Skip to main content

The Bible and the Oppression of Women

the-bible-and-the-oppression-of-woman

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

Comments

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 bullies...never...win.

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." (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/artic...

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."

(Continued)

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:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Church_hi...

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:

https://qz.com/613270/brazen-sexism-is-pushing-wom...

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 take...by 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 https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-USA-I...

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 https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Jesus-Kar... 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.

Peace

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.

Why?

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 (https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Why-Be-Bo... 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:

Zaasijiwanook

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 &quo