The Sexist Bible

By April 20, 2012Bible

It constantly amazes me how little Christians know about their holy book. Whether it’s faithful ignorance, wilful ignorance, or they simply choose to put on a brave face in the midst of adversity, you will never hear a fundamentalist Christian say that the Bible is anything less than the word of God.

Any honest, thinking person reading through the bible cannot ignore the blatant misogyny and barbarity towards women, but most Christians are bible illiterates – they only hear the palatable verses from the pulpit and blindly accept that the bible emanates goodness.

The simple fact is, it doesn’t. Certainly, when you go to church, all you will hear is the message of love. And sure, those verses are in the Bible, but so are a litany of examples of intolerance – sexism, racism, homophobia and cruelty – that reflect the Hebrew society of that time.

Which begs the question, why take your moral code from only parts of the Bible? If you don’t agree that wives should submit to their husbands, women should be silent and dress modestly, or that the pain of childbirth is punishment for Eve’s original sin, (let alone, all of the sexual abuse) why hold the Bible in such high esteem. Surely, there are more modern works that better reflect your own moral code? Or perhaps, just perhaps, you already know what’s right and wrong, and don’t need a book to tell you that at all…

Put your pre-conceived notions aside for a moment, and read through the following list. Whether there is a god or not, is the Bible really a book you want to take literally?


2:22 Eve created from Adam’s rib.
3:16 Eve cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.
4:19 Man marries two wives.
12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
19:26 Lot’s wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.
19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk.
20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife – again.
25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.


20:17 Wife as property.
21:4 Wife and children belong to master.
21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex. Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set “free” without payment of money.
22:18 Kill witches.


12:1-8 Childbirth unclean, Women need to make atonement after childbirth.
15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.
21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.
21:9 Burn daughters.
21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not “used” woman.


1:2 Census lists only men – women do not count.
5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
30:1-16 Woman’s vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.
12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.


20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.
22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.
22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim’s father compensated for depreciation of his property.
25:11-12 Cut woman’s hand for touching foe’s penis.
24:1-5 Man can “send” wife from HIS house. Man must not marry “used” woman.
28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed – eclectic “pro-life” verse!


5:30 Women are spoils of war.
14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.
21:21 Abducted girls for wives.


15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.
22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.
21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.


5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father’s concubines.
6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.


11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.


9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.


15:13 Put to death unbelievers.
11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.


CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting “bad” example to all other women.


51:5 Sinful since conception.
127:3 Sons are heritage from god.
137:9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.


CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
CH 7 More of the above.
6:24 As above.
31:3 Do not waste strength on women.


3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
4:4 Filthy women.
13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)


9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.
CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity…
CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters – reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren’t told this story at Sunday school!


13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another “pro-life” verse!)


3:4… wanton lust of a harlot… prostitution… witchcraft.
3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
3:13… Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)


5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.


2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.


11:2-10… Woman created for man.
14:34 Women must be silent in churches.


5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.


3:18 Wives submit to husbands.
3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.


2:11-15 Woman must not have authority – she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
5:9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints’ feet.


2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even masters who are harsh.
3:1 Wives submit.
3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.


CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
14:4…they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.

  • It is ridiculous. I was talking to two Christian friends of mine and they refused to believe such barbarism took place in the Bible. I asked have they read it and they of course said no. They refused to believe me because they have never heard those stories before. When I emailed them some verses, some of the very same you have above, they simply stated ‘That is in the Old Testament, I don’t believe in that’. It is an argument I have come across constantly, even after I bring up the NT passages which clearly state the laws of OT still stand. It is hypocrisy at its finest, but I find with moderates that they just want to believe in something, because thinking is too hard. That sounds a bit elitist I know but from the conversations I have had with many it is a common element.

    • Natalie

      I agree… So many are happy to follow a doctrine, no matter how insane or entirely void of common sense, in some pale effort to completely avoid taking personal responsibility.
      Slowly though I think a shift is coming. (Always the Optimist!)
      With access to information never shared with ‘common folk’ before and the way we interact now, the flaws (seemingly obvious to some) are being exposed for what they are & articles like this, so cleverly spelt out (and entertaining in the process), may encourage the veil of ignorance to start lifting and awareness in reality grow.

    • Being human

      When you debate Christians and they use the argument, “It’s in the Old Testament,” ask them this, “Do you follow the Ten Commandments?” Of course they’ll say yes, and the ten commandments are in the old testament. And of course Jesus said that he’s not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

  • Sadly, I think some fundies would take verses that command a woman to submit to their husbands literally. In fact, I have a premarital survey from one of those scary-big non-denominational evangelical churches that quotes the Ephesians verse and asks if the couple believes that to be true.

  • Elias

    A more ignorant and uninformed post I’ve never seen.

    I have much more to say on this, but here’s a start:

    > 2:22 Eve created from Adam’s rib.

    Why exactly is this a problem? Adam was made from “dust of the earth”, like the animals. Isn’t that equally as bad as a woman being created from a man’s rib?

    > 3:16 Eve cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.

    The pain of childbirth and the ‘domination’ of the husband were not curses caused by God, those were the result of the sin of the first human couple. All humans descend from them, thus we inherit their imperfections. God did not cause these, they brought it upon themselves.

    > 4:19 Man marries two wives.

    So what? If a newspaper reported on polygamy, does that mean the newspaper editors are sexist?

    > 12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.

    Where, in this account, does it say that Sarah had sex with anyone? Where does the word ‘prostitute’ appear? Abraham was protecting his life by saying she was his sister. He was obviously hoping that they would not do anything to her, and he was right. Also, just because Abraham acted this way, does not mean that God wanted him to do this. It also doesn’t mean that the actions of one Jew represent the actions of all Biblical Jews.

    > 19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.

    Again, just because Lot feels its best that the daughters be raped than the men, does not mean that everyone in the Bible is a sexist. The Bible is reporting on the actions of one man, who was obviously wrong for taking that view. Why does this make the entire Bible ‘misogynistic’?

    > 19:26 Lot’s wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.

    You’re making this statement as if no man in the Bible had ever been punished for disobedience. If I showed you 20 men in the Bible who died from disobedience, would that make the Bible non-sexist? Again, this is just a nonsense argument. If you want to make the argument that she didn’t deserve to die, then go ahead, but this has nothing to do with sexism.

    > 19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk.

    Again, what does this prove? If a newspaper article reported on incest, would that make the newspaper sexist and something to not take literally? I don’t understand what you’re trying to establish by pointing to this verse. And that’s besides the fact that, according to the passage, it’s the man that gets abused, not the women. So if anything, it’s sexist against men.

    > 20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife — again.

    You can’t read — again! Nowhere does it say that Abraham intended for her to have sex with anyone, nor does she actually have sex with anyone. But again, this is just a nonsense example because the actions of Abraham (one person among millions of Hebrews) does not necessarily reflect the entire population of Hebrew ancients.

    > 25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

    You still can’t read. Where does the word “ok” appear in here? If a newspaper reports on someone having concubines, does that mean the newspaper thinks it’s “ok” to be polygamous?

    > EXODUS
    > 20:17 Wife as property.

    Now it’s encouraging monogamy, and you still condemn it? Are you serious?

    > 21:4 Wife and children belong to master.

    The word “master” in Bible times does not have the same meaning as the word “master” does today. In those days, it was nothing but a title of respect, the same today as ‘sir’ or ‘mister’.

    > 21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex. Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set “free” without payment of money.

    In Bible times, slavery was not the same thing as we understand it today. Slavery was a legitimate business practice. It was like having a maid or housekeeper. But it was not common. In fact, it was a merciful arrangment because it allowed poverty-stricken families to make a living (See Leviticus 25:39). What would you rather do? Die of hunger with your family? Or become someone’s housekeeper? Don’t you think this is better than paying people ‘welfare’ to sit at home and do nothing? Slavery was not ‘slave labour’, it was legitimate work, and the slaves were actually considered part of the family of the slave owners (See Exodus 12:43, 44 and Lev. 22:10, 11).

    > 22:18 Kill witches.

    FYI – this is not just a woman dressed in a Halloween costume. This would be a woman who practiced the disugusting things mentioned at Deuteronomy 18:10. “Witches” in those days committed murder, and drank blood. They weren’t just wearing funny costumes and casting spells.

    > 12:1-8 Childbirth unclean, Women need to make atonement after childbirth.

    So what? The priests (all males) had to make atonement for themselves (Exodus 29:37) and everyone in Israel had to offer up sacrifices to atone for their uncleanness. Thus, “uncleanness” is not something limited to women. Why do you quote-mine so much without doing the proper research?

    > 15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.

    Again, how many passages talk about the uncleanness of men and the priesthood? Uncleanness is not limited to women in the Bible. You’re obviously quite ignorant.

    > 20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.

    Sorry to say this but it is a scientifically proven fact that if sex, throughout human history, was limited to marriage and only between heterosexual couples, there would be no STDs in existence. And if ever an STD came up, it would never spread to more than one family. You’re quick to judge the Bible for condemning sex outside of marriage, but are you also willing to condemn all the gay people who spread diseases through fornication?

    > 21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.

    It’s sexist to tell someone not to marry a prostitute? I don’t understand your reasoning. God wanted this specific group of people to only marry virgins. Why is that a problem? And even if it is a problem, why is it a “sexist” problem? What does that have to do with sexism?

    > 21:9 Burn daughters.

    Again, learn to read! It says that prostitutes should be burned. If you want to disagree with that, that’s your prerogative. But there is nothing sexist about burning someone that ruins families and spreads disease.

    > 21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not “used” woman.

    Again, why is this sexist? Is this sexist against the virgin he would eventually marry? Think about the clean women who have moral standards and self control. Why do you want to defend prostitutes?

    > 1:2 Census lists only men – women do not count.

    This does not say that women “do not count”. It says all the families and clans were counted, and the men were listed as the heads of each counted group. The census counted everyone, but probably to save time, it did not list all the names of every family member. If they listed only the women, then that would be sexist against the men, wouldn’t it? Again, this has nothing to do with sex, but is just a matter of convenience.

    > 5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
    Both women and men had to be faithful to their mates. Fornication was a sin against men too (Exodus 22:16, 17) and they were also warned against adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22-24) so it’s ridiculous, naive, and quite ignorant to claim that fidelity was only required of females.

    > 30:1-16 Woman’s vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.

    So the Bible encourages families to be in agreement. Yes, the man is the head of the family, but this doesn’t mean that the man will vow whatever he wants without consuluting the wife. You’re greatly misrepresenting what this implies.

    > 31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.

    The people they were told to kill were blood-drinking, fornicating, prostituting, diseased people who committed atrocious acts. Can you blame God for this? If you do, then you’re worse than a sexist.

    > 12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

    In Numbers chapter 16, three men were punished for speaking against Moses. Does this even things out for you? Or should we claim that the Bible is sexist against men, too?

    > 20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.

    Again, the enemies they fought were blood-drinking, fornicating pagans, who had stolen Israel’s land, and if you read verses 10-13 you’ll see that all enemies of Israel had the chance to make a peaceful treaty with them. This was only a last resort to get what rightfully belonged to them.

    > 22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.

    Because she lied about being a virgin! Why is that wrong? God was trying to protect the people from disease spread through fornication, and you think this is a bad thing?

    > 22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.

    Ridiculous. This is not a ‘rape victim’, this is someone who has consented to committing fornication and adultery.

    > 22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim’s father compensated for depreciation of his property.

    If this law was in effect today, nobody would ever commit rape. You don’t see that because you live in a liberal dream world. Again, this was also serving to protect the land from STDs which didn’t exist in those days. Coincidence?

    > 25:11-12 Cut woman’s hand for touching foe’s penis.

    This is not just “touching”, this is a woman who tries to violently attack a man’s penis.

    > 24:1-5 Man can “send” wife from HIS house. Man must not marry “used” woman.

    This was an allowance for divorce based on adultery. The fact that he wouldn’t take her back was just to keep clean again. All of this is for protection against disease, which you don’t seem to realize.

    > 28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed – eclectic “pro-life” verse!

    The “curse” was merely a prediction of what would happen from disobedience to his moral laws.

    > JUDGES
    > 5:30 Women are spoils of war.

    Would you rather they be killed?

    > 14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.

    Again, read it. It doesn’t say that Samson “gave” the wife, it just says that she went with another man. If anything, that’s sexist against men, because she left her husband.

    > 16:1 Samson visits prostitute.

    Again, you’re reading more into this than is necessary. It doesn’t say they had sex, but only that he met with her.

    > CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.

    A local newspaper reported on a gang rape the other day. Does that make the newspaper sexist?

    • ex-minister

      Elias defense of the inerrant bible is just one of a number of reasons I left the ministry and ultimately left Christianity. How can you not have cognitive dissonance when you have to justify biblical immorality. You have to re-define words and come up with the strangest explanations which are both non-biblical and unscientific.
      Refining slavery is plain silly. I have to know the answer to this question, if slavery was good at the time of the OT and the NT what century did it become a bad thing?
      Also, it kind of makes the story of the Exodus meaningless. Slavery was good for the Hebrews. Oh, the Egyptians were bad at it. Only the Hebrews were good at it? If so then why isn’t it ok for Christians and Jews to own slaves today? Economics? Oh, things are so much better today? All this twisting and turning was too much for me. It is a lot easier to say the simple fact that the bible was written by men and like any other piece of literature has some good and bad things in it. That makes a whole lot more sense than have to justify the oddity that is the bible.

      Elias please show the non-bias studies for this naked assertion.
      “scientifically proven fact that if sex, throughout human history, was limited to marriage and only between heterosexual couples, there would be no STDs in existence”

      Again for me it speaks of a crazy god who cannot be satisfied with punishing the one doing the crime, but all his children. If in a court of law today in the U.S. if a child was punished for his father’s crime there would be an outrage. God punishment-ray needs some serious adjustment.

      • Scott

        Well said.

        This article is an example of exactly what it deplores: “wilful ignorance.”

        I’d add to Numb. 1:2 in order to make a point that this is a list of soldiers. “v. 2…every male individually, 3 from twenty years old and above—all who are able to go to war in Israel.”

        That’s just one ex. of the misguided nature of this kind of anti-God, anti-woman mindset that doesn’t accept that women were valued in that culture that they DIDN’T go to war just as our own older military did before liberals and the anti-traditionals lied to women saying that they were excluded from war by misogyny when the truth is based on treating them as the ‘kinder, gentler’ sex that shouldn’t have to prove some physical equality with men to be treated equally.

    • Stump


      You are the biggest hypocrite. Vote for Romney? Sorry for the loss there, fella. I don’t have the time now, and frankly I know it would be a waste of energy for me to give you the assault you so deserve…but you should consider reading your post again. Not only are you a sexist: you are a racist, a homophobe, gotta mention imbecile-truly fits. Wow. Just read it-you’re a pissy little crybaby who has no idea why he’s a republican-judges everyone, and knows nothing about what he’s judging. Nascar fan too, I imagine. Go back to watching FOX News and get informed, you maggot.
      Hey! Sorry ex-minister. This was not meant for you…it’s in the right place now.

    • These people do not have true insight. They are totally confused and cannot see it. Thanks for this post, it is the right thing.

    • Deepak

      some of your replies do make sense. Could you please also clarify to me ” Why Christians abstain from going to other religious building like Temples, mosques and Gurdwaras ? Don;t you think this is a stupid thing to do ?

    • Stephen Lewis

      That was an excellent response.

    • jean

      Response to Elias::
      The fact that you would even defend the following passages are ludicrous, not to mention the fact that your arguments, or should i say INTERPRETATIONS are not even legitimate. Simply the fact that the bible says that a wife is property and that the man is the head of the household indicates some gap in gender equality. Whether or not this means that women are necessarily inferior according to the bible can still be argued, however these passages cannot be ignored. Besides the fact, how can you call yourself a Christian and say that prostitutes and homosexuals should be killed. Isn’t the root of Christ’s teachings to be loving and non-judgemental?

      There is also NO proof whatsoever to indicate that gays are exclusively responsible for stds. Your lack of proof is astonishing, and furthermore it’s disgusting that you’d make up such a blatant lie. More church propaganda I’d assume? If you want the facts, heres a great, factual website on the history of STDS
      And frankly as far as your last defense of women be considered spoils of war and your response “would your rather them be killed” (great argument by the way *sarcasm): Yes, as a WOMAN I’d rather be killed then raped/imprisoned/slaved.

      Here are the utterly ridiculous arguments you made::

      > EXODUS
      > 20:17 Wife as property.

      Now it’s encouraging monogamy, and you still condemn it? Are you serious?

      > 20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.

      Sorry to say this but it is a scientifically proven fact that if sex, throughout human history, was limited to marriage and only between heterosexual couples, there would be no STDs in existence. And if ever an STD came up, it would never spread to more than one family. You’re quick to judge the Bible for condemning sex outside of marriage, but are you also willing to condemn all the gay people who spread diseases through fornication?

      > 21:9 Burn daughters.

      Again, learn to read! It says that prostitutes should be burned. If you want to disagree with that, that’s your prerogative. But there is nothing sexist about burning someone that ruins families and spreads disease.

      > 22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.

      Ridiculous. This is not a ‘rape victim’, this is someone who has consented to committing fornication and adultery.

      > 22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim’s father compensated for depreciation of his property.

      If this law was in effect today, nobody would ever commit rape. You don’t see that because you live in a liberal dream world. Again, this was also serving to protect the land from STDs which didn’t exist in those days. Coincidence?

      > 25:11-12 Cut woman’s hand for touching foe’s penis.

      This is not just “touching”, this is a woman who tries to violently attack a man’s penis.

      > JUDGES
      > 5:30 Women are spoils of war.

      Would you rather they be killed?

    • Karley

      Did you known that not all women bleed their first time having sex? Which is probably the standard used to judge a virgin bride back in those days. That means innocent virgin brides were probably killed for the mere fact that they didn’t bleed on their wedding night. Too bad, so sad. There are a lot of things wrong with your post. All I can say is that Christians are suppose to act Christ like and Christ when he met a lady of 5 husbands did not condemn her but redeemed her and sent her to spread the good news.

    • natasha

      funny how you couldnt make a pathetic reply to all of them. what about Colossains 3:18?

    • Ryan

      Good to finally see someone actually look at the context of this thing. Thank you for going into detail about each verse mentioned. People think just because they read one verse it MUST mean that. They are ignorant, as they will think we are. But push on fellow believer! We are His servants, called to do His will!

    • Evan L

      I didn’t want to give a fuck about Christians bitching in the comment section, but I’m sorry, you have made me change my mind. YOU are the ignorant one. Please get out.

    • Sister Ulicia

      You are sick.

    • Kevin Schappert

      I don’t think burning anyone or cutting someone’s handoff is godly or what Jesus wants.

  • admin

    Wow, Elias – thanks for your point-by-point response. Your defence of your holy book is admirable, I guess… but terrifying at the same time.

    You’ve obviously skipped over my commentary and, sticking with the hardline in which you’ve been indoctrinated, gone straight on the defensive.

    The Bible is the moral compass for Christians around the world. Many Christians – perhaps yourself – take it literally, and that is truly terrifying for a civilised society. I cannot imagine living in a society where our morals and laws regress two thousand years.

    One of your standard responses is “If a newspaper reports [some misogynistic event] does that make the newspaper sexist?” Of course it doesn’t – a newspaper’s purpose is to report such events. The “Holy Bible” on the other hand is a philosophical work and millions of people live their lives around it’s teachings.

    In a similar vein, another is “Just because one person does [something my misogynistic] doesn’t make everyone in the bible is sexist.” You say that a number of times. The point of my article is not each individual account – which you’ve felt the need to defend – but the cumulative message: women are second class citizens in the bible.

    I’m not going to cherry pick your responses but it sounds like, in your ideal world, that sexual abuse, multination, and being burned alive are all appropriate punishments for women, and that men truly are dominant in every aspect of life.

    Well, I’m sorry, but that is not alright. We don’t live in the Bronze age any more. We don’t need “fear of god” to behave like a civilised society, but it appears there is no better justification for uncivilised behaviour…

    • Ryan

      Sadly, you are completely misreading what she is trying to say.. the Bible doesn’t condone to most of what you stated it did. I’m sure all of this would be confusing to you since there is A LOT of time that is needed to go into studying these things. A lot of this is, as Elias said, reporting the history of the beginning of time, with the history of Israel. God never said polygamy, rape, sexual abuse, using women as “property” was OK. If you would have read more in depth and gone to REAL commentaries (John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon etc) the men who committed this paid the consequences. As far as the submitting thing goes, I wouldn’t expect you to understand since you don’t seem to spend any amount of time in the actual context of things, but God does say to women to submit to their husbands, and for husbands to love their wives. Marriage is the representation of Christ and the Church. As you can read all over the New Testament. There’s honestly quite a bit to write, but I doubt any of this matters to you, since you have to have things to write AGAINST Christianity.

  • Elias

    Thank you for your thoughts, “admin”. I’m sorry if I came across as rude. Unfortunately, it’s sad to see someone speak so confidently about a subject they clearly know very little about. And I’m afraid I’m about to demonstrate that to an even higher degree here.

    You said:

    > The point of my article is not each individual account — which you’ve felt the need to defend — but the cumulative message: women are second class citizens in the bible.

    Firstly, it is absolutely essential that I defend each individual account. That is at the heart of the “point”. Why? Because if each individual account can be properly explained, using its context, and original historical intent, then your argument completely falls apart. I’ve responded to less than half of the Scriptures that you quote-mined, and it’s already clear to any honest observer that the Bible is not sexist.

    But lets go further. Let’s examine the last part of your statement, that “women are second class citizens in the bible”. Here are no less than 18 lines of evidence that are clearly contrary to your statement:

    1) According to Genesis, man’s fall into sin started with the woman’s sin. But even with this fact in mind, in Romans 5:12-14, the Bible writer says that it was through Adam that sin originated. If Bible writers were sexist, wouldn’t this be a good place to place the blame completely on the woman? Naturally. But this is not the case. Instead, repeatedly in the Bible, it’s Adam who is considered the originator of sin. (See also 1 Cor 15:22) Would a sexist writer say that the man is the root of sin, when in fact it was the woman who started it?

    2) In Genesis 21:8-13, Abraham is unhappy about something his wife has done. What does the writer report here? He reports that God told Abraham to “listen” to his wife. Would a sexist writer who thinks women are “second class citizens” write such a thing, making the man look foolish in this way?

    3) Read 1 Samuel chapter 25. Abigail is credited by the writer as displaying “good judgement” (vs 33) because she prevented David from killing Nabal and his entire household. So a woman is credited in the Bible as having prevented a war between families/tribes. Does this sound to you like a writer who treats women as “second class citizens”?

    4) In Malachi 2:14-16 men are warned not to be unfaithful to their wives, and not to divorce them. Divorcing a wife unjustly is viewed here as ‘doing violence’ to her. Does that sound to you like a writer who treats women as “second class citizens”?

    5) Read all of Proverbs 31. You cited a verse in your post completely out of context to show that Proverbs is sexist. What does Proverbs 31 actually say, however? In verse 10 it says that a good wife is ‘more valuable than rubies’. In the next few verses she’s shown to be a hard worker. In verse 16 she makes a business purchase (buying a field), something that might normally be done in those days by a man. In verse 20 she is pictured as providing for the poor. In verse 25 it says she has “strength and dignity”. In verse 26 it says she has “wisdom”. In verse 28, the husband is described as praising her. In verse 30 it says that her beauty is not what makes her valuable, so she is not looked at as just a sex object. Does any of this sound like the comments of a writer who is sexist, misogynistic, or treating women as “second class citizens”?

    6) As you pointed out, the book of Proverbs warns against prostitutes and other fornicating women (not just “any women” as you falsely represented). But it praises women who are wise, industrious, and capable: Proverbs 18:22; 12:4; 19:14; 14:1. Why would someone who views women as “second class citizens” put them on such a high pedestal?

    7) Ephesians 5:24 says that wives are to submit to their husbands. Is this a ticket to abuse on the part of the husband? No. The very next verse commands the husband to love his wife in the same way that Jesus loved the congregation — by dying for her. Yes, Christian husbands are required to be wiling to die for their wives, not abuse them or dominate them in any way.

    8) Further on this, in Ephesians 5:28-33, Christian husbands are commanded to love their wives as if the wives were ‘their own bodies’. Again, violence and abuse against wives is out of the question. And nowhere does the Bible say that women are to love their husbands as their own bodies, nor that women should die for their husbands, but instead verse 33 says that women ‘must respect’ their husbands. Why would a writer who viewed women as ‘second class citizens’ say such things?

    9) In 1 Timothy 5:1-2, Christians are told to treat older women and younger women with the same respect and dignity that ‘mothers’ and ‘sisters’ are treated. In other words, young women were not to be treated as sex objects, or abused. Does this sound like someone who treats women as ‘second class citizens’?

    10) How does the Bible view widows? Countless verses show that the Bible writers respected and wanted to protect widows: Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17-22; 26:12-13; 27:19; Psalm 146:9; Proverbs 15:25; Isaiah 1:23; Jeremiah 7:6; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:7; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5.

    11) In what light are widows portrayed in the Bible? Elijah, a prophet of God, is shown to have been fed by a widow when he needed it: 1 Kings 17:9. Jesus observed a poor widow giving a donation and singled her out as having given more than anyone else, even though everyone else technically gave larger donations (Mark 12:41-44).

    12) You pointed out that the Bible says that women are to be silent in churches. But in the Bible many women are shown to be ‘prophets’. Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3), Anna (Luke 2:36), Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), and many other women who ‘prophesied’ in Acts 2:17-18 and Joel 2:28-29.

    13) When Jesus was resurrected, who was the first eyewitness to notice the empty tomb and see Jesus alive? It was Mary Magdelene (John 20:1-17) and she was told by Jesus to go and report to the men what she had seen. If this Bible writer was sexist or discriminated against women, then why would he invent a story in which the first eyewitness report of Jesus’ resurrection was by a woman? And considering that in those days women were not customarily viewed as reliable eyewitnesses, the Bible is certainly not conforming to that sexist view.

    14) In Philippians 4:2-3, the writer considers two women to be ‘co-workers’ with him in spreading the Gospel. Does that sound like a writer who views these women as ‘second class citizens’?

    15) In Matthew 1:5, Rahab, who was formerly a prostitute, is credited as part of the lineage leading to the Messiah. Since these genealogical listings generally only had men listed, why did the writer feel the need to honor this former prostitute by mentioning her name in this way? Does this sound like a writer who is sexist towards women?

    16) In Acts 18:24-26, a man is shown to have religious zeal, but not quite accurately enough. To correct this, Priscilla and her husband Aquila teach this man about God more accurately. Why would a sexist writer include Priscilla in this equation, making it appear as if her husband couldn’t handle the teaching on his own?

    17) As I only have so much time, feel free to look up the following Bible characters: Dorcas, Hannah, Lydia, Mary, Phoebe, Rebekah, Ruth, and Naomi. All of these women are held in high regard by the Bible writers. Their stories contain lessons that are valuable for both men and women today. If the Bible writers viewed women as ‘second class citizens’ then why did they include so many examples of women who did good and deserved praise and respect?

    18) Finally, I’ve saved the best one for last. The book of Esther contains a narrative that is one of the most powerful stories (fictional or otherwise) that has ever been told in any book. In a nutshell, this Bible book tells us about a woman who risked her life and saved the entire nation of Israel from genocide. Even if this is a fictional account, how can anyone read the book of Esther and say that women in the Bible are viewed as ‘second class citizens’? Why on earth would a sexist/misogynistic writer portray a woman as saving an entire nation, and thus preserving the lineage that led to that nation’s Messiah?

    I’m sorry for the information overload here, but it really annoys me when people like you put forth arguments without doing proper research. Nobody in their right mind can read the passages I’ve cited above and say that the ‘cumulative message’ in the Bible is that women are ‘second class citizens’.

    • See, you are wasting your time. A true christian will never believe you.

    • Brian

      Only replying to this
      “”You pointed out that the Bible says that women are to be silent in churches. But in the Bible many women are shown to be ‘prophets’.””

      You do realize you just pointed out a big contradiction in the bible for everyone to see right?

    • ArWitch

      Elias: your god is born only as a male! this is sexism!
      read what thomas aquinas said about women:
      yeah, he was thinking about jesus,the great male.
      you own god, father in the sky, and male on earth in jesus’ body, is sexism and misoginous!

  • Zeke

    This is ridiculous. It’s like claiming a history book is racist for reporting on slavery. Its obvious you’re very ignorant. You cherry pick verses that talk about punishments for women as if there are no punishments for men. You twist words and say things like “the bible says men are dominant in every aspect of a woman’s life” while paying zero attention to what the bible actually means when it says all of these things. You ashamed of your ignorance. I’ve never seem someone try so hard and remain so willfully ignorant as you are here. There are a whole lot of good reasons to disbelieve, but citing every single verse where women are punished or even mentioned is not one.

    • Karley

      Except a history book doesn’t advocate lynching. While the bible commands its followers to perform such acts ad stoning, burning and raping of women.

      • Lucifer999

        A history book is a recounting of events that really happened, almost always with evidence and artifacts to back it up.

        The bible is a book of legends and fables, with NO evidence and NO artifacts to back up the key events.

        Furthermore, it was written by men to capture legends that had been passed down through generations over 100s of years. Primitive men with very little understanding of the world around them. They believed that their world was flat and that the Sun sank into the sea at night. Funny that god and jesus both failed to clue them in on things like that.

        Anyway, what rational person would believe that primitive men would be capable of passing down the legends that would become the stories in the bible hundreds of years later, without gross distortion and embellishment of anything that might have actually occurred? Remember, we’re talking about men, very primitive men. How can people live their lives and fight wars over such things?

  • Jason

    Kudos to you Elias. Very encouraging post showing how God loves us all, men and women. We may have different roles, as in fact we are different, but it holds true we’re all his children.

    • Karley

      Elias was advocating the murder of nonvirgen women. Ask yourself this how many female friends, relatives, coworkers do you have that were virgens on their wedding night? Now, would you want to see any of them stoned to death?

    • Being human

      You might be all his children, but some of his children(men) are higher than his other children(women). You just sugar coat the wives being submissive part. Women and men should be considered equal.

  • admin

    Christians, I know it’s very confronting to have these passages in the bible pointed out to you. But here’s the thing – I’m not just saying the bible is bad because it appears to be sexist, or racist, or homophobic, or violent. I’m saying that was the social norm at the time.

    The bible was written 2,000 years ago. And no matter your opinion on how it was written or what it represents, do you think society has moved forward some in the last 2,000 years? I do, and I’m thankful it has.

    • Pable

      Well think about flit this way if the Bible was written 2000 years ago how did the scribes know of something that they belived was 4000 years ago and before a written language was created

    • Mikhaila

      Yes. Society has moved forward. and I’m grateful for that. but the Bible is still , currently especially in countries where Roman Catholicism is the major religion, a crucial basis for some important political and socials decisions. and I think that needs to be changed.

      • troothinus

        In the US, we have bible-believing senators on public record saying if global warming is real, it’s completely God’s will, and if He brings and end to life on earth, so be it. (Imhofe, who I believe was chair of the senate science committee) Here, the fundamentalists are far for frightening, powerful, and an immediate threat to thinking people everywhere than the catholic church.

  • Jacinta

    It is sexist Im a christian and there is absolutely nothing to defend here. The bible is the cause of sexism in the world, i know of a rapist who claims he rapes women because they are 2nd class citizens and you should submit to him and they r inferior to him and that is what the bible told him. Further where in the bible did they punish non-virgin men or was told to stone them to death? Noone but it was done to women right? A female child born requires a woman to be cleaned twice why? A woman should marry her rapist? Is that not wickedness, men will always be quick to defend because they don’t know how all these feel like and women who support are self haters. In one passage I recall them saying if a man sleeps with his wife and doesn’t like it he can return her back to her father, is that a way to treat a human being like a property?. A man’s punishment in the bible was for his wife to be raped in broad day light, wait was it his wife who sinned or him? Why must be the one to under go such humiliation? Why he sits there and nothing happens to him or he can probaby go pick another female slave since someone els has gone unto his wife? There is nothing to defend that book is sexist. Women shouldn’t speak or have opinions and should be subvervient to men and that is not a role that is blantant sexism so if she has strong opinions on something so she will just sit down and watch just because she has a vagina?And saying Men should love their wives doesn’t change anything because they will love their children also, wudnt they? So love doesn’t promote equality and submission promotes inferiority. They make it sound like women are made for only for conception. The men in the bible (some) are animals and men who defend it as animals too and will act the same way in this 21st century if women had no rights. I can’t believe those men who were raised and cared for by a woman will treat them with such hatred oh I forgot they feel is women’s role to give birth and care. They r just properties.

    • Elizabeth Whitaker

      sexism or hatred of women is NOT because of The BIble. As you can clearly read in the Bible, for thousands of years women were treated this way. The Bible is documenting this. There are MANY cultures and nations who did not have The Bible in the last 6,000 years who have also treated women as objects. It was happening before the Bible was even written!

      • Jennifer

        Elizabeth, it’s one thing to report that something happened in history as a textbook would do. It is another thing entirely to pass it down as the word of God and an instruction for living (I mean, a be-this-way-or-burn-in-Hell instruction for living). It’s not accurate to say the Bible causes sexism, for the reasons you cited, but it is accurate to say that it provides a underlying foundation for it in modern times (I’m including the last couple of thousand years in that) that provides entitlement for it to entire societies even among those who are sexist but non-religious. I’m a Christian, and this is the number one thing that often brings me to blows with my faith. I would give nearly anything if it just were not in there. It disgusts me.

  • Elias

    Admin, the title of this post is “The Sexist Bible” and the very first sentence in the post says:

    > It constantly amazes me how little Christians know about their holy book

    Now, were you aware of those countless Bible verses that I cited that clearly show that the Bible is not sexist? If you didn’t know about those verses, then how can you accuse anyone of ‘not knowing their holy book’?

    And now, your last comment changes the whole point of the post into ‘well, back then people in general were sexist’. Whether that’s true or not is beside the point. You can’t prove that the Bible writers went along with the sexism of that time period because it simply is not in the Bible (aside from cherry picking a few verses and hoping people don’t actually look them up).

    I don’t really expect you to answer my last comment point by point. But I would like to know how you can think that a book that writes about a woman saving millions of people from genocide can be viewed as a ‘sexist’ book (#18 on m y list). Can you answer that question for me? If you want, post a retraction in the post, and state your new point about the progress of mankind, because your point about the Bible being sexist is simply unfounded.

    I’m sorry to be so blunt, but with a post like this, you’re asking for trouble if you haven’t done the correct research. I hope you’ll reconsider your statements here and post a retraction. After all, isn’t that the rational thing to do, in light of all the evidence I’ve presented? Can you, in good conscience, still say that the Bible is sexist after all of that?

  • S. L.

    The notion that it is not sexist to make a female rape victim marry her rapist is beyond belief to me. Ever been a rape victim? One would be better off stoned to death.

    • said Muhammed

      Ironically that is kind of the other option.

    • MTC

      There’s also the claim that it isn’t sexist for only men to be head pastors and church elders, as well as the leaders and final decision-makers in their households, just that God assigned different roles for our own good. I quote from, “sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles.” Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. *sarcasm*

  • Richard

    Interesting to note that the “Admin” didn’t respond to Elias. It really is a shame that some people try to over simplify Biblical text or indeed religion into being “sexist” or some other stereotype. Clearly such matters require seeing a much bigger picture that takes a great deal of effort to engage with.

    • admin

      Richard, Elias has just made it worse… I’ve highlighted some sexist sections of the bible where women are treated as second class citizens. Elias then points out sections where they are respected. Well? For such an infallible book, why all the contradictions?

      However, I’ve chosen to no longer engage with Elias, because how can you argue with someone who writes this kind of thing?

      > > Admin: 31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.

      > Elias: The people they were told to kill were blood-drinking, fornicating, prostituting, diseased people who committed atrocious acts. Can you blame God for this? If you do, then you’re worse than a sexist.

      Can I blame God for telling his followers to commit mass genocide, but keep the virgins for your own sexual pleasure, and servitude? Yes. Yes I can. Fuck that! Are you saying Christians should go around killing people for “fornicating” these days? If yes, I’m glad as hell you don’t know where I live. If no, then you prove my point – the bible was written in a different time, and it no longer relevant today.

      > Elias: But there is nothing sexist about burning [a prostitute] that ruins families and spreads disease.

      I’m worse than sexist? C’mon…

      • Stephen Lewis

        I agree with Troll. Elias has presented you with excellent points and it looks like you don’t know what to do:

        “But I would like to know how you can think that a book that writes about a woman saving millions of people from genocide can be viewed as a ‘sexist’ book (#18 on m y list).”

        It appears that his Bible knowledge is sharper than yours.

        • Being human

          But God still destroys the entire world in a flood. Such a nice guy. When will Christians realize that the Bible is just written by humans? Why do you discredit every other holy book while thinking yours is the right one?

    • Karley

      So women being burned or stoned for not being virgens while nonvirgen men get off without anything is not sexist or mysogynic?
      Do you have issues with women?

  • Troll


    I am going to have to give Elias the win here, despite his initial response to yiur post. I can undersramd why he responded in such an emotional way initially, but he took the time to calm down and present you evidence contrary to yur initial point.

    I am going to have to give you thumbs down for your inability to correctly respond to Elias’ evidence presented in his secondary response, and only reiterating his first emotional response. Also, a thumbs down for backtracking on what your purpose in posting this.


  • Troll

    Apparently, I can’t spell.

  • This admin is completely against christianity, why then should we argue. Oh!

  • Jessica

    Thank you for this wonderful compilation of quotes that helps me to understand the historical context of the patriarchal culture I was born into.

    Trying to navigate how to move forward. Very Helpful!! Keep up the good work, and don’t worry about silly comments.

  • It always amazes me when people who don’t believe in anything try to disprove what others believe. Kudos to Elias for breaking down The Word of GOD. Let be honest here. You didn’t post this because you felt that The Bible is sexist, but you did this post to disapprove of what The Bible says. If I don’t believe in ghost I would not spend my time acknowledging ghost. True be told you believe in GOD, but you simply just reject the fact that there is one. If you truly didn’t believe in GOD then this post would not exist.

    • Karley

      You agree with Elias that nonvirgen women should be killed? Perhaps you’re the sexist.

      • Ryan

        Really? C’mon.. You don’t even understand the Bible.. Dont try and interpret it…

    • The book of allbooks is the holly bible. All what the bible is telling us is true. It learn us lesson about God,about sinfull people and how God have punnished evel act and also how God have forgive sinners to by fait! You only hope you that are reading this message is believe what the bible is telling you about Jesus Christ.

    • Carole Marchel

      maybe if it weren’t so hypocritical, bigoted, sexist, and misogynist they would believe? And how do you know these non-believers are coming from a place of ignorance? Maybe they were once christian themselves and turned away from it. I know many such people. It’s not always out of ignorance that a person is a non-believer. Maybe it’s time for some people to put aside their own harsh judgments?

  • apologist


    Elias is spot on in his explanation and defense of the verses that you have taken out of context to prove your own ignorance of the Word of God. The Bible is a book of history, and many of the verses that you quoted where not commands of God, but practices by sinful people. There are many commands of God to men to reverence women.

    I’m not going to try to explain the verses that you have taken out of context because Elias already did that and you completely ignored his response. Then you get hateful toward him, because he successfully defended the Word of God by your blatant attack.

    You ask if it is still relevant today, as a believer I will say yes. Since God is the same Yesterday, today and tomorrow, then the Bible to is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago.

    I know you will ignore this even as you disrespect Elias and ignored his excellent response, but I do want you to know that there are millions who disagree with you. There are millions who actually read and understand the context of the verses you clearly do not.

    • Karley

      Do you read ancient Hebrew or Latin? So you’re reading a translated piece of literature… that could of been changed countless times. Yes, you clearly understand the original word of god.

    • Being human

      If God is the same as he was yesterday, then that makes the Old Testament just as relevant, which is pretty disgusting is if you ask me. Christians always say how atheists take things out of context, which we don’t. Tell me, how are we supposed to know what is taken literally, what’s supposed to be a parable, or what’s supposed to be just stories? Who gets to decide these things? There are thousands of Christian denominations. Why can’t Christians figure out what the word of God is supposed to mean?

  • Laura Hansen

    Bravo, bravo, now what is your point of this?
    Telling all Christians that they should take the Bible less serious? Telling all Christians how they should live there lives? Honestly, who are you to involve in other peoples affairs?

    In addition, ‘Christians’ is a diverse group. There are plenty of Christians who have read the Bible and plenty who do recognize the issues with the above verses, as well as there are plenty who believe in above verses and plenty of ‘Christian’ who have never touched the Bible… and? Did the bother you?

    • admin

      > Honestly, who are you to involve in other peoples affairs?

      That’s a very good question. Because, honestly, it’s usually Christians telling everyone how to live their lives… “Abortions are a sin”, “Gay marriage is a sin”, in fact “Homosexuality is a sin”… do you get it yet? Do you understand the hypocrisy of your position? You can play the “I’m being oppressed for my beliefs” card all you like, but it’s your team who are doing the oppressing – we simply point out the ridiculousness of your beliefs, and how they really aren’t relevant – or necessary – in this day and age.

      • Karley

        I love how these “Christians” click into an article that is blatantly against their “beliefs” and then become enraged. Like hello, did you miss the title?

        And then they treat you as if you’re not suppose to have an opinion. Keep your delusions Christians, the bible is full of verses that speak down on women. The only reason you guys cannot accept it, is because it would be admitting that your holy script has flaws.

        Yet, I bet if these versus were from the Quran, you guys would be agreeing and amening your hearts out.

        • Ryan

          Except the quran was written AFTER the Bible..? Good job mate..

          • Being human

            So, what’s your point? Doesn’t make the Bible any less sexist. It doesn’t make the Christian God any less evil.

    • Being human

      We have a problem with Christians living their lives because they try to force their beliefs onto others. Christians are against Euthanasia, abortion, birth control, stem cell research, just because they believe their holy book tells them to believe these things. The worst part is, their religious beliefs are influencing laws in our society. That’s why we try to show others are dangerous of a belief Christianity is. Not to mention the more extreme issues of believing in something without evidence, like 9/11 and all of the holy wars that have started because of religion. All religion is dangerous and the world needs to realize it.

  • current Pastor

    I enjoyed this blog and will be using some similar arguments in a sermon I am preparing. Obviously, the administrator and Elias have staked out two “camps” on opposing sides with neither one willing to concede any ground to the other. I applaud Elias for mostly making his case with civility and in a “Christian” manner – with the exception of calling the administrator “ignorant.” I wish I could say the same to the administrator. Nobody wins arguments with name calling and resorting to coarse expressions and words – even in the “heat” of a discussion.

    The problem with the Bible, as I see it, is that it is contradictory. Is it entirely sexist? No. Indeed, I often commend Jesus for his treatment of women and his concern for their condition. Such was unheard of in his paternalistic culture. And, there are numerous accounts of women in the Bible who were not only well respected but acted as leaders and models of wisdom and compassion (just as Elias points out).

    However, there are numerous passages in the Bible which, as the administrator pointed out in the original blog, are clearly sexist. Anyone who wants to contort their minds and their hearts to believe the entire Bible is pure with regard to upholding the dignity and rights of women are free to do so. But their opinions are not shared by the vast majority of scholars, Biblical experts and many faithful Jews and Christians. Such sexist verses reflect the values and culture of the time. Ancient cultures described in the Bible were highly paternalistic and male-centric. It should not be a surprise that writings from those times are equally paternalistic. We cannot, therefore, use the Bible, with any consistent reliability, as a statement on human rights, much less women’s rights, in today’s culture.

    The Bible was written by many different authors at many different times. It is logical that it would contain many inconsistencies and errors. I ask my congregation that we take it seriously but not literally. Sadly, as many Bible experts point out, one must sort a lot of allegory and myth in the Bible to find universal and timeless wisdom that still applies today. Yes, some may wish to literally apply centuries old stories and religious laws to our present culture, but that is their personal choice. In a plural, scientific and modern society, the Bible has no place other than as a document of limited historical and philosophical value.

    Such are my thoughts on this subject. Call me whatever you will for my beliefs. I honor your right to believe as you wish but not to impose them on our society. People of all faiths must learn the humility of holding their beliefs as matters of personal choice and not as absolute truths others must also follow. I choose, as much as I possibly can, to discuss any matter with respect and love towards others – acting in the manner of Jesus. May we speak and conduct ourselves toward one another with love.

    • nao

      Thanks #current Pastor. Your attitude is refreshing. Perhaps if the Christians I have known had been a bit more like you then I would still want to be involved in Christianity. As it is, so many are extremely judging and want to constantly pound on certain commandments, while ignoring others, like loving your neighbor and not coveting.

    • Helmuth the Elder

      At the risk of sounding crass, I’m astonished a “Pastor” has even commented here and with a shockingly soft stance, no less.

      What are you even doing here? Your comment is beneath, and boasts as many up-votes as, a comment advocating piling bibles in “huge piles” and torching them “with gasoline.” Meanwhile, you’ve written off vast swaths of a book, you’re tasked to advocate, as hyperbole because it’s not fair.

      What’s more frightening is how due to either ignorance or carelessness you didn’t even bother putting any of the verses, all or which were presented out of context, back into context. I suppose while we’re at it, we should probably disregard Ephesians 5:22-33 as well, since it instructs wives to submit to their own husbands.

      Even verses such as Matthew 5:32 (also presented ridiculously out of context) boasts the “universal and timeless wisdom that still applies today” you alluded to, e.g. Would it shock you to discover that upwards of 70% of the divorces in the Western world are filed by women? It’s no wonder why Churches are empty and continue to empty, one needs to look no further than the leadership.

      • Jennifer

        It would shock me that 70% of divorces initiated by women provides you with an opportunity to judge women, and how they’re apparently getting out of line and not submitting to their own husbands, but it leads you to draw no conclusion as to what kind of husbands 70% of all men being divorced chose to be. Women who are in love, carrying only their share of child-rearing responsibilities and no more, and who are married to men who don’t take it for granted that they have the right of submission and therefore are obligated to zero effort toward the relationship and respecting their wives’ individual selves, do not divorce their husbands. Women who are unhappy or even abused in some way for a significant period of time file for divorce. Few people get married hoping to do anything but stay married. If it happens, there’s a reason, and the reason is never just on one partner.

        • Helmuth the Elder

          How is stating the obvious a judgement? The truth is not everything is about you and marriage is most definitely NOT dictated by your level of “happiness.” Your response is indicative of the puerile mindset of Western women. A vast majority of you view marriage as a business with you as CEO, executive and shareholder with your husbands as the “proletariat” who make it go. Marriage revolves around YOU, YOUR feelings and worst of all YOUR childish whims; There is very little, if any, reciprocation on the part of a woman to male sacrifice.

          Women go on with a set of beliefs about the world and a set of expectations that are literally rooted in another century sans the sense of duty or accountability that was once expected of them. Your ideas and expectations haven’t changed because nobody ever asked you to change. Meanwhile, you can remain clueless, self-absorbed children and expect men to fall all over themselves to give you everything you want, precisely because it’s always been expected of them.

          Whether you like it or not, the bible was right about women and how men should treat women. I hate to say it but America is a good example of what happens when women are ungoverned. Our society has shown the rest of the world that, if given enough incentive, women will break their vows and destroy their families.

          • Jennifer

            You, sir, are a keeper.

            I really can’t possibly imagine what to say to your obvious hatred of any woman with a mind or a soul. I think you’re angry because you feel less than, and it’s easier for you to cast the crippling self doubt outward than to look at how you might evolve personally.

            The good news for you (and women) is that if you really feel like this, you don’t actually need a woman because you don’t particularly like them. Problem solved, I suppose.

          • Helmuth the Elder

            The irony of your response is that I do great with women and was raised the only boy in a family of women, whom I love and care for deeply. So, my personal experience with women has been more than favorable but only because I understand how they think.

            It seems that men get into trouble when they expect women to be men. Which they will never be, despite what Feminists may tell you. Women will never be as rational, logical, selfless or fair and that’s fine with me. I prefer them as they are. Women can be extremely enjoyable and no one else will drag a man’s children around in their bellies for nine months at a stretch, so I’m very appreciative of that. However, that doesn’t mean that women aren’t severely limited and self-interested creatures, as you also apparently are.

    • Elizabeth Whitaker

      Paternalistic? Not paternalistic, read again those scriptures. They are MISOGYNISTIC!

  • I don’t support book burning, but the Bible *is* one book I wouldn’t stand in the way of being piled up in huge piles and torched with gasoline. The Bible is just so full of absolute garbage and stupidity, and it spreads this stupidity amongst the stupid. How can anybody in this day and age believe in such absolute crap. Talking burning bushes, living in the belly of whales underwater, women coming from the rib of a man instead of another woman’s womb, people made out of dirt, one of every creature put on some boat to repopulate the world without horrible genetic inbreeding… and on and on and on.. does the list of stupid shit in the Bible ever end?

    And it has to be one of the most hateful sexist religions in the world. Remember those Witchhunts? That burned all those women? Not done by Islam (though I wouldn’t put it past them, they are worse than Christians…) but done by… Christians. All based upon a bunch of baloney. First slander women, then based on that slander you can do anything you want to her, including torture and burning her alive.

    No, as an anarchist an atheist, I actively fight fundamentalist religions. Because they don’t leave other people alone. They are violent and aggressive and brutally stupid. I have a right to be left alone, and I have a right to not participate, and so do all other people, and you Christians need to take your stupid idiot belief system and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. You’re god does not exist. He doesn’t. He never has and he never will.

    Face the facts. Judaism and Christianity were rubbish beliefs by some illiterate wandering desert tribe of disposessed people (bums), who made up a bunch of rubbish answers to explain a harsh and violent world around them, because they didn’t have a better explanation like science and common sense provide us with. “God did this” and “God did that” because “God willed it that way” is no kind of answer at all… it tells us nothing for an explanation about how the world actually works and stifles even inquiry into the matter. Look around you… motor cars, airplanes, plastics, computers, the internet, electricity, everything about your modern world was brought to you because people realized… this is shit is stupid… and started asking real questions about how the world really worked.

    Knowledge wins, and let stupidity fail and be forgotten. God didn’t do anything. We did it. Inside a hard and brutal universe, on a tough little planet, over thousands of years, because we shared our knowledge, insights, and inventions with each other.

    • Ryan

      Whats sad is, there are many scientist who believe in the Bible without any error. Yes they look at the facts, how the world reacts and works. Yet they still believe the Bible, and even say it SUPPORTS the Biblical arguments. Interesting isn’t it?

      • Mikhaila

        even if it’s extremely problematic like what was indicated above. The problem is people don’t usually read the /darker/ and more cruel side of the Bibile and yet they claim that it is the ultimate guide to happiness etcetera

      • susannunes

        That is because religion and science are two separate disciplines, and many scientists see NO conflict at all. Atheists can be mindbogglingly stupid because they think they have all of the answers and pervert the reason for scientific inquiry.

    • susannunes

      You think you are smart, but you really are not. You do not know there is no god and are way stupider than the most fanatical fundamentalist. You are apparently so stupid you don’t see that the examples you mention are largely allegories and folktales. You make the same mistake as the fundies.

  • Lynn

    I am an atheist. I was raised conservative Christian and deconverted as a young adult. I abhor fundamentalism. It personally caused me great harm on numerous levels. The sexism in my childhood culture (I am a woman) directly wreaked havoc in my life and caused great hurt.

    And I think your post is way off base, and just as devoid of umderstanding as the fundamentalist interpretations. In fact, you ironically make the same mistakes the fundamentalists do: 1. Taking the Bible too literally. 2. Reading it through the lenses of your own cultural context. 3. Divorcing verses from their context. 4. Focusing on details rather than themes.

    There is no doubt ancient Hebrew and early New Testament Jewish culture was misogynistic, sexist, patriarchal. It shows up everywhere in the Bible.

    Furthermore, there is no doubt the Bible contradicts itself in places. It is absolutely not inerrant.

    But does this mean the God in the Bible and the Jesus in the Bible are sexist?


    I have just completed a cover to cover reading. I wanted to do this now, as an atheist, to try to process my own experience growing up in conservative evangelical culture. And as a literature geek, I wanted to see how I’d like or dislike it read through literary lenses, which I now have as an atheist adult, rather than through the lenses of moralism and fear and judgment, which I had as a child, during all my childhood and adolescent readings.

    I was prepared to hate the Bible. As I started reading, on balance, I did hate it. As I continued, on balance, I still hated it.

    And then… I stopped hating it.

    The more I read and the more the whole picture came into focus, the more I liked the book. The more I dug into the cultural context and secular scholarship as I read, the more I saw YHWH and Jesus bucking the norms of a sexist society. (Societies.)

    I’m still an atheist. I haven’t converted, because I still can’t believe in a personified god.

    But as a woman, an atheist, a literature major, a critical thinker, a believer in human rights, and a book lover… I have to say… I have grown to love the Bible. When read the way it’s supposed to be read–and not as a how-to manual or history text book or science book–it’s really quite interesting and in many ways beautiful. And ironically enough, part of what makes it beautiful to me is how often YHWH and Jesus champion the people on the margins of society, and in particular women!

    My two cents.

    • Miip

      The jesus character is a myth as well as YHWH.

      Truth be Known

      Truth Be Known

    • Jim

      “When read the way it’s supposed to be read”

      I’m curious about how one decides how the Bible is “supposed” to be read. It seems to me that everyone who makes such a claim usually is reading it in a way that supports whatever it is that they want to believe.

    • Mikhaila

      I agree, the Bible is an interesting book/ literature even though most people view it as boring because it’s connected to some problematic religion/ faith/ belief.

    • bampros

      Illuminating, insightful comments. Unfortunately too many people take the bible too seriously or cherry pick versus to justify horrible behavior or oppressive laws. And as long as there are people like that in the world, there must be others who speak out against it. It would be nice if more people had the capacity to understand the Bible in a larger, cultural and literary context like you do.

    • Kevin Schappert

      Yes…..Jesus resembles nothing of Old Testament attitudes….he, in fact, challenges them….his new commandment says it all…fundamentalists are either misguided God lovers or just plain bullies. I attattended a church for several years in which I began to feel bullied and left.

  • wow…

    The bible was written thousands of years ago, so obviously it cannot be used when

    justifying things that our 21st-centery-society considers as immoral such as sexism,

    racism, homophobia, slavery, and etc.

    I respect all christians and their beliefs, but I am not going to sit back and watch some

    fundamentalist priests quote sexist verses that may have been valid thousands of

    years ago when men had control over women and treated them as their property.

    This is 2013 and women are not men’s property nor second class citizens, so bible

    verses that tell women to keep quiet and submit to their husbands cannot be

    accepted into today’s society.

  • Radsie

    I’m gonna throw my two cents in here-

    There are people who take the bible WAY too literally. Not just the christian bible, but every major religion. Women are portrayed as property throughout history. It’s just a fact. Religion (of all kinds) has bolstered that “belief” if you will. In today’s society, the bible is used selectively as a weapon with it’s bearers hiding behind a blanket of, “Oh but this is the word of our loving and merciful God! He loves all of us!” With the exception of you, you, you, you, you, and you. I don’t believe Admin needs to defend himself or stave off Elias’ accusations because the bible today is a tool of perception. People pick and chose out of it what they want to see and follow and ditch the rest. It’s just a fact. I can understand why he was so heated by the article but I’d love to see him have to sacrifice his son just because God told him to.

    • troothinus

      Women are certainly portrayed oppressed with inequality throughout christian history. The adam and eve fable pretty much ensures it.

  • Tom

    Since it is the 21st century, it is hard to believe that people are still foolish enough to be bring up issues such as this. If men and women can together, I am sure they can accomplish far better things then just men alone. So why are they still believing bullshit like this?

  • Unknown

    You make a good point, but argue it very agressively. and you have been proven wrong in your bible quotes.
    I agrre with you though.

  • Andrea

    I was a member of a very fundamentalist church. As a child my family never went to church, but my mother said I could go to play with the other children, which I did. When I was 9 years old I heard the minister speak about his life and the downward spiral it took. He taught Jesus words and how these living words salvaged him from where he was headed and the all encompassing devastation this would have. I have from the bible, not a straight through read, but here and there. For me, Jesus words mean life, life abundant and life everlasting.
    Years later, I started going to a Church of Christ. I was welcomed sure enough with open arms. As time would tell and my search for spiritual enlightenment and well being, I began to notice inconsistencies among with their doctrine. They used God and Jesus in sermons, but in hindsight to dictate others behavior. I was told that “Every single word in the bible is inspired by God and is not to be debated.” Now, my mother told me along time ago to question everything which I have done and still do. There is much to be said about “MY” enlightenment, but I will disclose only a small faction of it here. I have several bibles, some very very old others not so old and others new. The wording is different in all of them so I began to think how a message can be told to a person at the beginning of the line and passed down to several other people until the last person and the message be completely different, so I began to understand that the same has happened with the bible from the first one until the one we have today. This had a great impact on my faith as I considered that people pick out and put in what they deem important and may tinker with meanings to sway people to the way they think according their time and place in history. In Genesis the very first words are, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. and the earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the “waters”. And God said, “Let there be light” : and there was light. OK in the very first part it states that God moved upon the face of the “waters”, How could there be water if it had not been created yet, and, who was there to record that God, “said” let there be light and there was light? Who? Since no one had been created yet, who was there to note that down?
    Adam and Eve. Aren’t those English names? Adam was created first, and Eve came from one of his ribs to be a companion to the man. Who was there to see this happen? And why do males have nipples? They can’t feed babies with them so I began to wonder who was created first. Cane and Abel. Cane slew able and God heard Abel’s blood cry up to “him”. God spoke with Cane asking where is “thy” brother, and Cane’s reply, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God new that Cane slew able because Cane was jealous that Abel’s sacrifice was more pleasing to God than Cane’s was (why it that so) so God sent Cane out in the world with a mark on his head so that “others” would not see him as a murderer and kill him. So Cane left and “married”. OK, since Adam and Eve were the first people and Cane and Abel were their first offspring, who was Cane afraid of that he would be murdered and who did he marry? And, who was there to record that this even happened? Tower of Babel, since all language was distorted who was there to record that this happened? The animals go in two by two, two by two, two by two. Noah’s ark. (OK ya’ll figure this one out).
    I began to realize that the majority of the Old Testament was Hebrew folk lore, Jewish mysticism and what not thrown into the kettle.
    OK, about the lineage of Jesus. As was the custom and still is today (we marry and gain the male’s last name) they counted male lineage but not female. The relevance of this to Jesus birth is beyond me, but here it is. They counted all the generations from Abraham down to Jesus per the male lineage. But Jesus was born of a virgin (Mary) so Joseph’s sperm had nothing to do with it. Mary’s ova did, she came from the lineage of David (why this matters is beyond me).
    I believe in Jesus. The words of Jesus have salvaged “MY” life from misery, heartache and destruction, and set me on a happy path.
    In the Church of Christ women are in no way shape or form to minister to males and our roles were to simply cook, smile, look pretty, clean and be SILENT according to what Peter and a few others had to say about this subject. Hmmm. Also, no musical instruments were allowed, only A Capella singing. From week to week it was the same worship service only the songs were rearranged. Also paying tithes. Isn’t that Old Testament which the Church of Christ does not supposed to hold dear, and stating that giving 10% of our income is giving back to God, although God does not need our money, so be a cheerful giver. Why not just say it how it is> We are still paying mortgage on this building, also the minister and the staff here need to be paid (and very well paid they are) and all the other goodies that come along with being here. Here is a run down of the church expenditures, so please give what you can.
    I was with some of the women at a lunch. I am not like them and they know it, so when it came down to speaking, it was only social niceties that were exchange and no real meaty conversations. These women were discussing the choice of the associate minister that the church was looking for to hire. They had gone through many candidates but were unsuccessful as of that time. One woman stated,” if we could only find one who knew and abided by “our” traditions, that would be the one.” Something about that struck me and I opened the bible right to Matthew 15 what Jesus said to the teachers of the law who were griping at him about the behavior of the disciples. Isiah was right when he spoke about you, You honor me with your lips but your hearts are far from me. By following your “traditions” you are only following man made rules. When I pointed this out to them, they were pissed all pissed at me. I found out they had a tendency to Gossip and make assumptions about others that are way off the mark.

    I have rattled on about this long enough. The one thing that I must stress here, is that Jesus was a real person, and that the words of Jesus are living words that heal, and salvage the lost, blind and corrupted mind of those who believe. People tend to take this power and attempt to twist it around to control other people and have every since humans took their first steps. My last word on this is, I believe in Jesus, but I do not believe what others tell me about Jesus, or what Jesus means because they are only telling me from their skewed point of reference. I don’t preach to others, but if someone asks me why I am so happy and well, I will tell that like it is. In this life, I am a beggar who will tell other beggars where the bread is, should they ask. Oh, the bible also states that if all the teachings and sayings of Jesus were to be written down and put in libraries, the whole world would not be able to hold them. I have found other books ie: “The Gospel of Mary” “The Nag Hammadi Scriptures” , “The Gospel of Thomas” etc.

  • Jonathon Brownback

    So, what moral absolutes have these verses violated, Mr Atheist?

  • Dan S.

    Do not cast pearls before swine, case and point ^

  • Charlie Ducey

    So glad someone who is so well-read in the Bible was able to cherry pick passages without historical or canonical context to demonstrate how out-of-touch it is with 21st century Western sensibilities. Let’s play a game: pick any 2500+ year old text and see how it holds up to modern values. Then take a look at Matthew 1:5-19 (The Beatitudes) and see how cultural values 2000 years hence are based on those metanorms, metanorms which Sam Harris called “a part of the Bible worth keeping.” Then take a look at the Victoria Secret Fashion Show and the young girls’ responding to it on Twitter and ask yourself how much American society is respecting women for their abilities and contributions to society.

  • ArWitch

    some ideas about women taken from saint thomas aquinas, the most famous doctor of the catholic churc…

    the christian god is a misoginous god: he is born only as male, with a penis, (real god and real man, this is how jesus is called by his theologians…) and chose to born only as male, for the first and last time: he is not born as woman, too. so, in christian theology, their god is born only like a male, with penis… and no female body.

    jesus, the male god who did not choose born as woman too, prayed a god-the-father in the sky. another masculine idea of god…
    On earth, god jesus with a penis.
    on heaven, god the father, never called as Mother or Goddess.
    that’s disgusting. that’s a disgusting cult of the phallus.
    the penis, seeing as attribute of god himself.
    this is christianity. the cult of the god the male, in heaven, and walking on earth with the body of jesus.
    Luckily, I’m Pagan. so, I don’t need jesus the male god and his disgusting god the father. I don’t need this couple of penis.

  • Alma Miranda

    One must see beyond the obvious to notice what is going on here. In a world full of bloody sacrifices, blood posed a must coveted energy. Women had access directly to that blood due to menses. Men could not have that. So, the vilification and abuse of women ensued. It is a pity a book entitled Misión de Sangre by Johannes Abbas does not an English translation. It is an eye opener. And by the way, the Bible is not a book but a collection of manuscripts put together by men who decided a canon much to their political convenience. Too much was left out of it.

  • Brianne Haddow

    Elias’ response I think was excellent. For those moaning about it, I think we have to remember that he is only making points against sexism, not saying that the real reasons for things are amazingly perfect – just arguing against sexism.

    We also should remember that yes, there was a huge gap in gender equality at that time, but why does that mean the Bible is sexist? Just because it documents the goings on doesn’t mean it’s saying we have to do those things ourselves.

  • OneOfThem

    I don’t mind seeing real, noteworthy criticism. But from what you have posted I am absolutely certain that you have never read the Bible a day in your life. What you post here is evident that you are a typical critic. You go to the Bible with your mind already made up and everything you read only satisfies your presupposition. What you are left with, in your mind, is confirmation that you were right all along. I will not back any Christian who is out of line, but note, not everyone who sways the banner of Christianity is really a Christian. Hitler pulled the religious card and got a whole nation to execute millions of Jews. Plantations owners pull the religious card to enslave Africans, and you are here using your ignorance of what’s in the Bible malign it and those who truly observe what the Bible really says.

    I am just curious, but I picked a couple of your references to ask:

    1.How exactly did Abraham prostitute his wife?
    2. Why did Paul say women should be silent in the church?
    3. In 1 Peter why were slaves told to submit to their masters?
    4. By the way, show me where God approved of Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines?

    I would love to hear what you have to say. In fact, pick any other from your list that you want to throw in.


    On of Them

  • Joe Knowles

    Wow. So much back-and-forth about a collection of fairy tales. There are thousands of gods being worshipped today – good thing the xtians have the “right” one, eh?

  • Ltp

    Was it Adam and Steve no,it was Adam and Eve Male and Female Not Male and Male or Female and Female?..Ok?

  • Dee

    Hmmm ok, you seem to be taking a pro choice skew of things, judging by your side points. Which is completely contradictory. Women now have abortions because they have been brainwashed for thousands of years into believing their natural bodily functions are evil, dirty and burdensome, as you have clearly demonstrated.

    By accepting abortion we are accepting the patriarchal religious view that women are defective men who need fixing.

    Abortion is a symptom of misogyny, not a cure.

  • Little Al

    Lot was the 1st “Date Rape” victim listed in the Old Testament; Tamar (daughter of King David) was probably the 2nd. Lot was a righteous man (see 2 Peter 2:7) – he was drugged by his own daughters – beware of the abuse of Alcohol!

  • Anonymous

    Only two sentence in and you’ve already said something stupid. You state that “you will never hear a fundamentalist Christian say that the Bible is anything less than the word of God.” No s**t. That’s the defenition of what a fundamentalist is. I’m pretty sure you added “fundamentalist”, because you knew that not all Christians take the bible literaly.

  • Ben

    Oh boy, another rant from a Richard Dawkins cultist who’d sooner eat his own foot than admit the atheists got it wrong big time with Stalinist Russia. For someone who belongs to a class of human beings that love to mock and humiliate rather than educate and enlighten, you need to start heeding your own advice and grow up.

  • Mila Rad

    Ephesians 5. Lord, have mercy. This was not in the old testament. And so obviously manipulative. To think that women ran things, and well, in civilizations predating both Bibles. Nice try, Ephesians.