1/4 of Women are Inferior Debate
That’s right, Christians! Women are inherently inferior to men. They’re
also barely even seen as people in the Lord’s eyes; it would be more accurate
to call them ‘property of men’. Don’t take my word on it though; take God’s Word
on it; an infallible, perfect, living word of God’s teachings and the history
of the Israelites. Boy, I sure do love having my misogyny justified by the
thinking of Bronze Age desert nomads!
The rest of my post will indirectly show the inferiority of women,
but a direct statement that women < men is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3, where Paul clearly states
that the pecking order is God > Christ >Man > Woman. Don’t blame
society for gender roles; it’s clearly God’s plan!
One of the most blatant examples of how women were barely treated
like people (and definitely less than men) lies in the Law code of the
Israelites in Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Once you read through that,
try not to be shocked by God’s decree. I’ll walk you through it, in case you’re
having a hard time interpreting the implications of this Law.
Verses 23 and 24 tell the Israelites that if a man sleeps with a woman pledged
to marry, then they are both to be stoned to death. Now, this seems
(relatively) fair, since both were caught in adultery. But the real catch is in
the latter part of verse 24, where the reasons are given for each person’s
death: “the young woman because she was in a
town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s
wife” The implication in not
screaming for help is that the woman enjoyed intercourse with the man, and so
should be stoned. The man deserves death not because he raped another human
being, but because he “violated another man’s wife” Basically, ‘you ruined my
property and shall receive death’.
At least in verses 26 and 27 the woman isn’t penalized for being the victim.
The reasoning for this is that the woman (pledged to be married) was out in the
country, and so could not be heard screaming. This scenario is likened to “someone who attacks and murders a neighbor”, so the
woman is given status as a human being for now.
The ‘best’ part is when a man rapes a woman who IS NOT pledged to be married.
In this scenario-depicted in verse 28 and 29, the man who rapes the unpledged
virgin must pay the father 50 shekels of silver and must marry the woman and
never divorce her. Why is this case so different from the other scenarios where
the man was to be stoned to death in both cases of rape? The only logical
explanation here is that in this case, the man ‘broke it’ and therefore had to
‘buy it’, in reference to the ‘you break it, you buy it’ policy that some
stores employ for their merchandise. It seems that the men in other scenarios
were ONLY put to death because they messed with another man’s property! In the
case of an unpledged virgin, she is no one’s property. But when he takes her
virginity, she is essentially ‘broken’ since no man will marry someone who
isn’t a virgin. Therefore the man must purchase her and stay wedded to her.
This clearly shows the ‘women are property’ mentality that the Lord has.
Another horrendous example of how the Lord values women is seen in the story of
Sodom and Gomorrah, namely when the angels visit Lot. God tells two angels to
go and fetch Lot and his family from the city which he is destroying for its
wickedness. During this process, Genesis 19:1-8 occurs.
Now, what just happened in this passage? Allow me to explain: God sends the two
angels to get Lot and his family out of Sodom before its destruction. While the
two angels are entering his house, a mob of bisexual rapists demands the two
angels for their gang rape. Lot, instead of handing the two angels over, says
this: “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring
them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything
to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
What?? Lot just tossed his daughters out into a mob with the intention of GANG
RAPING them. This man is the one God deems righteous enough to be saved from
the destruction of Sodom which is itself being destroyed for wickedness; a man
that offers up his daughters to be gang raped with no hesitation. Quite
clearly, God does not find wrongdoing in Lot’s choice to throw his daughters to
gang rapists, because the angels continue to offer Lot and his family salvation
from the destruction of Sodom. This is a tell-tale sign that God finds women
lesser than men. Even in the story of Samson in Judges 13-16, the
two wives that Samson marries are portrayed as deceitful and manipulative,
constantly betraying Samson for personal gain. The propaganda-like portrayal of
women in the story of Samson isn’t directly ordered by God, but we can see how
Jews saw women (thanks to God’s earlier decrees). This idea put out by God can
be seen influencing the disciples of Jesus’ life also, as the disciples were
baffled as to why Jesus, a rabbi, would be talking with a woman (John 4:27).
Not only are women inferior and property, they are also more “unclean” than
males! In Leviticus 12:2-5,
women remain unclean for a certain amount of days after childbirth. When a boy
is born, the mother is unclean for a total of 40 days. But when a girl is born,
the mother is unclean for 80 days! Females are literally TWICE as unclean as
males, according to the Lord.
Now that we have all the reasons for why women are inferior, property, and more
unclean than men, let’s get down to the thought process behind these extremely
sexist (but true because God said so) conclusions. The one apologetic response
I’m anticipating is that the sexism and misogyny in the Bible reflect ancient
societies’ perception of women; not God’s. And if you’re thinking this, then
you’re correct-but also disproving God.
It is IMPERATIVE to realize that the Laws in the Bible were ordained by God.
The Laws about being more unclean for birthing girls and ruining another man’s
wife/property were DIRECTLY from God circa 1400 B.C. If you believe the Bible,
then you must understand that God told the Israelites these Laws, and that they
MUST be true coming from God. If you believe in the Bible and God, yet still
believe that women are equal to men, YOU ARE WRONG. God KNOWS women are
inferior to men, and definitely values them lesser than men-as seen in Lot’s
“punishment” in Genesis 19:1-8. If you value the God of the Bible’s word and
regard him irrefutably correct and unable to lie (Attributes of God),
then women are all these things without a shadow of a doubt.
But what’s MY reasoning on why God would think so lowly of women? Well, the
non-believer’s approach is that the Bible and God are man-made constructs. This
alone explains why God shows remarkably human thinking despite being a
transcendent, supreme being. I think-with 99% certainty- that God was conjured
up by men, and therefore displays the thinking of men and justifies it. Why are
women portrayed as mediocre in God’s eyes and actions? Because God is made by
man and man at this time thought women were mediocre. It doesn’t help that
later generations of Israelites would read these Laws and think “Yeah, God’s
right! Women are garbage!” Even in one orthodox Jewish community, women in
positions of high power were photoshopped out of a newspaper. The thought process of these tribesmen are preserved
and regarded as God’s word-and therefore correct-to this day!
 |
| Top picture is before editing |
Next week I will be rebutting whatever apologetic response Phillip has mustered
up (although I think I hit the nail on the head). Let me remind you that this
is not my
belief or opinion on women. This is yours.
I must say that the blog is well-written and hits many points on the rubric for persuading one to side with you. However, I strongly disagree with most (if not all) of what is written in this blog post. First, I do agree that God is perfect and that His logic is sound. You state these as requirements for those who are reading and believe in God in order to convince them. But your interpretation of the Bible and God’s logic is very flawed, I’m afraid. Therefore, I would like to address a few points you made in the post. LONG-WINDED COMMENT STARTING NOW: You attempt to use the Bible to support your argument, which is good to convince Christians of what you’re trying to say, but you have conveniently left out many important parts of the passages you selected. These parts of the passages that you left out radically change one’s interpretation of the verses you chose to show. The most blatant example here is of 1 Corinthians 11:3. You use this verse to say that the pecking order is God—Christ—Man—Woman. But you choose not to go further into the chapter, even though much later it says in verses 11-12: “Among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.” This passage, when paired with 1 Corinthians 11:3, seems to show that men and women are equal. In even the very next chapter, Paul refers to the Corinthians as “brothers and sisters,” meaning that he thinks of men and women on equal standing. Paul was a believer in God and followed all of what He said, and your interpretation is that God views women as property, as shown in your “interpretation” of Deuteronomy 22. So if Paul followed God, why would he refer to “brothers and sisters” instead of saying “brothers” or “brothers and property”? Why would explain that men and women need each other equally, even that men need women more, if he was stating a “pecking order,” as you aptly describe it, of women being lower than men? In truth, Paul was trying to explain that men and women are equal, that all believers are equal, especially as shown later in 1 Corinthians 12 when explaining the Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ. When you look at the wider context of the book of 1 Corinthians, then maybe zoom back even farther to look at the Bible as a whole, it is clear that God intends for women and men to be on equal standing. Why else would He have Esther, a woman, save all of God’s people. Why else would He have Jesus come to earth as a human baby, being born from a woman? END OF LONG-WINDED COMMENT. Anyway, your blog is well-written, but I do disagree with it. You seem to selectively use verses that help your case but do not provide enough context as to when the verse was said. I would go into more detail in response to this post, but to do that, I would have to probably create another blog entirely. Good luck with your controversial blog, and please continue to raise questions about Christianity. These are questions that both Christians and atheists have to face at one time or another, so it is good to settle them now instead of later.
ReplyDeleteThat is a well-done comment
Delete