Gender Roles in the Bible

Moving another discussion into an appropriate thread.

dan said:

Also, I edited my post. I meant to say that the roles were different, and they are, but different does not mean better and worse. Why do crusaders against religion insist that different means this when talking about women and men, but all our other differences (ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation) must not be interpreted that way? Men and women have different roles and different functions, but one is no better than the other. Be consistent.

Click to expand...

I am not the one being unconsistent.
I am not arguing that men and women can`t have different roles and still be equal

Your Bible does not describe "Different but Equal" roles for men and women.

The very few verses I`ve posted here show a depth of inequality that brings one gender under the control of the other.

You are attempting to change the argument .

I am merely stating that Biblical scripture holds a male superior view of the two different genders.
Not that they are different but that they are unequal.

What you're doing is saying, "Look! It's in the Bible so God must think it's O.K."

Click to expand...

No.
What I`m saying is "Look! It`s in the Bible and God rewards those who do it so it must be OK with God!"

God does not condone those actions you've talked about, nor are they representative of the ancient Jewish law. Now, I spoke of O.T. scriptures, and your interpretation of N.T. scripture is fallacious.

Click to expand...

God does condone them by his rewarding those who commit them.
If he didn`t condone them those who committed them would at the very least be reprimanded.
Lot survived hellfire and brimstone and total destruction because he was the only "righteous" man there, even after he offered his daughters up for rape by strangers.
I`d call that a reward.

You haven`t the authority to declare my interpretation of the scripture as false.
Showing how it is false would be a better path to take.
One can say anything.

The Judges scripture only shows just how wicked they had grown without the Torah. Did you know that that's why they had judges instead of a prophet and unity? They weren't really obeying the law.

Click to expand...

Yes it does but it also singles women out for a role of submission to the male role within the church.
Why don`t you address the actual statement I make instead of continuing to throw up strawmen?

The Leviticus scriptures speak of ceremonial uncleanliness. It says nothing of worthiness. The dead were also unclean, and if you were near a dead person you were unclean. Does that mean you're a bad person in God's eyes because you walked by a dead guy?

Click to expand...

Yes..again..I know BUT....

The question is ..
If both genders are equal why does giving birth to a female child make you more unclean than giving birth to a male child?

Why is the female infant "dirtier" than the male infant?

Your interpretation is once again fallacious. Your literal interpretations are a joke. You interpret without understanding the history or context, making your conclusions innaccurate and childish.

Click to expand...

I applaud you, your attack on my person at least has more force than your attack on the content of my words.

You have yet to provide one single bit of evidence to support your ad hominum on my understanding of Biblical scripture.

I suggest you do if you wish to be believed in this forum.

As faras God's "double standards" go, there was no standard during Lot's time saying.

Click to expand...

Exactly my entire point.
The bible has no moral relevance in this day and age.
It is a story, a myth.

Granted one that some people find comfort and spiritual guidance in but an ethical barometer?

No.

Thou shalt not do this, that or the other. God did not condemn his actions because he did not break any laws.

Click to expand...

Pre-marital sex isn`t against Gods laws?
If not why are todays Christians constantly condemning it by the word of God?
Do you believe pre-marital sex is ok with God?

Homosexuality is agaisnt the aws of God. It is abomination, I recall the Bible saying. Where does it say that what Lot did was wrong prior to Genesis 19?

Click to expand...

Again..I agree homosexuality is condemned by the Christian God.
As to the rest of you question you may begin to understand where I`m going when you see that while God doesn`t condemn pre-marital sex and rape or incest the rest of Christianity does.
So either these Christians are misreading/adding to Gods word or this is implied somewhere in Biblical verse.

Christianity is teaching what God does not appear to have said.

I stand by my argumentum ad hominem.

Click to expand...

That says much about who i`m debating with.

You have yet to correctly interpret a single scripture. Why don't you go think for yourself for once, like my church tells me to do. And the reference is JST Genesis 19:11.

Click to expand...

You have yet to show me how my interpretation is incorrect.

The fact that God condemns homosexuality doesn`t change the fact that he condones rape and pre-marital sex...Gen 19:11

Dan,

You have yet to provide reference for this interpretation of scripture as you posted previously.

First off, that is a mistranslation where Lot offers his daughters. The real verse reads, "Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men , and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good." It's the guys who demand the men that want the daughters also.

Click to expand...

linwood said:

The fact that God condemns homosexuality doesn`t change the fact that he condones rape and pre-marital sex...Gen 19:11

Click to expand...

My Bible says nothing about condoning rape or pre-marital sex.

I've read the verse about Lot offering his daughters but there is no mention of God being involved in this decision.

I may call myself a Christian but that doesn't mean I'm perfect and don't make mistakes and when I make poor decisions or backslide, it doesn't mean God is condoning it. It means He is allowing us free will. Perhaps this was the case with Lot. He was a good man but his judgment was impaired from exposure to so much evil. Would God have allowed it? He didn't.

Genesis 19:10-11
But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

It seems as if there are two threads running through this topic and I wanted to respond to the second. I agree with Linwood that (and this is my greatest stumbling block with the Bible) the Bible portrays women in a very unfavorable way, with the exception of a very few women (Esther, Ruth, etc.).

I am having a *big* problem with the Biblical idea that I am to be submissive to a man. The conservative right basically says, "shut up, sit down and be a good little woman." On the less conservative side, they try to show that women have an equally important role, but I'm just not seeing it scripturally.

Should this be a new thread?

Melody said:

Should this be a new thread?

Click to expand...

Thats exatly what I started this thread for Melody.

Feel free to post your thoughts on that concept as you like.

Melody said:

My Bible says nothing about condoning rape or pre-marital sex.

Click to expand...

In fact it does.
Lot was saved from destruction because God believed he was the only moral man left in the city and every other resident was immoral and deserved death.
Lot had just earlier offered his daughters up for rape by the strangers at his door and God still saved Lot.

I've read the verse about Lot offering his daughters but there is no mention of God being involved in this decision.

Click to expand...

True God did not make this decision for Lot but this tells me that God sees no ethical dillemna with using your daughters as sexual toys for other men.

Considering Lot was still saved for being a righteous man instigating the rape of your daughters must not be immoral to God.

The story of the destruction of Midea and the dividing of the spoils of war there also show Gods immorality towards the crime of rape.

Numbers 31:15-19
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

God himself even gets a cut of the virgins..

Numbers31:28
And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, [both] of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

I may call myself a Christian but that doesn't mean I'm perfect and don't make mistakes and when I make poor decisions or backslide, it doesn't mean God is condoning it.

Click to expand...

Thats the point though.
God doesn`t think Lot backslid.
He thought he was still a righteous man, thats why he was warned and saved.

linwood said:

Lot was saved from destruction because God believed he was the only moral man left in the city and every other resident was immoral and deserved death.
Lot had just earlier offered his daughters up for rape by the strangers at his door and God still saved Lot.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Lot was hoping to save both his daughters and the men and was trying to buy time. Perhaps he believed that the Lord would step in and save them. Perhaps he suffered a momentary lapse of judgment which does not necessarily mean that he is not a moral man. God destroyed Sodom "because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grievous." A momentary lapse of judgment would hardly qualify as "grievous."

I see no contradiction here or evidence that says God condoned what Lot did by sparing Lot and his family.

Melody said:

Perhaps Lot was hoping to save both his daughters and the men and was trying to buy time. Perhaps he believed that the Lord would step in and save them. Perhaps he suffered a momentary lapse of judgment which does not necessarily mean that he is not a moral man. God destroyed Sodom "because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grievous." A momentary lapse of judgment would hardly qualify as "grievous."

I see no contradiction here or evidence that says God condoned what Lot did by sparing Lot and his family.

Click to expand...

Thats because you rationalise and harmonise with information that is not in the scripture.

There is no scripture that says anything about Lot pulling a bait & switch on the men at his door.
That is your conjecture, based on nothing.

Does it even sound rational to you?

Perhaps Lot was hoping to save both his daughters and the men and was trying to buy time. Perhaps he believed that the Lord would step in and save them. Perhaps he suffered a momentary lapse of judgment which does not necessarily mean that he is not a moral man.

Click to expand...

What father would do this under any circumstances?

I concede it is possible but it is also possible Lot was hoping little green men would come down and wisk the men away.

A momentary lapse of judgment would hardly qualify as "grievous."

Click to expand...

I`m sorry but offering your virgin daughters up for rape by violent strangers does not constitute a "Momentary lapse of reason" to me.

The stranger in his house was more important than his daughters.
Different cultures make for different morals ..I understand this but my point is Lots morality doesn`t jibe with mine, let alone my cultures.

linwood said:

Different cultures make for different morals ..I understand this but my point is Lots morality doesn`t jibe with mine, let alone my cultures.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe a father might try, in desperation, to do a bait and switch. I wonder if you were put in the same situation where your cultural duty was to protect your guests and lived in a culture where the value of a woman was probably somewhere below that duty (I'm only surmising) if you would have done any better. If you can say outright, then I guess you're a better person than I.

While I gave different scenarios, it doesn't really matter in the end. His morality doesn't jibe with yours but then neither of us know what was in his mind...but God knew. If you think you're qualified to judge God and his motives, then I guess that's your perogative. I prefer to believe that God saved Lot for a purpose and it had nothing to do with condoning rape, premarital sex or any other idea you wish to come up with. Then again, I don't as a rule pull little snippets out of the Bible and try to judge an entire belief system on them. I look at the entire book.

There is neither bond nor free; Jew or Gentile; male or female in Jesus Christ.


And your comment about "What father would do this under any circumstances?" suggest you need to wake up and take a look at the world you live in. Fathers, mothers, bothers, sisters, etc... have done and will continue to do far worse then what Lot did. If your point is to prove that you're a better man that Lot, congrats. I hope you are. However Lot was righteous because he believed in God. I don't think morality has anything to do with it. Lot's belief in God was counted unto him as righteousness. Something you seem to be lacking.

true blood said:

However Lot was righteous because he believed in God. I don't think morality has anything to do with it. Lot's belief in God was counted unto him as righteousness.

Click to expand...

You know when I was typing my response, I was trying to figure out how to explain that (and I didn't have time to pull the Bible verses this morning) we stumble and fall and do things not acceptable to God but we keep trying and God knows we can't be perfect because we are human. It is through God's Grace that we are saved. Oh blast....I'm still not saying it correctly....can I just say "ditto"? <g>

Then again, I don't as a rule pull little snippets out of the Bible and try to judge an entire belief system on them. I look at the entire book.

Click to expand...

I`d like to clarify that I was not the one who "pulled this little snippet" out of the book.
t3gah quoted the story in an attempt to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.

He quoted it in the "homosexuality in the Bible thread which is where this thread came from.

I split it into this thread because it was starting to lean more towards gender roles in the Bible and I wanted the other thread to stay on track.

I also want to point out that I have read the entire Bible, in fact I began reading it a second time ..got halfway through Exodus and decided a second read wouldn`t change my thoughts.

Since then I have been studying it book by book in content an usually without attempting to jibe it with any of the other books as that is how it was writtten.

A scholar I am not , I am just facinated by the influence this book has had on my society.

It was my reading of the Bible that took me from agnostisism directly into strong atheism.
So the Bible has affected me spiritually and I owe it some thanks for that.

I wonder if you were put in the same situation where your cultural duty was to protect your guests and lived in a culture where the value of a woman was probably somewhere below that duty (I'm only surmising) if you would have done any better. If you can say outright, then I guess you're a better person than I.

Click to expand...

Why is there no believer here who will see my point?
At least two of you have made this point yourselves as in the above quote.

My whole purpose with this thread and the homosexuality thread it came from was to show that the Bibles moral guidance really has little or no relevance today in western culture.
You just made my point while arguing against me..or so you thought.

I most probably would have done the same thing Lot did if I were in his shoes and culture but I AM NOT IN HIS SHOES so why would I use Lots story as moral guidance ?

The Islamic cultures today that do still treat women as possessions are looked down upon by my culture and from my point of view this opinion is justified.

Why do we condemn those who do it in reality today but defend a man and his God that did it in a story centuries ago as if it had bearing on the world today?

It makes no sense to me.

And your comment about "What father would do this under any circumstances?" suggest you need to wake up and take a look at the world you live in. Fathers, mothers, bothers, sisters, etc... have done and will continue to do far worse then what Lot did.

Click to expand...

Again, another believer making my point for me.

Yes in todays world there are many who abuse their children but we put them in jail and attempt to give the children a better life.

We do not reward them with salvation as God did Lot.

So what bearing does it have on western culture today?

However Lot was righteous because he believed in God. I don't think morality has anything to do with it. Lot's belief in God was counted unto him as righteousness.

Click to expand...

If this is true then any Christian can commit any atrocity and still remain in Gods graces.

If you are going to tell me a Christian wouldn`t commit atrocitiies I`ll refer you to many who have

If you`re going to tell me they "weren`t true Christians" I`ll have to submit there is no true Christian.

It`s entirely circular and goes no where.

I'm not sure where you are going with this talk about Christians and atrocity. Last I knew anyone can commit them. There is no physical barrier that will prevent a Christian from the act. I think your limited perspective shines through. In a spiritual sense, the only atrocity in the eyes of God would be 1.) Not believing in his son Jesus Christ, and 2) not loving your neighbors like Jesus loved you. Now those are the only true atrocities in existance at this time period.


I fail to see why, mainly atheist, will claim and arguement is circular. This is a cop out. The fact is that when you or any person needs proof of a god's existance, then the very notion of spirituality is dimished into sensuality, and you have turned what is holy into what is logical. It seems to me that an atheist is a living circular argument.

true blood said:

There is neither bond nor free; Jew or Gentile; male or female in Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

In God's name, why don't you just shut up and talk this out with your husband in private!

Oops ... sorry true blood. It just occured to me that you might be male. You see, I was reading [size=+0]1 Corinthians [/size][size=-1][size=-1]and the Spirit moved me to speak out against these hussies ...
[/size][/size]

Why are you even reading the bible? Let's see, you don't believe in a god yet you read biblical scripture very often if not daily. Hmmm. Please, give us your wisdom on the passage you have quoted. Who was it written to? Why? I know it doesn't refer to my women. Why's that?

linwood said:

Thats because you rationalise and harmonise with information that is not in the scripture.

There is no scripture that says anything about Lot pulling a bait & switch on the men at his door.
That is your conjecture, based on nothing.

Does it even sound rational to you?

Click to expand...

The bible most notably does not tell us what people are thinking as they do the things that they do. We do not know what Abraham was thinking as he held the knife above Isaac's chest. We only know that he was obedient to God's commands. Nor do we know whether God had planned all along to stop Abraham. We only know that He did. (And gawd only knows what Isaac was thinking!)

You seem to think that Melody is bending the rules by interpreting the motivations behind Lot's actions. But so are you. And so do I. The text is kept intentionally vague - it is unique in literature in that regard - and we are meant to fill in the blanks in the ways that we see fit. If that weren't the case, the bible would not be nearly as rich in meaning as it is. We bring ourselves to the text.

I agree with your interpretation of Lot's actions, btw, linwood. But I know that there are other possible interpretations.

I also agree with your general assessment of the way that women are treated in the bible. Basically, the texts does even bother to name them (unlike the men) unless something is going to happen to them.

true blood said:

Why? I know it doesn't refer to my women.

Click to expand...

Your women? :biglaugh: I bet they feel real special. As for your question, I read the Bible because it is typically far better, far more nuanced, and far more interesting than its representatives - particularly its more backward ones.

I think a couple screws are loose.

Perhaps it is too late where I am, but I don't quite understand the purpose of this thread, so I'll just start rantling.

The OT/TaNaK clearly states that woman is inferior to man, and the wife is unquestioningly regarded as the property of her husband, after having been the property of her father. The number of uncleanliness days can however be interpreted as a woman (or young girl...) who has given birth to a baby girl is allowed to have more days free from religious duties together with her baby than if she had gotten a boy. So, a girl is worthy of more attention than a boy, in spite of the fact that the trauma from the genital mutilation would make the boy need more attention.

Regarding same-sex love, there is no verse in the Bible that unambiguosly can be read as a prohibition of same-sex love, and very few that even hint at same-sex sexual practices. Forget about the Sodom-Gomorrah-Lot parts. I won't go into details here, but I'll just tell you that there is no reference whatsoever to any same-sex love or actions ever occurring in Sodom. The Lot piece is only about suspicion/curiosity of strangers. How would it be possible to interpret the scene outside Lot's house otherwise, when all the people of the city, i.e. men and women, young and old, were there?

The very fact that the scared Lot offers his daughters to the crowd shows that there is no question of homosexuality. He had been living there for a while; if he knew that the city people were into same-sex actions, it is just too obviously pointless to offer them girls.

The point of the whole Sodom story is rather to tell the exiled people of Israel that their Lord will help them out of any tight spot, if they only have faith, like Lot was saved from the (rather unnecessary) destruction of Sodom (notice how seldom Gomorrah is mentioned!).

What happens in the mountain cave afterwards, can fuel another number of academic theses. Some Jewish traditions have it that Lot was the active party. Either way, the story is meant to prove that the ammonites and the moabites, originating from the despicable incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters, are inferior to the descendants of the glorious incestuos relationship between Abraham and Sarah.

Before you start to disprove my analysis of Gen 19 and thereabouts, i'll throw in one
Argumentum ad verecundiam (The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion.)

I have presented my interpertation to my university OT professor, and he didn't protest.