The Bible is undeniably a sexist book. It constantly devalues and objectifies women. Is it hard to be a bible-believing Christian and a modern woman? [Spirituality & Religion]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
anythingoes477 · M
Saying the Bible is sexist because when it was written it was worded to reflect society at that time.......is like saying all Mark Twain books are racist because it used the language that was acceptable at it's time of writing....but not now.
The Jewish culture of 2000 years ago is reflected in the way the Bible is written. The Bible deals with lineage from the man's side of the family. We still do that. We still talk about the family line going on because a son with the family last name was born.....or the family name ends with this generation because a couple has no kids or has all daughters. There are no corporate women in Biblical days. Women were wives....period. So the great men of stature in the Bible were men. Lineages were traced by family last names. But there are exceptions....Like Ruth...Mary...Sarah...Rebeccah...Rachael and many more...all held in very esteem.
This page lists the verses that give women the utmost in respect from men.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/how_men_should_treat_women#:~:text=80%20Bible%20Verses%20about%20How%20Men%20Should%20Treat,so%20that%20your%20prayers%20may%20not%20be%20hindered.
Comparing the Biblical woman and the modern woman is like comparing apples and oranges. In each age society has looked at women thru different colored lenses...but both lenses were/are appropriate for the time.
The Jewish culture of 2000 years ago is reflected in the way the Bible is written. The Bible deals with lineage from the man's side of the family. We still do that. We still talk about the family line going on because a son with the family last name was born.....or the family name ends with this generation because a couple has no kids or has all daughters. There are no corporate women in Biblical days. Women were wives....period. So the great men of stature in the Bible were men. Lineages were traced by family last names. But there are exceptions....Like Ruth...Mary...Sarah...Rebeccah...Rachael and many more...all held in very esteem.
This page lists the verses that give women the utmost in respect from men.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/how_men_should_treat_women#:~:text=80%20Bible%20Verses%20about%20How%20Men%20Should%20Treat,so%20that%20your%20prayers%20may%20not%20be%20hindered.
Comparing the Biblical woman and the modern woman is like comparing apples and oranges. In each age society has looked at women thru different colored lenses...but both lenses were/are appropriate for the time.
@anythingoes477
I'm not really impressed by that rationalization. Of course it was written at a different time when women simply were not valued the same as men. That doesn't give it a pass. It doesn't change the way women are treated as objects and tools by supposedly godly men.
Because this isn't like Mark Twain using language which today would be considered offensive. This is meant to be the inspired word of god and god himself is complicit in this same objectifying behaviour.
That's where i'm gonna disagree with you. It was never appropriate. It just was.
lol not many more, i suspect. And i'm not sure i even by that claim really.
Ruth is the only one who's actually a woman who is held in esteem because of her own deeds.
Seems to me that the others on the list are largely held in esteem for who they are married to or what children they bore.
I'm not really impressed by that rationalization. Of course it was written at a different time when women simply were not valued the same as men. That doesn't give it a pass. It doesn't change the way women are treated as objects and tools by supposedly godly men.
Because this isn't like Mark Twain using language which today would be considered offensive. This is meant to be the inspired word of god and god himself is complicit in this same objectifying behaviour.
both lenses were/are appropriate for the time.
That's where i'm gonna disagree with you. It was never appropriate. It just was.
and many more
lol not many more, i suspect. And i'm not sure i even by that claim really.
Ruth is the only one who's actually a woman who is held in esteem because of her own deeds.
Seems to me that the others on the list are largely held in esteem for who they are married to or what children they bore.