The Bible and The Oppression of Woman

It seems to be a fact that all primates live in male dominated societies. There have been very few female dominated societies among mankind, and fewer still that hold male and female as equals. That’s why it took until the 1920s for most woman 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 woman 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 woman 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 woman in the bible is almost endless. To me it is amazing that woman can believe and pass on this information about themselves and even agree with it. No wonder that woman often suffer from low self esteem and low self worth.

Society is changing, but 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."

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 woman 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 woman? 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 woman.

All through Exodus woman 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.

Woman 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.  

Recommended Hubs


SusieQ42 profile image

SusieQ42 4 years ago from Lakeland, FL

I am a Christian woman and have a lot of self respect. I know who I am because the Lord has saved my soul. I know I am worthy, I am good and kind an gentle. I love the Lord and am a child of God. I pray that someday you will be also.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author

And you don't care that you are not worth what a man is in your religion? I'm not making any of this up nor am I saying I agree with it. Quite the opposite. But the bible says what it says. You can't get around it.

handyman22 profile image

handyman22 4 years ago from Altamonte Springs, Florida

Good article, this is why I am not a supporter of the Bible being the word of God. The passages listed do not support individual respect but biased support for male superiority. If we are to have respect for each other we must treat each other with individual equal respect.

I believe there also has to be a recognition of the differences of a man and a woman. Which basically are a man can only provide a sperm for the egg to be fertilized. While a woman can only nurture the egg. By nature man is the provider and woman is the nurturer. The unfortunate result is that legislation, as you have pointed out, has been created not to accept the individual functions of a man and a woman but to legislate superiority of a men over women. The words of Jesus is directed to all men and women without bias. Even though bias can be found if that is what you are looking for.

qwark profile image

qwark 4 years ago

G'mornin' Slarty:

I've said it so many times. Here we go again: "they"


They are not readers and thinkers.

Or, if they read and understand, they prove what I just said, they are easily led and desire to "follow."

"Believers" in supernatural divinities are, in my mind, the "intellectually," lesser evolved of the human species.

You presented the results of your research concisely and clearly.

Your conclusive sentence: "How can any woman with a bit of self respect be a Christian? represents a "logical" concern!

Good hub! I voted it up!


PS: Of course your "concern" relates to monotheistic beliefs in general.

Jennifer Ann profile image

Jennifer Ann 4 years ago from Australia

Religion has been used for centuries to brain wash people and control the masses. It has been the excuse to perpetuate many hideous crimes against humanity, and I believe is the cause of much mental illness and suffering even today. In earlier times (before the bible) the world worshiped mother earth, and the feminine was respected and honoured. It was usurped and replaced by a male dominated religion that served men's egos and placed women under his power to indulge his lust for sexual gratification, power and greed without having to take responsibility for his own weaknesses. It really stems from feelings of inadequacy and jealousy that women are the ones who create and nuture life, which makes them feel powerless, so they needed to create the illusion of power to give themselves a sense of worth, creating an imbalance that is slowly correcting itself. Just as the earth is trying to heal and re-balance itself from all the damage we have done to her.

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

I actually am a fairly independent woman with a reasonable sense of self-respect. I tend to look at the Bible differently, though, which I'm sure you already know. I think first of all that it is, indeed, inspired by God, but written by men. Therefore, it is colored by the men who wrote it, to a point. I also believe that parts of scripture are allegorical, parts are literal, and parts are coded, depending on who it was written by, and who it was written for.

That being said, over the course of history, men have come to a new understanding of woman's place in history. That's my take on it. Even the Church as a whole has evolved in its understanding of the significance of women in human history.

It's interesting that one of the most "anti-woman" writers of Scripture (St. Paul) is the one who said that through one MAN sin entered the world - and through one MAN it would be taken out. Of all the ones to write about Eve's role in original sin, you'd think he'd be the first to blame the Fall on Eve, right?

SusieQ42 profile image

SusieQ42 4 years ago from Lakeland, FL

You go Mo...Thanks. I was feeling a bit alone!

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

You're not along, Susie. And, on the whole, you'll find Slarty quite reasonable in his discussions. You may often find yourselves on different sides of a particular opinion, but he's always respectful of your right to have one. :) Just as an aside, I also feel that God's choice to have Jesus born of a woman is quite important. He could have brought Christ to flesh in any way He wished, but He chose to do it through an unknown woman.

graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 4 years ago

I think that you bring up an interesting point that though Christian leaders and the organized church have been fairly rotten to women, women still flock to Christianity. Go to any church, you will see more women than men, and a fair portion of the men are there b/c a woman brought them. What's up with this? Why, when you have one of the most male dominated & run institutions, which furthurmore actually spends time talking about how men are better, men ought to be in charge, women are more corupt, ect. - more women than men voluntarily join this organization?

I don't think it is low self esteem. (Though women certainly suffer this more than men.) I think the message of Jesus & Jesus Himself are very compelling to women, and i think they learn to turn a deaf ear to the lectures about them being temptresses. They value just being a Christian, what it adds to their lives, the connection to other likeminded people, a faith community, and for these things they put up with Reverend Male Chauvanist Pig's sermon.

I also think the church has lost more men than they realize with the negative-women stuff. Our author here doesn't like it, and I think he is not the only one. If men in general really liked to dominate women, they would be more drawn to the church, esp. the traditional church. But it is just here that they are absent.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


I seldom find fault with what Jesus himself is reported to have said. It's the god character that bothers me most in this story. I think Jesus was likely an interesting person with good intent, if half of what he is reported to have said can actually be attributed to him. But he needn’t have actually existed as most of his ideas were already in the minds of people 2000 years ago through many new philosophies that existed in the region brought in by Rome. So whether he existed or was a focal point for those ideas, it doesn’t really matter. The ideas survived.

My impression is that if Jesus was all that Christian religion was based on, without Judaism, the message might have actually worked a little better to help mankind toward a more logical yet empathetically inclined mind.

But Christians are stuck with the Jewish god who is both good and evil by human standards. You obey it or suffer eternal torture. Full stop. Nothing anyone can do about it, so appease it and live better; then you die. The Jews are pragmatic about life and their god, if nothing else.

But without the OT what would be the basis for the NT? You can’t separate them and have a coherent belief system

But the two gods don't mix well together. Trying to fit them together is like an elephant sitting on an over packed suitcase in an attempt to close it; trapped laundry spilling out on all sides.

Didn't one of the presidents of the US propose only including the New Testament in his bible?

Unless you are a fundamentalist you cherry pick your beliefs. As Grace implies in her reply below, men and woman will ignore the passages they do not like in favour of those which make them feel good.

But where does one stop? If you cherry pick your religion, what is the basis for having one? In other words, how do you know you are picking the right ideas? You find yourself in a situation where you are having this kind of dialogue with yourself: They say god said this, but I don’t think he would. Yet this is another thing god said and I believe that to be true. Eventually you have no basis for your beliefs.

On the other hand, the fundamentalist takes everything in the bible to be the word of god. So they can use the bible as a basis for their belief. But even they have to interpret what they read, often making it in to something not on the page, but so much part of their belief that it appears to be on the page to them. Their lot is not much different from the average person, except that they have to justify all negatives and turn them into positives. That becomes their job. The average Christian can just say they don’t take it literally.

I presented a lot of negative verses about woman to make a point. But there are verses in the bible that contradict those. Not as many as the negative ones, but they exist.

There are verses which are pro and con slavery. There are verses that you can use to put forth your position, no matter what it is; and there are verses someone else can use to counter yours.

To me, of course, this is due to as much as 5000 years of influences from various cultures and political agendas. It is due to the fact that many thousands of people were involved in telling and retelling and modifying these tales, and then hundreds of people contributing to writing them down.

The Catholic Church knew this and decided no one should be allowed to read it except for the pope and high ranking bishops, because it is too interpretable and would divide the religion. They were right.

But the average Catholic didn’t miss reading the bible. It was parables and metaphors to them. Best left to someone else to worry about. My mother tells of a perfect rose coloured life in Catholic Europe before the war, and even somewhat after. There was a purpose for everything you did and their life was structured and felt secure. They never read the bible. My mother still won’t read it. No need. But that was the life of the sheltered Christian. Do as is expected, confess even if you don’t think you sinned much, and you can’t go wrong.

When Martin Luther and co created Protestantism and had the bible translated into all languages, he destroyed the continuity of the religion and set the chains of cause and effect in motion that would shatter the religion into fragments smaller then seen even in the original religion before Rome.

And now everyone has their own version of Christianity. What it shows me is that many people are better than their religion.

But to me, even though the participants are good people, the religion itself is poison, and they are good people despite it.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


Thanks for the thumbs up, my friend. Yes, I write mostly about Christianity, but we all know Judaism is it's father and Islam it's brother. All three are cut from the same cloth where woman are concerned.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author

Jennifer Ann

Thanks for your comments. I hope for all of humanities sake it continues to get less and less acceptable to oppress woman.The more old world ideas decline, the better.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


Hi Motown ;)

"I actually am a fairly independent woman with a reasonable sense of self-respect."

As you well should have. Again, more a testament to you than to your religion. And yes I know you don't take the bible literally. I think religion would do well without it. But then what would any one base their idea of the Christian god on?

You raise an interesting idea about Paul. Not all that he said about woman was negative and some even question the passages I quoted as even being his words. But that's the bible for you. The quotes are cannon

However, as to your observation, I think Paul may have shown another male bias by seeing Adam as the only one who counted in this deal. It took a man to sin, it took a man to fix it. That sort of thing. But I'm just guessing. If he did write those verses I quoted, it would not be out of character for him. And we all know whose fault it really was. Your's of course! You daughter of Eve! ;) Perhaps Paul was trying make Adam look like less of a whimp. lol....

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


I couldn't agree more. Why is it that more woman gravitate to a male dominated church than men? You answered the question as far as woman are concerned when you said: "I think the message of Jesus & Jesus Himself are very compelling to women."

I think you are right. I noticed something you said in the comment section of one of your hubs about monotheism as compared to Paganism. But I think Paganism, at least some forms of it, have and had that same appeal for woman. Look at Wicca. It is a female dominated religion. Woman love the idea of being a white witch. That is to say, a spiritual being in tune with the earth. A person who believes in using spirituality and magic for good.

In Rome, Woman had their own religion apart from men. In Rome it was considered treason not to be religious, because if you angered any of the gods Rome might suffer. Cicero writes that they considered themselves the most religious people in the world. They worshiped all the gods.

Jesus is a woman's religion in a very real sense. It is a nurturing relationship with a perfect male deity. What is not to appeal to a woman? Except of course, the male dominated representatives of his father? Woman were often the priests in the home of early Christians. They organized the gatherings and had a real voice.

Jesus preaches love and the unity of mankind.

At least that's a good deal of his message when he isn't putting in a good word for dad. Nuns find him so appealing they are willing to join his harem with thousands of other brides of Jesus. They marry him.

And yes, there is community. While men are very interested in these ideals as well, they are not always a mans main focus.

I think men and woman in 'general' have very different mind sets which can compliment each other and complete each other. Love is the act and desire to make another an actual part of you. On both the man and the woman's side. But what that means is often different for both.

Traditionally men's religions were about conquest and strenght. Jupiter was a man's god. Even the Jewish god was more of a man's god as is Allah. And if Christian men are fundamentalists, then they are appealing to the Jewish god, not so much Jesus.

So because of the split between the personalities of Jesus and the Jewish god, the religion can appeal to both.

However, the men that are not fundamentalists don't go to church as much unless their wife drags them.

And yet there are fundamentalist woman. Every person has their own character. But I think the trend is as I said above.

Just my two cents. ;)

graceomalley profile image

graceomalley 4 years ago

Yes, that makes perfect sense, that men can identify with the Jewish God within Christianity. I think many do.

handyman22 profile image

handyman22 4 years ago from Altamonte Springs, Florida


You mentioned your mother is not willing to read the Bible. I think it is in the DNA of the Catholic Church to teach NO Questions Please, Just Do As I Say and bring Your Tithes and Offerings So we can Make more people dependent upon our Church!!!

My grand father grew up in an orphanage in Scotland and later was transported to Canada to work on a farm. In the orphanage he had to memorize the Gospels. So any time we visited it was always brought up that Grandpa could recite word for word the Gospels. I remember asking what is the best church to go to. His response in a jovial manner was it does not make a difference they are all a bunch of GD hypocrites!! At the time I thought he was nuts, but I learned he was right on.

Jesus says, “I came to complete the law and the Prophets.” I believe he was the last Prophet. Words from others can only distort HIs words. Which is obvious in the Epistles. That is why I believe in the Old Testament and in His Gospels, Even though they have been Slanted.

I normally do not take Old Testament teachings literally unless they match original Hebrew text, because language changes, therefore changing the meaning of its content. But I discovered many years ago by taking the words and breaking them down to their original Hebrew meaning it says something entirely different than is presumed. Jesus ended the madness of looking for Prophets for those that believe in his words.

What has created the ideal of killing, and its acceptability is the Abrahamic Doctrine of Isaac. I believe God placed the Ram in the thicket not to promote the killing of Isaac but to save His life. It was God’s intent for Abraham to let both, the Ram and Isaac, leave with their lives. Unfortunately the arrogance of Abraham in killing the Ram prevailed as being from God.

So far three different theologies have developed from this one act of acceptance of murder. Ask yourself, How Godly have the actions from these three religions been over the past 2000 years, Eastern religion has a much better record.

Jesus says, “Do not be even angry let alone kill.” By believing the words from Jesus are from God the act of Abraham wanting to kill Isaac is not from God, but from the arrogance of Abraham.

Slarty I enjoy your writing and insight you have inspired me to publish more related material. I would also appreciate your insight on my writings as well.

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

Just going to pop back in here for a regards the Bible and the Catholic Church. It is quite true that Catholics in general were NOT encouraged to read Scripture on their own, but that was PRIOR to the second Vatican Council in the 60's. Since then, it is encouraged that EVERY Catholic engage in private reading of Scripture. In addition to that, most Catholics hear more scripture on Sunday than your average protestant denominations do - whether they pay attention is another - but EVERY Sunday, there is a reading from the Old Testament, a Psalm, a reading from the Epistles, and a Gospel reading - that's BEFORE you get to the homily (what protestants call the sermon). There are some amazing Catholic Bible commentaries out there and several magazines that are not only filled with Scripture, but with daily meditations. What many protestants do not realize is that there is a mass in the Catholic Church every single day of the week, and in a two year period, the Church makes its way through the entire bible. Many Catholics know the Bible as well as, if not better than some Protestants. It was definitely true in the past that the average Christian (prior to any Church schisms) was discouraged from personal reading of Scripture - but that is NOT the case now.


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

You say religion does not change, but when has it not changed? Christianity has more flavors than Baskin & Robbins Ice Cream! And just as Motown2Chitown just indicated, the Catholic church is far different than it used to be. Living in a Catholic country (the Philippines), it's hard not to appreciate how open the church is now to the masses understanding scripture. No more Crusades and Inquisitions. Thank goodness!

How many flavors of Judaism were there in the Levant during the time of Jesus? More than just a couple.

Could it be that many have misinterpreted the Bible? Even you and me?

Genesis 1:27 may mention both man and woman being created, but the key thrust of 1:26-27 is that "man" was created in the image of God. This is not talking about flesh and blood "man," but spiritual man — non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation.

Genesis uses the "female" symbol a great deal and does not always refer to literal Homo sapiens "woman."

Genesis 5:2 talks about God creating man and woman and that their name was "Adam" (humanity).

Adam and Eve in the Garden were not flesh and blood, just as the Forbidden Fruit was not an apple. God said that they would surely die on that day, but Adam lived to the ripe old age of 930! They didn't literally, physically die on that day. They died spiritually; they lost spiritual consciousness.

The "evil" woman, Eve, who first took the Forbidden Fruit is not Homo sapiens female. The Garden of Heaven was a spiritual place, not a physical one. All of the symbology likely has meaning. I have parsed only a small portion.

The outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs was not literal for individuals, but for the eponymous tribes, and these, we know from science, are too short in duration. Humanity has been around for at least 200,000 years. Ussher's tally places Adam at 4004 BC — not even close!

Genesis 6 talks of the "daughters of man" seducing the "sons of God" and leading to the reason for the Flood. Ahh, but didn't "man" also have sons? "Daughter" is a symbol for something negative, yes, but only a symbol.

Genesis also contains the embedded "Tree of Life" from the Kabbalah. One chapter contains the "female" side of the "Tree" — the fall from grace (Eve in the Garden). Another chapter contains the "male" side of the "Tree" — the reawakening to God (Elijah's ascent on the flaming chariot).

Symbols to appease a male-chauvinistic society? Perhaps.

But the real importance is not these Homo sapiens bodies. Get over the "blame" trip. If you're born a slave, be grateful. If you're born a king, be grateful. And at least one king would much rather have been born a lowly servant; so much were the burdens of his office.

There have been quite a number of female-oriented societies. Many of the Native American tribes of North America were matriarchal or matrilineal. The Basques have long been a female-dominated society; the husbands form cooking clubs just to get away from their autocratic wives. And the Basques have had their couvade.

The Etruscans were an egalitarian society, greatly despised by the Romans and the Greeks for all the power they gave their women. And yet, there are indications in their language (when compared to Basque) that it may have been the women who gave power to the men. At one time in the prehistoric past, the Rasenna (Etruscans) may have been ruled by the "mothers," and when the scepter was passed to the men, the males became the new "mothers." You see, Basque for father is similar to Etruscan for mother, and Basque for mother is similar to Etruscan for father — gender swapped. And in the Etruscan pantheon there are a god and goddess with names equivalent to Basque for father and mother — not gender swapped.

And in Georgia, East end of the Black Sea, there is similar indication of a matriarchal past. Georgia was once called Colchis, land of the Golden Fleece, guarded by a golden dragon. In the modern tongue, fathers are called in Georgian "mama," while mothers are called "deda."

If the Bible had been written in any one of these more egalitarian societies, many of the symbols would have been changed to something else.

The meaning of "daughters" in Genesis 6 may be one of the most startling clues yet discovered about the purpose of religion. Something threatened God's purpose, and it wasn't ordinary wickedness and violence, otherwise we would have had thousands of Noah's Floods since then. The "daughters" mating with the "sons of God" created a corruption of flesh on a deeply genetic level. And using code found in Genesis, the new date for the Flood pegs the real culprit by its coinciding extinction in science.

The laws of our modern society are a great improvement over the past. We no longer have slaves and women have freedom and power. And yet, there is no disharmony between this as the teachings of the Bible. Don't get caught up in the details and the literal meaning. The culture was far different then. The social mores were far different than those of today. All of your disagreements disappear when you look at the real purpose behind it all — awakening the true self, and leaving ego and the Homo sapiens shell behind.

thebrucebeat profile image

thebrucebeat 4 years ago from Nags Head, NC

I'm a seeker and do not have a side in this. But there is a way to reconcile Christianity with women's self esteem.

Realizing the intense fallibility of the bible while recognizing the amazing ministry Christ had toward women, uncharacteristic of the time.

The hub brings up important truths about the Christian scriptures that have to be reconciled with one's faith, and the only thing that springs to my mind is that the bible is fallible and its obvious subjugation of women is a sign of the cultural times in which it was written, and not the will of a god worthy of honoring.

Now, let the very lame explanations of scripture that try to exonerate this mysoginistic deity begin.

marlanasifter profile image

marlanasifter 4 years ago from Sanford, NC, USA

The Old Testament is much worse than the new in terms of gender equality, correct? In the New Testament, the only completely Christian/non-Jewish part of the Bible, women have better status. I think that while of course Fundamentalists Christians follow the Old AND New Testament, others, such as Catholics, like to stick with just the New. That would explain women's embracing of a religion that used to demean them.

Also, are you sure more women are religious than men? And are you sure there have been very few female dominated cultures? Remember, middle eastern religions spread patriarchy both West, East, and even South into Africa, [via Judaism, Christianity, Islam...] polytheistic cultures pre-Bronze age were often known for matrifocal societies - worshipping earth mothers and fertility. In many cases this respect and glorification of women came possibly from the inability to understand the origins of life. Therefore the vassals of the next generation were highly prized and considered godly, because they gave life. The cults of Odin in Scandinavia for example were known to trace family lineage down the woman's line.

Basically, if you want to find a female-dominated or male-female equal society, look to a place and time not touched by the three middle eastern religions. You have to trace back quite a bit.

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

Just a small note, marlana. The Catholic Church embraces both the Old and the New Testaments equally. More evangelical and fundamentalist protestants tend to gloss over the Old Testament in favor of the New. :-) Sorry, Slarty, didn't mean to jump ahead of you there!

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


"The Old Testament is much worse than the new in terms of gender equality, correct?"

Yes and no. But there is no real non-Jewish part to the bible. The New Testament is basically the 4 books Matthew, Mark Luke and John. All of them were Jewish. The original Christians were Jews. Some sects followed Matthew only, for instance. They were basically only preaching to Jews at the time.

It isn't until you get to Paul who was preaching in Rome to Gentiles that you get partially non-Jewish texts. Paul was part Jewish and part Roman. He knew how to talk to the Roman populations.

Most of the Jewish Christians considered Paul heresy, being as he is the one who started telling people they no longer had to go by some of the Old Testament law. Peter, John and Paul argued about the fact that they were not all on the same page. Paul thought he had the latest word from Jesus which superseded that of the others, and so was not welcome to teach in Jerusalem.

The Church in Rome later took Paul to heart over the rest. Little wonder. And yes, the gentiles completely changed the original religion and wanted to distance themselves from the Jews. But they really couldn’t/can't being that half their bible is Jewish law.

I thank that the small changes you see in the status of woman in the New Testament is more of a reflection of current times 2000 years ago and ideas that were already floating around in society and became focused in the new religion. But we can hardly say Jesus or Christianity liberated woman. (I'm fully aware you are not saying that, by the way.)

But the original Christianity pre-Paul and pre-Roman domination is reported to have been a lot more female oriented; with woman being the ones that most often organized home services in the communities and even performed as priests.

As Motown says, the Catholics these days read the bible and the Old Testament is "embraced" almost as much as the new by some. But you are right that when I was a kid we were told the Old Testament didn't apply to us much other than the Ten Commandments. We were not encouraged to read the bible at all and were fed catechisms instead.

The problem is that western society has always been by and large patriarchal, and if yours wasn't it was soon influenced by those societies that were when they invaded you and made you their slaves. I think patriarchy won out due to several factors over time.

I think the religions of the world reflect their cultures of origin rather than culture conforming to religion. It's just that once the religion is infused with the culture it becomes harder to change the culture, because the religion is supposed to be the moral and social guide of the culture. It's a bit of a vicious circle and makes change hard, though change is inevitable.

Hitler was made by his society, not the other way around. But it is after his society, Europe, saw what the extreme of their ideologies and bigotries produced; it changed us for the better. Never the less it is a slow process.

As for there being a lot of earth religions and fertility religions prior to the big three, you are quite right. Even though society forms religion and people's ideas and values, there are defining moments in history where one person does make a major difference in the thought patterns of their society. It may interest you to know that strangely enough, to be considered a Jew you have to have a Jewish mother. Jewishness, it seems, comes from the female.

I know that's strange, but look it up. I suspect they did have more female oriented beliefs before Moses. At least some factions did. Don't forget that what became the Jews were only two tribes of twelve. Well actually part of a third as well but that isn't always mentioned since most of that tribe disappeared in the great Assyrian deportation with the rest. Each seems to have had slightly different beliefs as can be seen in some of the Old Testament.

But it is my opinion that Moses really was the father of Judaism, certainly not Abraham. Again, like in 9/11 if you have an enemy, you look for a leader you depend on for security. That leader or that government can then change the way society thinks and acts in order to reach its goal, which sets a president that shapes a new culture. Moses was indoctrinating them for 40 years after "liberation". Like Hitler, he used the youth who had been brought up in his ideology to fight the final wars. Notice that the old ones were always backsliding to pagan religions whenever he turned his back. But by the time they started their rampage through the dessert killing every man woman and child of 7 tribes, they were a well indoctrinated and efficient army. He couldn't have done it otherwise.

By the way, this perfectly illustrates evolution as we know it. There are long periods where society stays the course. Then suddenly one catastrophic event changes everything.

So again, the religion or ideology is created at a certain point in the history of the society, reflective of a catastrophic incident which then becomes the new direction of the society. And from then on the religion or the ideology locks the society into a status quo. The religion or ideology becomes the guide or mold for the society until one or many major events start changing the society’s direction. Of course then it is usually time for a new religion or ideology to reflect the new direction of the society, unless the religion is particularly adaptable. Usually it breaks up into factions which then fight for dominance.

Do I think more woman are really religious? Yes and no. What I meant was that they seem to identify more with the Jesus figure as a compassionate and kind person. Men tend to be more drawn to the more violent aspects of religion, usually in the form of a strong leader who they can help whoop someone's ass. Enter the OT god.

I think this is why in general I see more really devout moderate female Christians than I see devout moderate males on the internet. There are of course woman who are fanatics too, but by and large it is the men who like to preach hellfire and damnation. Of course I could be over exposed to Calvinists and born agains I suppose. The OT god seems to speak to men and Jesus seems to speak more to female sentiment. But it is just my opinion. I don't have hard statistics, just personal experience and anecdotal evidence from people who go to church and have remarked to me that more woman attend than men, and some of the men are there only due to their wives. I think a study should be done on this issue if there hasn't already been one. My next mission to look for one on the net. ;)

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


Don't be sorry. ;)

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

You know something else I was reading last night that I found somewhat interesting in regard to this hub, Slarty. Of the synoptic gospels, LUKE is the one where the most compassion and equality is shown to women. And, it is oddly believed that Luke followed most closely the one apostle who wasn't one of the original 12 (Paul). Quite contradictory I thought, given that Paul himself does seem to have a bit of a beef with women in the bulk of his you think that came more from his Jewish side or Roman side? I'd say Roman, only because Luke was Jewish - but seemed to show more of a compassionate and liberating Jesus in regard to women than Matthew or Mark.

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

Also for something a bit more recent, Slarty, if you haven't already grab a copy of the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II entitled "On the Dignity and Vocation of Women" (Mulieris Dignitatem) - published in 1988. Much more modern treatment on the Church's beliefs about and treatment of women. :-)

Probably cost you about $5 at a catholic bookstore.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


I think both Paul's birth origins influenced his beliefs toward woman. But the Jews were of two minds about woman, and I think even though the Lilith faction did not prevail the stories show that even back 3000 years ago woman were looking for equality and men had to make laws against it and solidify them in their religion. It stand s to reason that if woman were not asking for more equality and liked the status quo the subject wouldn't have come up.

As for John Paul, I think he did his best with what he had. It is hard to satisfy both hard liners and liberal reformers. I think he did it mainly by trying to change perspectives rather than actually changing traditions. He still would not allow woman in the church as priests, nor allow condom use, nor sanction divorce due to an abusive relationship. The man was still the master and the woman is still expected to take her traditional roll and be happy about it because it is the "natural way of things as god made it".

The Church is great at adapting without actually changing its core beliefs. Of course it has to be considering the bible does not change.

Still. I applaud John Paul's efforts.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


Hi Bruce. I'm a seeker too, in fact I wrote a book about it. Good to see some people still identify with that word.

To me it does look like you are taking a side on this to a degree. You recognize that Jesus was more liberal toward woman than the religion reflects. I take it you agree with his stance rather than that of the majority of the bible. So that would be taking sides. The side of obvious right in this case.

I don't think his view was completely uncharacteristic of the time. I think that the struggle for woman's equality has been going on since the beginning of humanity.

One of my life's observations has been the power struggle between woman and men in their personal relationships. I'm convinced this struggle has always existed, and our male ancestors found an ultimate way to settle the argument by enshrining woman's second class status in religious law.

In my opinion you are right that no god had anything to do with it. For my part, of course, because I don't believe the Jewish/Christian god exists. But be that as it may.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


"You say religion does not change, but when has it not changed? Christianity has more flavors than Baskin & Robbins Ice Cream!"

The changes to religion are usually cosmetic within the specific denomination itself. It is rare that real change is effected or even desired by a majority of any denominations adherents. The bible doesn't change, so often attitudes change toward the bible and it's message. The splintering effect of the bible is obvious and is due its interpretability. When no one was reading it except the church leaders the religion was standardized according to Rome's will. When people started reading the bible interpretation of it split people into like minded groups.

The Catholic church has taken a beating over all this for a few hundred years now. It has changed significantly on the surface. The 1960s saw what looks like major liberalization. But the root message of the religion and it's root traditions remain unchanged and are more readily accepted with the attitude adjustment.

Heretics are no longer enemies, they are lost brothers and sisters. But their souls are still at risk unless they come back to the church. Woman are recognized for their contribution to family and church now and no longer officially seen as a bunch of Eves, but are still expected to take on their traditional rolls.

Science is more accepted by the church and even evolution is said not to be a problem for the Catholic church, but it doesn't matter because god did it all and so science must be seen as just a discovery of how god did it. Perhaps that is one of the main attitude changes the church has been forced to foster; due of course to the fact that have been proven wrong so many times on scientific issues that they could take no other attitude anymore and seem credible.

That's one thing I do admire a bit about the Catholic church as opposed to other fundamentalist churches: it's desire to be honest even though the temptation to resist change and reluctance to admit error is great.

As I said to Motown, had John Paul really wanted to effect major change toward woman in a tangible way rather than just through an attitude adjustment he would have allowed them to become priests.

The other thing that seems to be a major change is that John Paul finally called a halt to the ongoing inquisition. Believe it or not there has been an inquisition going on since the 4th century in various degrees of severity.

However, his act was a hollow one since the church lost virtually all its political power to do anything about the results of inquisition in to heresy. It was a nice gesture but a moot point.

Yes, the Jews have always been splintered as well for the same reasons. Even more so because they originated from several tribes which seemed to have many of their own beliefs and traditions before Moses tried to standardize them.

As you imply, the bible can be interpreted in a thousand different ways. To me this makes it a useless book in some ways and speaks to the fact that it was written by men, not their god. Your interpretation is an interesting one and like all interpretations it is speculation.

But you are not alone. I've seen arguments that say that the man Jesus never lived on this earth at all, or if he did he was minor prophet. His real accomplishments, acts, and teachings happened on the spiritual plain or in heaven. Same idea.

Yes, there were matriarchal societies in the west but the West has a history of being slavers, and so the matriarchal societies lost out to the patriarchal societies who spread their beliefs by force.

But the Jews again, have always been of two minds on the issue of woman. The mystic or Gnostic parts of Judaism often see god as being both male and female aspects at the same time. In fact, I have heard that that Hebrew word for god has male and female aspects.

Of course this could also be because they came from a polytheistic background due to having lived in Sumer, Babylon, and Egypt. Sumer and Babylon believed the top god had a wife, even if it was indifferent to creation which was one of her pet projects.

I also agree that ego is something to tame. But unfortunately I have achieved an egoless state through years of study and meditation. I had to fight my way back from it. It turns out that without some ego, identity is lost as well. Self is gone and the ability to function as a human being is impossible.

In the words of U G Krishnamurti

"If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never know what hit you. Everything man has thought, felt and experienced is gone, and nothing is put in its place."

While ego is considered a bad thing it is essential to continuity. Without it you are lost in a wasteland.

However, there are ways to use ego without it controlling you.

gvalenoae777 profile image

gvalenoae777 4 years ago from NYC

I saw a sign that said has your religion appologized to women yet? I want to say as a man that i am sorry for all the mistreatment that women have faced at the hands of men leadership and other so called authorities. Women are just as important as men. God knows this and in Genesis it said that men and women are created in in the image of God. I am very glad to have met Jesus My savior,(Actually it was he who saved me from my sins.) He showed me from the scriptures that we are all brothers and sister, there is to be no ruling classes of Elders pastors, high officials when it comes to Spiritual living.In refeernce to God. He is the father we are the children Matt23:8-12. The followers who want more than what God gives seem to always misinterprete and place emphasis on the wrong areas. Luke 22:24 Jesus after he rose from the dead told Mary Magdalene to go and tell the disciples and Peter(!) that Jesus has risen from the dead. Giving such an important message to women says alot to me. In Jesus' eyes, women mean alot and they are worth alot. She was the FIRST apostle sent by Jesus even before the disciples. Women stood at the cross when men fled and hid. They were just as well known as the disciples. Debroah was a Judge for 40 years, The hand maids hid the hebrew children from pharoah, Also the church which is the body of Christ, is refered to as the Bride of Christ. I have two daughters and An awesome wife, we have had many of fights with people in regards to defending women and letting people know that From the BIBLE women can be gifted with any gifts including being a pastor. Harriet Tubman to me was a Pastor. Pastor meaning shepherd and encourager of the people freedom. Gladys Alward another pastor who helped deliever 100 children a 100 mile journey in china. So as i teach my little girls to bow fight and to considered that they can do kung fu and weild a knives, that they are special in the eyes of God, that they have a loving dad who respects them and never says hey your a girl you cant do that! Check me on Scribd .com gvalenoae777

marlanasifter profile image

marlanasifter 4 years ago from Sanford, NC, USA

Sorry my reply is tardy.

Motown, thanks - I did not realize Catholicism placed equal weight on both testaments. Like Slarty, I had only heard Catholics discussing new testament teachings... plus I always assumed that because Catholics do not celebrate the Days of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Tabernacles, Trumpets, or the Last Great Day, that there was a certain disregard for OT teachings.

Slarty, I did not know that women served as priests pre-Paul! Very cool... And true, the Jewish thumbprint is certainly the ENTIRE Bible, till Paul, when you say the gentiles began distancing themselves from the Jews.

It is also interesting that Jewishness is traced on the mother's side - very telling:) Perhaps this is a hint of early Jewish culture before something influenced a more patriarchal religious focus..

I like your rationalization of the woman's identifying with new testament Christ and the man with old testament God... "Men tend to be more drawn to the violent aspects of religion, usually in the form of a strong leader who they can help whoop someone's ass. Enter the OT god." LOL

lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Slarty, thanks for the historical data. Fascinating stuff, there.

On ego, I understand what you're talking about. But I can't help but wonder that without ego, if one does not awaken the spiritual, then, yes, there would be nothing left but meat body (Homo sapiens) -- an empty personality. Removing the ego without awakening the spiritual sounds like a tragedy, to me.

Kudos for the achievement of removing ego; that is some herculean task, at least for most of us mortals. And then to return to ego? If there ever was a devil, ego would get my vote. Slippery, cunning, selfish and likely the source of all evil deeds ever committed. Every self-righteous indifference, every greedy crime, every prideful obstinance, every pitiful suicide -- all ego.

Because ego is a physical construct (a created pseudo self), it obeys the laws of physical reality, including action-reaction. This would seem to result in karma.

If I understand correctly, the founder of Christianity called this the dirty rags one might wear when attempting to crash the "wedding feast" (heaven). This is the self which must die before attaining everlasting life.

But what is this "everlasting life?" Could it be the awakening of the immortal, true self within? Then, with bodily death, one retains continuity of consciousness. One is no longer bound to the physical, but can freely move within it our outside of it. Just some thoughts.

Now, you have me curious about what you did to eliminate ego (before going back to it). Is there anything about that you can put into words? If enough, could you write a hub about it?

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

marlana - just to clarify....

"Motown, thanks - I did not realize Catholicism placed equal weight on both testaments. Like Slarty, I had only heard Catholics discussing new testament teachings... plus I always assumed that because Catholics do not celebrate the Days of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Tabernacles, Trumpets, or the Last Great Day, that there was a certain disregard for OT teachings."

While Catholics do embrace both the Old and New Testaments as I mentioned, we do so as Christians. What that means, essentially, is that we embrace the GOD of both the Old Testament (the Father) and the GOD of the New (the Son and the Holy Spirit). There would be many festivals and celebrations in the Old Testament that have been done away with in Christianity (unless you're speaking to Messianic Jews), due to the fact that Jesus basically says that the Gentiles who accept Him as the Messiah are not subject to Jewish some areas, He even exempted the Jews who followed Him from Jewish law, because SO much of it came from Moses or the Levites, rather than God Himself. Does that make any more sense?

And, lone77star, if you haven't already - see the Al Pacino/Keanu Reaves movie - The Devil's Advocate. Fabulous...and twice in the movie, Al Pacino says something similar about ego - only he uses the word vanity. Excellent film, if nothing else.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


I have written a hub about it but was not sure whether or not to post it since I have done a related hub already. But after reading your request to know more about the process I will probably clean it up and post it for you, even if I don't leave it up for ever.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


I think you are correct. It is not the ego which has to go, we need it. It is part of self. It is the negative aspects of ego like vanity and greed which have to go.

Very astute. ;)

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

Thanks, Slarty. Seems even here on HubPages, like attracts like - as far as astuteness anyway. We may not believe the same things, but we certainly approach the dialogue about belief the same way!

I'm so glad I follow you!


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


Thanks Motown. ;) People can certainly share similarities in approach and still come to very different conclusions. We can even see the same things in the same way and yet differ on the reasons why.

Normally I get along with religious people as long as we don't talk religion. That's why my wife and I have been together for 33 years. Though not a practicing Catholic anymore she is still religious. I don't want to take that away from her if it means something to her, and couldn't if I wanted to. It would bring too much stress to the relationship and I'm not obsessed with converting her. She is obviously not obsessed with converting me either or there would have been problems from the start.

On the other hand my daughter had to end an otherwise perfect long term relationship with a JW boy because he kept putting increasing pressure on her to join him in his belief; and she, like me, just can't do that.

So thanks for reading what I write. And I will continue to enjoy reading what you write. ;) You have a good logical mind.... for a Christian. lol... j/k

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

Hahaha - that's funny! One of my fan mails even says, "Aside from the Christian thing, you seem like a nice girl." I found it hysterical! Anyway, that's the biggest part of it, and I found myself debating with a fundy Christian yesterday about how I basically am on the side of those "Against God" because I didn't agree with her "Convert the world" approach.

I think it's wiser to listen to each other with the understanding that while you may never change another person's mind, you may soften their approach to others. And, frankly, that leads to understanding if nothing else, you know?

And I think I have a logical mind as well. Thank you for acknowledging that. It makes me grateful.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 4 years ago from Canada Hub Author


The fundamentalists of the world are the bane of both atheist and Christian alike. It's like I have told a few of them on the forums: it's not their god I reject,(as I don't believe it exists to reject) it's their concept of it that is offensive. It is an insult to people's intelligence. I think it is and should be an insult to non-fundamentalist Christian people's intelligence as well. You probably feel the same way.

Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

That's almost exactly what I said to a fundy last night, oddly enough...take a look at this (and then I'll stop bothering

Lilli 3 years ago

I can't understand why a women would embrace a religion that states that they are the bottom of the barrel (God first, men second.....women-last), and that they should shut up. Does this mean that bible god thinks that women have nothing important to say? The bible preaches the fact that marriage should be a master/slave relationship...with, guess who being the slave. Bible God also says that men are the "heads" of women-huh? Is this why bible god is so offended by women's heads, that bible god wants them to cover their own heads. Or is bible god telling women to cover their "heads"-men? Most all religions treat women as inferior, bottom of the barrell, low rung on the totem pole, and the lowest form of human life. Why any woman would follow this is beyond me.

Claire 3 years ago

God never said that they (women) were inferior or secondary to men....they each have different roles, and are treated like property in the Bible, but that`s not God, that`s people saying that. God created man and woman as partner. Partners mean equality. They have different roles, but this doesn`t mean one is superior to the other. We (humans) have taken it out of the context God wanted us too.....humans were the ones to say that we (women) were inferior and they treated us like property, not God.

Here`s a good article, and points out specific Bible passages too that proves my point:

So no, God doesn`t nor ever meant to say that women are inferior. It was taken out of context because woman was created from a man`s rib. Humans changed this around, not God. And slowly, this ideology of women being inferior is being changed...for example, women are starting to be able to be in more combat-oriented jobs in the military

k. 3 years ago

"The list of passages putting down woman in the bible is almost endless. To me it is amazing that woman can believe and pass on this information about themselves and even agree with it."

and this is why this woman has no interest in christianity or any other organized religion.

John King IV 3 years ago

God and the bible is so great!

I must praise your article for its accurate portrayal of women. (Of course you argue that it is a bad thing, where as the bible itself is supposed to be the truth and only filled with good things.)

I hope that one day God will bless me with a godly woman who submits and serves me for all eternity, in holy wedlock.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

Good luck with that.

John King IV 3 years ago

I do not believe in luck. I made a controlled decision, just as you do, and just as all other souls do.

The ancient pagans believed in fortune and luck, as do many people today. Do you believe that beliefs and choices are things of luck?

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

I don't believe in belief. Choices and beliefs are due to conditioning. Cause and effect is how things work, not luck or fortune.

Now tell me what makes you think you are worthy of being submitted to by anyone, let alone eternally? Sounds pretty self centered to me. What makes you want to be worshiped?

Personally I have no need to have anyone submit to me. But you do? Don't you feel that that is a flaw in your character?

John King IV 3 years ago

You think I need or desire people to submit to my will?

ha ha ha ha ha... oh you actually made me smile and even laugh.

No no no..... Although I find this notion as somehow amuzing and even pleasant, but no no no.

I only desire respect and to be aknowledged, just like any other human being deserves.

To answer your inquiry into my character: I desire God and his own righteousness. I am not concerned with the righteousness or integrity of other people and their beliefs. This would be my answer to all the accusers, who wish to prosecute me before God.

John King IV 3 years ago


Oh geez, I still can not get over your belief about me desiring to be worshipped... ha ha ha ha

Yes woman worship me I command you...ha ha ha ha

(I hope you realize I am merely joking here right?

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

We were discussing woman and how the bible tells them to be submissive to me. A bible that was written by men who felt that they owned their woman and kids. literally.

You said: "I hope that one day God will bless me with a godly woman who submits and serves me for all eternity."

So I do not need to accuse you of anything. You have already said you want a submissive woman to serve you. I was just pointing out that were I to feel that way I would certainly think it was a flaw in my character.

Now, your god does want submissive things to serve him and worship him according to the myth. So I do see where you and all Christians get your twisted idea of love, as well as right and wrong.

Nothing personally here. I am not persecuting you.

John King IV 3 years ago

Mr. O'Brian:

Thank you for clarifying yourself. I understand, and am relieved to know that you are not "persecuting me".

Now to further clarify my position:

Yes, you quoted me perfectly, and this is the way I feel. I would love to have a submissive wife to serve me for ever and ever..

I see this as glorious. You see this as a flaw in character. We understand each other on this...

My God does not see a woman as a thing! as in a dead property such as a pair of shoes or something like that... However, I do see the marriage vow as a contract, and a wife as a living property with full human rights, and freedoms, (eg to divorce for good reasons)

You speak about my God as if you know him. Let me assure you that you do not. I think you see my god as the popular idols and gods of the christian nations. These are not my gods. Whatever they teach does not necessarily reflect my views.

May I ask what your views of a marriage is supposed to be? It does not seem to be biblical. Perhaps you desire a macho female who dominates you into submission? :) Perhaps you hate marriage and desire freedom to have sex with multiple partners? Please, I am not accussing you or attacking you....these are just hypothetical guesses as to what your views of a wife or a marriage may be.... Your answer, about your views alone have the true representation, of your own views.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

Fair question. I have been married for 33 years. Marriage at first can be a power struggle of sorts. But over time we learned that it is an equal partnership. Neither of us is submissive nor dominant anymore and we don't want to be either of those extremes.

You learn about each other over time and successful marriages are marriages where a bond is formed. That bond is a bringing in to self the other person. They become part of you. That is love.

Humans tend to want to either make things part of themselves or extensions of themselves, or they reject people or specific things from their realm.

I've written about this in other hubs.

When you have made a person part of who you are then empathy for that person is a natural consequence. Unless you dislike yourself, of course.

That’s the problem. We can make skills and things part of who we are without a problem. But we have to remember that the struggle between men and woman is in the fact that both people are trying to do the same thing. That’s why we try to change each other at first.

But if you can both bond easily because either you both naturally flow together or you work hard at it, then you have a lasting partnership.

Christian style ownership accomplishes the same thing but at the cost of the woman’s freedom. Christian woman give that up because it asked of them in their religion. Demanded of them really.

You live now, so you may not understand that our forefathers did own their wives and children like cattle or a house. That was their solution to the power struggle human beings have with each other naturally when they attempt to merge. But it was not the right solution. Of course it became easier to enforce when it was written in to their religion as a demand from god.

But was it a demand from god? There were twelve tribes as you might recall, and ancient texts indicate that not all of them thought that god wanted woman to be submissive. The bible you have was written by two or three tribes, and mostly by the Judeans. Do you know much biblical history? I’ve written a lot about that as well.

As to not knowing your brand of god, that may be so. Every Christian seems to have their own individual religion. However, I’m sure I’ve heard your version before. You can explain it to me if you like.

John King IV 3 years ago

very noble view of marriage.

Your testament of the 33 years of marriage is proof of the sucessfulness of your views.

I also know a lot about the bible and ancient history. (Virtually all my hubs deal with these things). I have one hub in particular, called the evolution of the bible. It lists who I believe authored the various documents which make up the bible. My views on this subject can be found in their. But you are basically correct, about the majority of the authors being ancient jews.

By our "forefathers" I think you refer to the politicians who created the secular constitution of the western nations right?

Modern Philosophy supports the sexual revolution and the women's liberation movement. Prostitutes have full rights to practice their own jobs free from persecution. Likewise, Gay people. Today, half the population is divorced, Nearly a quarter or more are into fornication, no string attached sex. The sex industry recieves billions of dollars and provides millions of jobs. You are becoming a rarer kind of man friend... (33 years of marriage). Today, anyone can open up a brothel not to far away from your home, or your child's school, or your job sight. Today, gays or prostitutes can provide education for your children. Your child's teachers, or even your government authorities who rule you and your society, can themselves support this, and even participate in the whole sex industry and culture. What do you think? Is the bible really so unjust and tyrannical, for teaching about the holyness of marriage? About submission in a marriage? Or is secular wisdom about the rights of prostitutes and gays better? According to the bible, Prostitution and being gay is a sin. According to popular secular wisdom, Being gay, a prostitute, or fornicating are all natural and healthy things. People, they say, where born to be gay, to be a whore, to have indiscriminate sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere...

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

People make rules for one reason: to solve problems. But if another person makes the rule then he or she has to have authority to do that. A government is fine, but saying a god told you this rule is much better. It carries more weight.

Outlawing extra marital sex solves a lot of problems. Unwanted pregnancy, spreading disease, jealousy, vengeance, etc.

Now if all those issues are solved, why would there still be a need to outlaw it? Were unwanted pregnancy completely preventable, were people not prone to jealousy or violence, if the spread of disease was not an issue etc, why would we outlaw the practice? All the problems would be solved.

In the 1960s that was the case. People were experimenting with new ways of cohabiting. No more jealousy, we had the pill, and all diseases related to sex could be cured with a shot of Pen V.

Well, we found out people still get upset, feel betrayed etc, and our baser nature will out and we will still seek revenge. So that part of it didn’t work for everyone.

Then came aids.

Well that ended safe sex and love the one you are with for many. It also meant a resurgence of old attitudes.

Now, I made a contract with my wife to be faithful and I honour that. She does the same. This contract solves a whole range of issues. But there is no need for traditional marriage in a church. You just have to forge a contract and stick to it. The reason you do it is because you want to make it work. You want to form a bond.

There have always been people who break their contracts. Nothing new in that. Ask most Italian and French men. If you don't have a mistress there must be wrong with you. Many wives even accept it as part of the culture. But the men don't like it when their wives do the same. Why not? Fair is fair.

Incest happens even in Christian families. Did you know that there is nowhere in the OT that outlaws sex between a father and daughter? Why is that? Everything else was covered.

Yet modern society, not the bible, has outlawed the practice.

Slavery is actually condoned in the bible. God has no problem with it. But this society does.

Gays are born gay. It is not a choice. I could not have sex with a man. I cannot make that choice. Can you? So it is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of preference. Gays have existed for as long as we have been a species. Who cares? Outlawing it solves nothing. It only creates more problems. It seems to have even created hate in you. That’s too bad.

Prostitutes have also always been around. At certain times there were even holy prostitutes. Did you know that? The problem with prostitution is the exploitation of woman by pimps. The spread of disease. In fact there are a host of problems with it. But far more so when it is illegal and unregulated. Were it regulated, were woman checked for disease on a biweekly basis, etc, there would be no problem with it, unless you break your contract with your wife and pay for sex elsewhere.

So all of these issues depend on circumstances. Outlawing things is an easy way out but does not always solve the issue. It just buries the issue and creates a tyrannical state more interested in the bedrooms of the nation than anything else.

Now, predators and pedophiles are an issue we can probably agree on. There is obvious harm being done by their acts. There is little or no way to solve the issues surrounding them except to outlaw the practice and enforce it with a vengeance.

I dare say an argument could be made that if we didn’t care then it would be alright. But that is probably never going to happen in the west. We all care about our children and what happens to them. That attitude is not going to change any time soon and it shouldn’t.

But it is none of my business whether you are gay or not. Who are you hurting? No one. Not even yourself if you are with a life partner. And a prostitute who likes her work, is responsible, and stays healthy does no one any harm either. No one is forcing anyone to use her services.

The bible’s solutions are the easy way out of social problems. Outlaw everything and make a death sentence mandatory for almost all infractions. But that has never worked, or we wouldn’t be looking for other answers today.

People evolve and so do their attitudes. We are in a time of upheaval as old taboos are broken and we all have find our new solutions to the problems that arise.

It means we all have to decide for ourselves how to behave and learn from the natural consequences that arise. So things look bad at times.

But don’t worry. A balance will be found. Chaos has a tendency to force that to happen.

John King IV 3 years ago

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. Example: God tells me what to eat or what not to eat. Not any currupt godless government agents.

However, I agree and aknowledge the need for secular laws for societies and nations. People after all have to co-exist!

2)Outlawing extra-Marital sex: I agree with you. This does not work. I actually would argue that a segragation policy is the best solution, where everybody wins. Fornicators should be clearly marked and live among themselves with freedom to have sex with one another, while at the same time the freedom of non-fornicators is respected. Non fornicators should be safe and secure from sexual immorality.

3) No need fro traditional church marriage: I agree with you. I am against the monopolization of religion. In fact I see the church as defiled, and civil marriage as a better option!

4) Incest: If one carefully studies the traditions which evolved, (eg the mishnah, Talmud, church fathers, hadiths), all of which can be said to be commentaries and expansions of biblical law.... one will learn that incest between a father and daughter is clearly a sin. (Thus what the daughters of Lot did to their father was a sin)

5) Slavery: I think it is natural and has allways existed, even today. Modern laws however do not use this "negative word" anymore. Today the working class and the economy is the new slave system. Workers now have protection of their human rights and freedoms. Plus they get wages, with exception of the volunteer workers. modern secularism encourages people everywhere to seek employment and become a slave, but emphasizes that this is a very positive thing.

6) Gays: I disagree with everything you say on this. You are wrong, and you also misinterpret my views. First Gays do not create hate in me, or in any other people. I repeat, I am against a universal nation or religion. I am for the freedoms and soverignty of nations and peoples. I would argue that segragation is the best solution where everybody wins. Gays can be gays, and straigts can be straights, yet both do not interfere with the others rights and lifestyles. Did you know that there is actually a prophecy in Ezekiel saying that Sodom would be restored? One can argue it has been fullfilled in these modern times.

7) "Holy prostitutes" Yes I am aware of this. In ancient Babylon, othe ancient mid-east nations, and even in certain underground areas within Israel itself, their was priestesses who ran temples devoted to prostitution and to certain popular gods and goddesses. In Babylon, the king himself would ritually have sex with the priestess prostitutes in a community festivle. The Babylonian government actually supported these holy prostitutes.

8) Privacy in Bedrooms: I agree with you. Modern laws ought to protect this right.

9) Pedophiles: I disagree with you. In the bible a person who hits puberty could legally have sex. Thus a 13 year old girl could have sex with a 40 year old male, if the two consented. Secular law is against this freedom and promises punishment to those who break the secular law.

Yes, secular mentality is oppossed to bible mentality. I could list dozens of other examples. Here is one good one: In the biblical tradition, (Judaism and Islam only): a man is permitted to have more than one wife, providing their is consent. and legal (example no rape, or deception, etc). Secular laws take away this bible freedom, and created new laws against polygamy and bigamy. While it is true, that Christians would have no problem with this, as they stress that the idealism of monogamy for life, ought to be the law. I would like to point out, that under a jewish or islamic nation, bigamy, and perhaps even polygamy, would not be a crime.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

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.

Motown2Chitown 3 years ago

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.

John King IV 3 years ago

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.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

Hi Motown. ;)

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

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?

Motown2Chitown 3 years ago

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

John King IV 3 years ago

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.

John King IV 3 years ago

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!

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 3 years ago from Canada Hub Author

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 3 years ago

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...

newenglandsun 2 years ago

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?

notastereotype 2 years ago

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.

notastereotype 2 years ago

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.

Olivia Chen 2 years ago

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

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 2 years ago from Canada Hub Author

@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.

anonymous 2 years ago

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.

Pharmb775 2 years ago

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

sabin 14 months ago

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.

YVETTE 14 months ago

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.

Kiss andTales profile image

Kiss andTales 9 months ago Level 6 Commenter

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.

Kiss andTales profile image

Kiss andTales 9 months ago Level 6 Commenter

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 .

PurvisBobbi44 profile image

PurvisBobbi44 9 months ago from Florida Level 2 Commenter


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

fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 9 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York Level 7 Commenter

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

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 9 months ago from Canada Hub Author

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.

PurvisBobbi44 profile image

PurvisBobbi44 9 months ago from Florida Level 2 Commenter

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

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 9 months ago from Canada Hub Author

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?

PurvisBobbi44 profile image

PurvisBobbi44 9 months ago from Florida Level 2 Commenter

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

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 9 months ago from Canada Hub Author

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.

Kiss andTales profile image

Kiss andTales 9 months ago Level 6 Commenter

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.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 9 months ago from Canada Hub Author

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 profile image

Kiss andTales 9 months ago Level 6 Commenter

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 profile image

Kiss andTales 9 months ago Level 6 Commenter

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.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 9 months ago from Canada Hub Author

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.

fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 9 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York Level 7 Commenter

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.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 9 months ago from Canada Hub Author

Agreed and thanks. I'll make the corrections.

fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 9 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York Level 7 Commenter

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

jeffery sander 9 months ago

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....

NB 5 months ago

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.

NB 5 months ago

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

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article