Gender Bias ???

Originally posted by Doward
S/He could have been the Queen no?

Sadly for you it is not stated Queen of Gods Kingdom, but King, yes that is correct, not Queendom, but Kingdom.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look, it has been established that God is without gender, i am not trying to establish that he is male, i am concerned with translation. If the text renders God as male, it should read in the masculine. All you have provided is texts that attribute feminine qualities, which is fine. If you are objecting to God being rendered masculine then provide ...[text shortened]... ll things are possible to you; remove this cup from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want.”

I don't object to God being refered to as male, but neither do I object to the female...s'all I'm sayin'

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sadly for you it is not stated Queen of Gods Kingdom, but King, yes that is correct, not Queendom, but Kingdom.

So if Jesus were born a woman then she would have been a King?

Originally posted by Doward
I don't object to God being refered to as male, but neither do I object to the female...s'all I'm sayin'

ok, then, we agree. what about those who do object, avalanche the putty cat and various others that whine that they cannot relate to a male portrayed deity?

Originally posted by Doward
So if Jesus were born a woman then she would have been a King?

Jesus was born a male, all else is pure speculation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, then, we agree. what about those who do object, avalanche the putty cat and various others that whine that they cannot relate to a male portrayed deity?

Then let them imagine a female deity. There is one God after all. If it helps them to grow closer to God then so much the better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Jesus was born a male, all else is pure speculation.

I like speculation🙂

Originally posted by Doward
Then let them imagine a female deity. There is one God after all. If it helps them to grow closer to God then so much the better.

you would not advocate changing the sacred text?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more opinion, even more opinion and lastly an attempt to use character associated deficiencies (mine), to establish what could not be brought about through reason. scurrilous and ungentlemanly conduct. I have provided numerous Biblical references, not one of which has been adequately addressed, both linguistic, poetical and grammatical. You may refer to those before proceeding any further.

The gender of the imaginary beings centre to biblical scripture is quite beside the point, as you are surely well aware. Here are a few instances, courtesy of one Dr Ronny West, where the anti-female bias of the bible is in evidence:

1. In the Bible's book of Deuteronomy it says that if a man marries a woman and then decides that he hates her, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. At that point her father must prove she was a virgin. (How is not explained.) If he can't, then the girl is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.

2. If you see a pretty woman among your captives and would like her for a wife, then bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can simply "let her go." (Deuteronomy)

3. If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy)

4. In the book of Esther the king apparently decrees a sex contest among young virgin women to see who can best please him. (There is debate on how.) He eventually chooses Esther. However, since women are viewed as inherently dirty, Esther must be "purified" for twelve months before she can be made queen. (Esther)

5. Paul points out in New Testament Romans that "the natural use" of women is to provide men with sex. (Romans)

6. Heaven is to be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men who have not been "defiled" by women. (RE 14:1-4) [One wonders how this squares with God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply...(Genesis )]

7. A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's wife: "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine (wife); let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The women were subsequently ravished and killed. (JG)

8. In Exod. we see that it is permissible to sell one's daughter (but apparently not one's son) into slavery.

9. According to St. Jerome, "Nothing is so unclean as a woman in her periods; what she touches she causes to be unclean." In Leviticus it states, "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days...if she bears a female child she shall be unclean two weeks...."

10. "A woman dropped a stone on his head and cracked his skull. Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, 'Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say a woman killed me.' So his servant ran him through, and he died." (Judges)

11. Under God's direction, Moses' army kills all the adult males, but they mercifully just take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some women and children alive, he angrily says: "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Throughout Bible history God is said to demand that thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children be slaughtered. And they are.

12. A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders. (Deuteronomy 25:5-9) And in case you are Jewish, you may be familiar with the Jewish prayer: "Blessed be the God who has not created me a heathen, a slave or a woman."

Feel free to come back with a similar number of references indicating feminine superiority to the masculine...

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
The gender of the imaginary beings centre to biblical scripture is quite beside the point, as you are surely well aware. Here are a few instances, courtesy of one Dr Ronny West, where the anti-female bias of the bible is in evidence:

1. In the Bible's book of Deuteronomy it says that if a man marries a woman and then decides that he hates her, es indicating feminine superiority to the masculine...[/b]

sigh,

1. No biblical reference
2. Israelites were counselled not to take foreign wives (Ezra 10:10-11) . . .“you yourselves have acted unfaithfully in that YOU gave a dwelling to foreign wives so as to add to the guiltiness of Israel. 11 And now make confession to Jehovah the God of your forefathers and do his pleasure and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.”
3. Protection against false accusation of rape.
4. Sex contest, more tabloid and shoddy journalism, for your information, the King was not a King of Isreal, but or Persia. Artarxerxes was his name. Noobs! Purified? you mean massaged and rubbed down with precious oils? what a liar this guy is.
5. Paul states the natural use of the female in the context of homosexuality. are you stating that sex with a female is unnatural? No well then clearly this guy doesn't know what he is talking about or that he likes to take verses out of context.
6. Nope clearly many who entered into heaven were ladies, as the Holy spirit which annionted them was poured out at pentecost. Are you sure this guy has ever read the Bible?
7.Yes indeed, a bunch of homos wanted to rape the dudes guests, he rather shockingly offered his daughters, no excuses there.
8. Nope sons and daughters were also sold into slavery,
(Nehemiah 5:2-5) . . .: “Our sons and our daughters we are giving as security that we may get grain and eat and keep alive.” 3 And there were those who were saying: “Our fields and our vineyards and our houses we are giving as security that we may get grain during the food shortage.” 4 And there were those who were saying: “We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute on our fields and our vineyards. 5 And now our flesh is the same as the flesh of our brothers; our sons are the same as their sons, but here we are reducing our sons and our daughters to slaves, and there are some of our daughters already reduced; and there is no power in our hands while our fields and our vineyards belong to others.” Obviously he hasnt read that portion, or more to the point doesn't know what he is talking about.
9. Jerome, hes not in the Bible, yes a women was considered unclean during menstruation, so what? there are also zillions of other times a person is considered unclean, but i guess it doesn't suit the ignorant docs agenda to mention them.
10. King Saul, so what? He was rejected by God at this time anyway. He does not voice Gods opinion.
11. Not sure what the point of this, everyone got zapped, no bias there.

So all in all, your doctor friend clearly doesnt know what he is talking about, he has neither read the scriptures nor studied them with care and diligence and once again we can dismiss his worse as those of a madman.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you need to learn some bush tucker skills mate!

Aye. I know a few things. Like the aboriginies in central Australia (the ones from Ayers rock) call it "Ayers Rock" not "ulluru". They have their mens business and their womens business,but because the sexes are different, not inferior/superior.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh,

1. No biblical reference
2. Israelites were counselled not to take foreign wives (Ezra 10:10-11) . . .“you yourselves have acted unfaithfully in that YOU gave a dwelling to foreign wives so as to add to the guiltiness of Israel. 11 And now make confession to Jehovah the God of your forefathers and do his pleasure and separate yourselves fr ...[text shortened]... ed them with care and diligence and once again we can dismiss his worse as those of a madman.

sigh...

1. Deut 22:13-21. It's not hard to find.
2. Deut 21:11. Apparently they were also counselled that it was ok to take foreign wives - I'm not particularly surprised to encounter such contradictions in biblical scripture however.
3. Rather unreasonably severe and highly male-centred kind of protection from false accusation of rape - surely a far less serious crime than rape itself don't you think?
4. Who claimed it was the king of Israel?
5. Paul says that the 'natural function' or 'use' of women is providing men with sexual gratification. He appears to be more knowledgeable than you. Also more rational. And no more inclined to take verses out of context than you.
6. RE:14:4 "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb." Are you sure you've read the bible?
7. That's right, he protects the man because the bible values a man more than two women, even if they're good wives and daughters. You'd do the same would you?
8. Exodus 21:7 - "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." You gonna try to argue that this doesn't favour the man? The rather spurious reference you make to Nehemiah doesn't appear to support your case or weaken mine.
9. Leviticus 15. Women are unclean while menstruating and for seven days afterwards. And while we're at it, also see LEV 1:3,10, 4:22-28, 5:6, 12:1-5, 15:19-30,22, 15:19-33, 20:18, 22:19-24, 27:3-7 etc. etc.
10. It's not god's opinion that matters is it, because you don't know that, it's the standard biblical attitude towards women.
11. I'm not surprised you can't see the bias here since it's a little more subtle than all the other references which you apparently can't see either.
12. You missed this one.

So all in all, your 'rebuttals' are just incorrect across the board. And yet again you are obfuscating and resorting to argument by emotive language, appeal to false authority and ad hominem.

And I still have yet to see one single biblical reference from you which esteems the feminine over the masculine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Holy Bible clearly uses the words for "He" and does not
leave it up for grabs - RJH

It does indeed. This is what I was referring to when I used the phrase 'explicit gender bias'. Whether or not it reflects the truth is irrelevant. - Puttycatdude


Gender bias is a mere opinion. If you are a dude and you try to join an all ladies slimming c ...[text shortened]... acturers of man hole covers? How far are they willing to go, who can tell. It is to laugh.

There has been noticeably in recent times a marked attempt through common culture to subtly obscure the distinctions, uni-sex perfumes, teenage emo boys that look like chicks! Glam rockers with glittery eye shadow, all essentially effeminate, and then we have seen chicks wielding AK47 rifles and through a hail of bullets blasting her way to super-heroine status. Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is a perfect example of this, Johnny Depp, a pirate that essentially runs like a chick, wears make-up like a chick and to all intents and purposes is essentially quite effeminate and dear Penelope Cruz, sword wielding Latino babe, not happy unless shes slicing up some poor seaman in the Kings service rather than dicing up peppers for a Tabasco sauce..

The issue here is not that the distinctions between man and woman are blurred; the issue is that the cultural markers for man and woman are being blurred. There is nothing essential about a particular perfume that makes is masculine or feminine; it is just within our culture, we have coded some scents as masculine and others feminine. If we look cross-culturally, we will likely find that the markers for man and woman are quite different: men may wear make-up and this may be regarded as particularly masculine.

It is not as if you ever encounter a teenage emo and think 'He doesn't know the difference between a man and a woman!'. I am sure any teenagers is quite aware of the differences. It's just that this teenager ignores the codes which you associate with masculinity. I don't see this at all as very significant. How men dress or what make-up they take changes over time. Now the fact that today clothes have become unisex simply indicates that there are different ways to encode masculinity and feminity, not that masculinity and femininity are blurred.

Now coming to theology, I think there is need for caution. What we identify as 'masculine' and how we interpret 'paternity' and 'fatherhood' is very unstable. How in fact would you communicate God's fatherhood to a culture where children are raised in a kibutz and there is very little father-child relationship? How would it make sense to a matriarchal community? How would you describe God's malehood to a culture with totally different understandings of what constitutes a masculinity?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, do you think there have been attempts through popular culture to obscure the differences between men and women though? Do you think that God in being termed masculine demonstrates a gender bias on the part of the Bible writers? if so how so? if not, why not?

"ok, do you think there have been attempts through popular culture to obscure the differences between men and women though?"

Absolutely. I once read an article titled "Androgyny-the ideal for human development" back in my school days. The idea was to blend the positive qualities of both sexes. To a certain extent that "ideal" has been realized. A real testament to the effects of behavior modification foisted on the general population by such agencies as Hollywood and the liberal elites in our schools and universities. The result is the effeminization of men and the masculinization of women.

"Do you think that God in being termed masculine demonstrates a gender bias on the part of the Bible writers? if so how so? if not, why not?"

Absolutely not. What is in the book we call the Bible is the Word of God. God defines and reveals Himself to us as Father.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"ok, do you think there have been attempts through popular culture to obscure the differences between men and women though?"

Absolutely. I once read an article titled "Androgyny-the ideal for human development" back in my school days. The idea was to blend the positive qualities of both sexes. To a certain extent that "ideal" has been realized. A r ...[text shortened]... k we call the Bible is the Word of God. God defines and reveals Himself to us as Father.[/b]

I'm gonna kick my Dads ass