Gender Bias ???

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You really don't see it do you? Frankly Robbie, you have surprised me. I know that that faith stuff tends to muddy your cerebral waters, but if you honestly can't see the gender bias that abounds throughout your scripture and through pretty much every biblically-based religion, well, I see no further entertainment to be gained from trying to point it ...[text shortened]... egative quality to your scripture and faith - maybe that would be the crack in the dam, eh?

Tragic to see such an eloquent and erudite poster like yourself reduced to fishing around the murky waters of motive. You have no comment i take it upon the verses which clearly extol the feminine virtues, why is that? does it undermine the case for gender bias? My dear old thing, that there are events and attitudes recorded in scripture which demonstrate on the part of certain individuals a bias is no reason for attributing the same to the God of the Bible, perhaps this fundamental detail escaped your notice in your ardour to call into question the validity of the sacred text. Indeed the sources that you cited were themselves reduced to sensationalising, in a profane manner, the sacred text. No bias my china cup!

Holy blade of grass, everything Holy😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Tragic to see such an eloquent and erudite poster like yourself reduced to fishing around the murky waters of motive. You have no comment i take it upon the verses which clearly extol the feminine virtues, why is that? does it undermine the case for gender bias? My dear old thing, that there are events and attitudes recorded in scripture which dem ...[text shortened]... rofane manner, the sacred text. No bias my china cup!

Holy blade of grass, everything Holy😵

Well, you know what Robbie, I looked up your first reference in the King James -

Psalm 68:11-13
King James Version (KJV)

11The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

12Kings of armies did flee apace: and she that tarried at home divided the spoil.

13Though ye have lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold.

Then I looked at the 'Darby' translation. Pretty much the same. Then the American Standard version, then a couple of other versions, all, again the same. Then I read up a few respected and published interpretations of the Psalm to get a feel for the various views on it. I'm sure you must have a greater familiarity with these sources than I, so I guess you must be aware of what's being said there and if so know that it ain't what you're making it say. And then I looked at the list of jobs that Proverb 31 was 'awarding' the the ideal wife and I just laughed. I mean, good effort and all, but come on - can you really not see it?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Absolutely. I once read an article titled "Androgyny-the ideal for human development" back in my school days. The idea was to blend the positive qualities of both sexes. To a certain extent that "ideal" has been realized. A real testament to the effects of behavior modification foisted on the general population by such agencies as Hollywood and the liber ...[text shortened]... g to sew, that would just mean cultural androgyny and the end of gender all together!

🙄

Shallow and superficial.

The point is that there are differences between the sexes. Do you wear dresses and put on makeup? You do if you're a woman. But the culture has been defiled by those who believe we should be "tolerant" of people's predilections toward aberrant behavior, and accepting of corruptible conduct.

If one takes a stand for righteousness(rightness), in today's culture, that one is the one that is corrupted. 🙄

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Originally posted by josephw
Shallow and superficial.

The point is that there are differences between the sexes. Do you wear dresses and put on makeup? You do if you're a woman. But the culture has been defiled by those who believe we should be "tolerant" of people's predilections toward aberrant behavior, and accepting of corruptible conduct.

If one takes a stand for righteousnes ...[text shortened]... arkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

The point is that there are differences between the sexes. Do you wear dresses and put on makeup? You do if you're a woman. But the culture has been defiled by those who believe we should be "tolerant" of people's predilections toward aberrant behavior, and accepting of corruptible conduct.

Well, you are very naive if you think that there is something inherently feminine about dresses. In many cultures, the dress may be worn by men without any compromise of their masculinity. Consider, for example, monks of various religions whose garb is very similar to a dress. What you consider feminine is very likely just a result of gender norms in your culture. You confuse stereotype with substance.

Now even if men were to begin wearing dresses (or, more likely nowadays, women start wearing trousers), how does that mean that the differences between men and women are being blurred? It just means that how a given culture expresses those differences is changing. There need not be any covert liberal agenda behind it at all.

Originally posted by vistesd
The key word here is "largely". There are also feminine descriptions. The issue, for me anyway, is not that god has been so gendered (and in ways that have marginalized women's place in the religion(s)), but whether or not god must be so gendered by Judaism and Christianity--e.g. to maintain integrity with the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, a ...[text shortened]... ad, from a Jewish perspective, might be Judith Plaskow's Standing Again at Sinai.[/b]

The key word here is "largely". There are also feminine descriptions. The issue, for me anyway, is not that god has been so gendered (and in ways that have marginalized women's place in the religion(s)), but whether or not god must be so gendered by Judaism and Christianity--e.g. to maintain integrity with the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, and the NT. The answer of Judaism (though remember that Judaism is not so doctrinally bound, generally, as at least some expressions of Christianity--largely because of the range of application, and ongoing development, of the Oral Torah)--the answer of Judaism is generally: "No."

I agree and I am troubled how missionary Christians might convey the apparent biblical masculinity of God to a culture which has very different norms for masculinity. I would think that the only solutions would be either to enculturate them with a Western notion of masculinity or simply understand the biblical gendering of God as simply metaphorical that needs to be repackaged for different cultures.

Or even of gendered nouns/names, such as Yah (or Eloah). How much can the hertitage of the patriarchal views (Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza would say "kyriarchal" ) be relieved. A good read, from a Jewish perspective, might be Judith Plaskow's Standing Again at Sinai.

Thank you, shall investigate once I have time!

Originally posted by Conrau K

I agree and I am troubled how missionary Christians might convey the apparent biblical masculinity of God to a culture which has very different norms for masculinity. I would think that the only solutions would be either to enculturate them with a Western notion of masculinity or simply understand the biblical gendering of God as simply metaphorical that needs to be repackaged for different cultures.

I object to changing any part of the Holy Bible. It does not need to be
repackaged for different cultures. It is just fine the way it is.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I object to changing any part of the Holy Bible. It does not need to be
repackaged for different cultures. It is just fine the way it is.

Hasn't your bible already been "repackaged"?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I object to changing any part of the Holy Bible. It does not need to be
repackaged for different cultures. It is just fine the way it is.

That's not what I said. What I am saying is that certain culture-specific features of the bible may need to be explained differently to a different culture. Perhaps it would be better to say that language rather than ideas needs to be repackaged. Gender is not the only example. How is Jesus' statement 'feed my lambs' meaningful to a culture which has no pastoral work nor understands the significance the relationship of shepherd to flock? Wouldn't it better for missionaries to utilise practical examples from the indigenous culture?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The point is that there are differences between the sexes. Do you wear dresses and put on makeup? You do if you're a woman. But the culture has been defiled by those who believe we should be "tolerant" of people's predilections toward aberrant behavior, and accepting of corruptible conduct.

Well, you are very naive if you think that there is somet ...[text shortened]... those differences is changing. There need not be any covert liberal agenda behind it at all.[/b]

I don't know what your problem is Conrau, but men and women are different in case you haven't noticed. Even the Apostle Paul wrote that men shouldn't wear women's clothing.

But I think you completely missed the point of my original post in reply to robbie's opening post. Or maybe you didn't and you have issues.

Originally posted by josephw
I don't know what your problem is Conrau, but men and women are different in case you haven't noticed. Even the Apostle Paul wrote that men shouldn't wear women's clothing.

But I think you completely missed the point of my original post in reply to robbie's opening post. Or maybe you didn't and you have issues.

Well, there are obvious biological differences between men and women. I do not dispute that. I am even prepared to accept that men and women are genetically predisposed to different behaviours. Some gender stereotypes may un fact have a biological origin. What I do not accept is that there is something essential about the way a culture chooses to articulate gender. Maybe in our culture men do not wear dresses but that does not mean that 'being man means not wearing a dress'. That's just nonsense.

Whatever your argument with Robbie is, I don't care. The fact is that both of you narrowly conceive of gender. You cannot imagine the possibility of a man wearing eye-liner without compromising his masculinity -- if a man does so, he must be androgynous. It couldn't possibly just be that he thinks eye-liner looks cool irrespective of whether women wear it too. I just do not understand this narrow-mindedness.

By the way, I think Paul actually discussed whether a man should have long hair or a woman short hair. Now if you really believe Paul, you have to explain why in many cultures, men do have long hair and this is not regarded as effeminate at all. You have to explain what is essentially masculine about short hair which means that any woman in any culture must never cut her hair short.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The key word here is "largely". There are also feminine descriptions. The issue, for me anyway, is not that god has been so gendered (and in ways that have marginalized women's place in the religion(s)), but whether or not god must be so gendered by Judaism and Christianity--e.g. to maintain integrity with the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, a ...[text shortened]... 's Standing Again at Sinai.

Thank you, shall investigate once I have time![/b]

I just to make one final aside: when I thought of this after my post, I also recalled our discussion with bbarr in which you articulated an eloquent and cogent case for not all scriptural language being propositional language, but poetic—and what bbarr once called “elicitive”—language. I would generally argue that most religious language properly falls under such a category, and should not be taken as propositional. I sometimes think it is a “modernistic” knee-jerk response to assume that all language—and, here, gender terms—is propositional and hence god is: male. I fall into that trap, too, from time to time—and maybe did here.

Be well, old friend.

Originally posted by vistesd
I just to make one final aside: when I thought of this after my post, I also recalled our discussion with bbarr in which you articulated an eloquent and cogent case for not all scriptural language being propositional language, but poetic—and what bbarr once called “elicitive”—language. I would generally argue that most religious language properly falls und ...[text shortened]... male. I fall into that trap, too, from time to time—and maybe did here.

Be well, old friend.

I sometimes think it is a “modernistic” knee-jerk response to assume that all language—and, here, gender terms—is propositional and hence god is: male. I fall into that trap, too, from time to time—and maybe did here.

Yes, I agree. In the Patristic period, for example, God's nature was fundamentally ineffable. God's gender was simply analogical (we might say elicitive though!) and at times God's nature might be described as feminine (the 'womb of being', I believe is the expression). It is good advice (which you yourself were a good instructor on) to be cautious about pinning down language to proposition.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I sometimes think it is a “modernistic” knee-jerk response to assume that all language—and, here, gender terms—is propositional and hence god is: male. I fall into that trap, too, from time to time—and maybe did here.

Yes, I agree. In the Patristic period, for example, God's nature was fundamentally ineffable. God's gender was simply analogical ...[text shortened]... rself were a good instructor on) to be cautious about pinning down language to proposition.[/b]

Another “final” word: your comments here on the Patristic tradition, reminded me also of something on the (miaphysite) Syriac tradition:

“Throughout the history of Western Christianity almost all the major theological writers have sought to articulate their arguments and beliefs through the medium of prose. For many early Syrian theologians, however, as most clearly articulated by Ephrem, a prose-based, philosophical approach to theology, which sought to pin down religious truth, by nature multilayered, and to circumscribe divinity by the philosophical formulae and definitions so beloved of the Greek-speaking theologians, not only represented arrogance beyond belief but was ultimately futile. . . . For Ephrem, . . . this divine self-revelation takes the form of symbols and types that are omnipresent in Scripture and in the natural world, and the most fruitful medium for engaging in this in this analogical theology is poetry, because only poetry, with its multivalent images and its ability to communicate differently to each reader on each reading, was capable of hinting at the divine realities without imposing the rigidity and contrived artificiality of so much philosophical theology. . . . Not surprisingly, then, for some six centuries many of the greatest Syrian theologians chose to write theology by means of poetry.”

—David G. K. Taylor, “The Syriac Tradition”, in The First Christian Theologians, edited by G.R. Evans (bold mine).