Everybody is back in the chat room for today's show. We get right into the Meet
the Hosts segment to learn about boring days in the Man Cave, and secret
messages from Harry Potter in Critter Castle. Either that,ornature is just
being rude at Church House studio.
Main Topic
There's a lot to cover, so we get right into how this topic came to our
attention. On a comment on another podcast that Keith does, someone claimed a
character in an audio drama is misogynistic. What does that mean exactly? A can
of worms was uncovered with the simple search for information on the web: "What
does the bible say about misogyny or sexism?"
Results came back from sources both friendly to, and hostile to the bible. The
choice was put to Nathan, and up for a challenge, he led the confrontation of
common claims not only claiming the bible is sexist against women, but in
trying to prove god is imaginary.
First, some definitions of what the word misogynistic means from dictionaries,
as well as some of the emotional baggage placed on the term, as found on Urban
Dictionary. Finally an article from Psychology Today, that offers 12 signs that
someone is misogynistic. To give voice to the opposition to bible teaching,
Keith reads from an article: Proof #30 - Examine God's sexism - God is
Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
On the surface, the article seems to have sound logic in challenges to the
bible as a sexist book. However, simple rules of logical argument soon fall
apart in the one sided article, that is itself presented through a sexist lens.
Scriptures are freely used to prove the discrimination against women, but
largely at the expense of taking sound bites out of context, and not presenting
the full conversation the bible narrative is addressing. Mostly focusing in on
passages that define roles of organization and authority of church leadership.
Though roles are clearly different, with various degrees of responsibility,
none are of less importance than another.
There is also a tendency to key in on phrases that say one sex is weaker, but
ignoring the beauty and purpose of the full statement. It focuses on commands
to submit, but ignore the larger command of love, respect, and mutual
responsibilities in a marriage relationship. The command to submit also is not
a blanket command. Women should never submit to any man, only the one who they
are committed to in a marriage relationship.
Matters of considering the punishment of Eve, and pain in child birth are made,
totally ignoring the punishment that Adam faced, and the importance role in
salvation that a woman would play. A claim is made that there were no women
disciples, or no woman wrote a single book in the bible. It totally ignores
that most books were written anonymously, but two books in scriptures have
women as the main focus, Ruth and Esther. Both playing vital roles in the
future of the nation of God's chosen people, and the salvation of the world, by
being in the lineage of Jesus.
A total lack of mention of other important roles of women, even women in roles
of authority. Deborah was a prophet, women won the final blows in battle, women
were first to see the risen Jesus, the first to carry the gospel message to
restore Samaria to the kingdom was the woman at the well, the first convert to
Christianity outside Israel was a woman. Women taught even the apostles to set
them straight on the correct teaching of the gospel. One thing that we didn't
cover is that compared to the secular treatment of women, that of the
humannistic society of the world at the time, Christianity and bible teachings
put woman in more position of power and authority than was common.
The author of the article goes on to claim that humanity clearly understands
that God is wrong, the bible is wrong, and it's obvious in the way humanity
rejects those teachings to put women in power. Women presidents, politicians,
teachers, and more. Women surely are capable, and when in positions of
authority should certainly be given all the respect due to them. However, the
clear statement is not that God is wrong, but that humanity is in rebellion
against his definition of gender roles. Both are equal in importance, but
clearly different. Can one gender pick up the authority and do the job just as
well? Yes, but not without certain trade offs, or added demands that natural
gender roles dictate.
On a basic, biological level, women have one role in the birth process, and men
have another. It is physically impossible for a man to carry a baby to full
term. Though he might feed, nurture, and raise a child once it's born, a
woman's personally is generally designed to do a better job of it. Can the
woman take up the labor the man has? Providing for the new family, earning
income, fighting battles of survival? Yes, single moms do it all the time. But
there's the trade off of... Who's raising the kids? School, day care, other
people who might not have the same nurture, ethic, or expectation of the
natural parent? The pride should be in trying to live by God's ideal, not in
rejecting or rebelling, just to show that we can.
We manage to get through the entire article, and scratch beneath the surface at
this sexist view point, to prove that the facts it claim,, and tries to offer
as prove aren't so clear after all. The logic that makes sense, only does so by
taking arguments out of context, misinterpreting what the other side has to
claim, and to a degree admitting to circular and suicidal logic. If you feel
that our claims are unfair, here's the chance to let us know. Drop us a line by
email, <http://podcast.heltsley.net/contact> leave a comment in the show notes,
use the voice mail number (401)753-4844, or how ever you're comfortable.
Different, and even opposing ideas are important to hear about.
keith <http://podcast.heltsley.net/?author=2> | May 2, 2017 at 11:29 am | URL:
http://wp.me/p5uvFj-8I ;<http://wp.me/p5uvFj-8I>
Comment
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/#respond>
See all comments
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/#comments>
Unsubscribe
<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=4004def3c32f730b330d81bea76a3098&email=keith%40retro-otr.com&b=f%3FdS%7Cqrmh%5B7tBQ3D76%5Bp%5DPlnCUD.acW%7Ce%26Hike.su3%5Bia%3FvVdh>
to no longer receive posts from HPN.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions
<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=4004def3c32f730b330d81bea76a3098&email=keith%40retro-otr.com>.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/>
Keith Heltsley
keith@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Begin forwarded message:
From: HPN <donotreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [New post] Quest for Truth 115 Examining Myths of the Sexist Bible
Date: May 2, 2017 at 11:29:45 AM CDT
To: keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
New post on HPN
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/?author=2>
Quest for Truth 115 Examining Myths of the Sexist Bible
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/>by
keith <http://podcast.heltsley.net/?author=2>
Everybody is back in the chat room for today's show. We get right into the
Meet the Hosts segment to learn about boring days in the Man Cave, and secret
messages from Harry Potter in Critter Castle. Either that,ornature is just
being rude at Church House studio.
Main Topic
There's a lot to cover, so we get right into how this topic came to our
attention. On a comment on another podcast that Keith does, someone claimed a
character in an audio drama is misogynistic. What does that mean exactly? A
can of worms was uncovered with the simple search for information on the web:
"What does the bible say about misogyny or sexism?"
Results came back from sources both friendly to, and hostile to the bible.
The choice was put to Nathan, and up for a challenge, he led the
confrontation of common claims not only claiming the bible is sexist against
women, but in trying to prove god is imaginary.
First, some definitions of what the word misogynistic means from
dictionaries, as well as some of the emotional baggage placed on the term, as
found on Urban Dictionary. Finally an article from Psychology Today, that
offers 12 signs that someone is misogynistic. To give voice to the opposition
to bible teaching, Keith reads from an article: Proof #30 - Examine God's
sexism - God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
On the surface, the article seems to have sound logic in challenges to the
bible as a sexist book. However, simple rules of logical argument soon fall
apart in the one sided article, that is itself presented through a sexist
lens. Scriptures are freely used to prove the discrimination against women,
but largely at the expense of taking sound bites out of context, and not
presenting the full conversation the bible narrative is addressing. Mostly
focusing in on passages that define roles of organization and authority of
church leadership. Though roles are clearly different, with various degrees
of responsibility, none are of less importance than another.
There is also a tendency to key in on phrases that say one sex is weaker, but
ignoring the beauty and purpose of the full statement. It focuses on commands
to submit, but ignore the larger command of love, respect, and mutual
responsibilities in a marriage relationship. The command to submit also is
not a blanket command. Women should never submit to any man, only the one who
they are committed to in a marriage relationship.
Matters of considering the punishment of Eve, and pain in child birth are
made, totally ignoring the punishment that Adam faced, and the importance
role in salvation that a woman would play. A claim is made that there were no
women disciples, or no woman wrote a single book in the bible. It totally
ignores that most books were written anonymously, but two books in scriptures
have women as the main focus, Ruth and Esther. Both playing vital roles in
the future of the nation of God's chosen people, and the salvation of the
world, by being in the lineage of Jesus.
A total lack of mention of other important roles of women, even women in
roles of authority. Deborah was a prophet, women won the final blows in
battle, women were first to see the risen Jesus, the first to carry the
gospel message to restore Samaria to the kingdom was the woman at the well,
the first convert to Christianity outside Israel was a woman. Women taught
even the apostles to set them straight on the correct teaching of the gospel.
One thing that we didn't cover is that compared to the secular treatment of
women, that of the humannistic society of the world at the time, Christianity
and bible teachings put woman in more position of power and authority than
was common.
The author of the article goes on to claim that humanity clearly understands
that God is wrong, the bible is wrong, and it's obvious in the way humanity
rejects those teachings to put women in power. Women presidents, politicians,
teachers, and more. Women surely are capable, and when in positions of
authority should certainly be given all the respect due to them. However, the
clear statement is not that God is wrong, but that humanity is in rebellion
against his definition of gender roles. Both are equal in importance, but
clearly different. Can one gender pick up the authority and do the job just
as well? Yes, but not without certain trade offs, or added demands that
natural gender roles dictate.
On a basic, biological level, women have one role in the birth process, and
men have another. It is physically impossible for a man to carry a baby to
full term. Though he might feed, nurture, and raise a child once it's born, a
woman's personally is generally designed to do a better job of it. Can the
woman take up the labor the man has? Providing for the new family, earning
income, fighting battles of survival? Yes, single moms do it all the time.
But there's the trade off of... Who's raising the kids? School, day care,
other people who might not have the same nurture, ethic, or expectation of
the natural parent? The pride should be in trying to live by God's ideal, not
in rejecting or rebelling, just to show that we can.
We manage to get through the entire article, and scratch beneath the surface
at this sexist view point, to prove that the facts it claim,, and tries to
offer as prove aren't so clear after all. The logic that makes sense, only
does so by taking arguments out of context, misinterpreting what the other
side has to claim, and to a degree admitting to circular and suicidal logic.
If you feel that our claims are unfair, here's the chance to let us know.
Drop us a line by email, <http://podcast.heltsley.net/contact> leave a
comment in the show notes, use the voice mail number (401)753-4844, or how
ever you're comfortable. Different, and even opposing ideas are important to
hear about.
keith <http://podcast.heltsley.net/?author=2> | May 2, 2017 at 11:29 am |
URL: http://wp.me/p5uvFj-8I ;<http://wp.me/p5uvFj-8I>
Comment
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/#respond>
See all comments
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/#comments>
Unsubscribe
<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=4004def3c32f730b330d81bea76a3098&email=keith%40retro-otr.com&b=f%3FdS%7Cqrmh%5B7tBQ3D76%5Bp%5DPlnCUD.acW%7Ce%26Hike.su3%5Bia%3FvVdh>
to no longer receive posts from HPN.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions
<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=4004def3c32f730b330d81bea76a3098&email=keith%40retro-otr.com>.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/
<http://podcast.heltsley.net/2017/quest-for-truth-115-examining-myths-of-the-sexist-bible/>
