy way out, for a time. The bible is full of such extremes. But it is not a permanent answer. Never has been. Inclusion and understanding is. And Isn’t that the core message of Christianity?

Wait it out. Time and evolution will balance things eventually; as long as we don’t kill ourselves off in the process.

John King IV on December 11, 2012:

Wow you mention so many things... I like these exciting topics, and will try to address all the issues you mention, and state my views on them:

1) Who makes rules: God vs government I say God is superior to the government. My God makes my rules. Exam