You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Jack Russell says:

    Is this an expression of your theory about the bible advocating favourism to men and condoning mistreatment of women at times?

  2. this has many layers of meaning i don’t wish to explain

  3. Jack Russell says:

    Ok fair enough.

    It’s your blog.

  4. Look… I don’t appreciate the way you say things sometimes. You put words in peoples’ mouths. And once someone says something you hang on to it and won’t let it go and often misconstrue it.

    The bible is sexist. PERIOD! It can’t be otherwise, written 2,000 years ago in a patriarchal society. Sure it was revolutionary for its time but not divorced from its time.

    So I don’t say, nor ever said, the bible condones mistreatment of women. It does, however, convey the oppression and marginalization of women of its day, even though it also points to their liberation.

    Plus… it does say “peace to men”, so I played with it to say “males”… which many would agree with… if not in theory, in practice. “anthropos” is “men”, and some would argue that it meant mankind or humanity, but some would argue otherwise.

    So I had fun with it.

    That’s it.

  5. Jack Russell says:


    I sorry that reading my comments has made you feel the way you do. If you have a specific instance to talk about the concerns you have raised then perhaps these could be resolved to your satisfaction by discussing it.

    Just a suggestion.

    On the issue of the bible – it’s debatable as to whether it is sexist or not. Yes it was written by men 2000 years and above ago in a different culture but that doesn’t mean that it supports patriarchal oppression any more than a book written by Germain Greer at the height of the feminist movement’s popularity is sexist and supports matriarchal oppression.

    But lets for arguments sake say that what you say is true about the bible being sexist. That would mean that anyone holding the bible to be authoritative is being sexist and therefore any church institution that does so is by it’s very nature socially conditioned to be patriarchal, oppressive to women and sexist. If anyone were to say something as vociferous, say about the Black Lives Matter movement or feminism imagine the outrage that would happen.

    When discussing “why sexual assault thrives in the church” you wrote “I don’t think the Bible always has to be misinterpreted to justify abuse. I think it sanctions it at times.” Now you say you have never said the bible condones mistreatment of women. I’m confused. Aren’t these opposites?

    The bible covers oppression and liberation of men, women, Jews, Gentiles, slave, and free. That’s the whole point, it’s about all and not favouring one over the other.

    I get it – you had fun. And fun with a punch conveying an opinion about sexism as an undercurrent to that. So it’s kinda answered my initial question.

    I can’t control any reaction to how I comment at any time so can’t be responsible for that. What I can take responsibility for is how I comment and I’m always open to learning, improving and putting things right if anyone has justifiable reason for complaint.

    If there is no justification for any complaint then that’s the complainant’s issue to deal with, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *