Bible: Women are Inferior

by JosephAlward 38 Replies latest jw friends

  • mouthy

    If you care to examine scripture -It was to WOMEN Jesus came back to First........Also scripture tell ME-to listen to NO man at all. If you were loving your wife as yourself.What a wonderful place marriage would be. I didnt read all Alward stuff. I dont believe he is Christian( sorry to be judgemental) I think he wants to "stir it a bit" between male & female- since in Christ there is neither male or female- I will listen to the master .He said HE loves me.

    He also says he has no favorites.....!!!!! Hey bud He is the TRUTH ,WAY,LIFE.........

  • JosephAlward

    "[H]ow much of what Paul wrote was infected with his opinion and NOT labeled as such? No way of knowing is there? Better to disregard all that except for what you know to be true, like 'God is Love.' I wouldn't argue that one."

    JOE ALWARD responds:

    I agree with your view that Paul was just expressing his opinion, Francois, but this opens the door for speculation about the "views" of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, too. Were they just expressing their opinions about what might have happened after Jesus was crucified, but just did not bother to tell us that? Does the resurrection perhaps exist only in the imaginations of these writers? After all, not one of them states explicitly that they were there at the crucifixion, nor do any of them state that he met with Jesus after the resurrection. So, if God did not inspire Paul's statements and thus infallibly true, then perhaps the same is true of all of the statements by the gospel writers, so we can't trust any of the stories to be true.

    Now, I do not want it to seem like I'm picking on you, because you made a good point about Paul's opinions, but I'm not so sure that one can make an air-tight case that the Bible-writers were describing a "loving" God. They seem to describe many more examples of his cruelty than his love. Here are some examples:

    God Ordered the Suckling Babes Be Killed

    Samuel was elder statesman to Saul, the King of Israel. In the first days of Saul's reign, he told Saul that the Lord wanted the Amalekites--who hundreds of years earlier had been in conflict with Israel--destroyed utterly. Here are the words of Samuel:

    The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. ( 1 Samuel 15:1-3 )

    If Samuel is correct, God urged the slaughter of suckling babes--infants feeding at the breasts of their mother. Which is more likely? That Samuel was told by the Lord to have Saul murder infants and sucklings, or Samuel was mistaken about what the Lord wanted, or perhaps he was just expressing his opinion about what God wanted? Thomas Paine expressed well his objection to Samuel's story in a letter from Paris to a Christian friend in 1797:

    "What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus 18 ...had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death"

    More Innocent Deaths in Other Books

    God-ordered acts of supreme cruelty toward children are described in several other books of the Old Testament, including Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Hosea. Here they are:


    According to Moses, who is said to have written Genesis, a disappointed God deliberately drowned every living creature on the earth, including man, pregnant woman, child, and innocent suckling babe--except Noah and his family:

    And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth....and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth...And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. ( Genesis 6:5-7 , Genesis 7:4 , Genesis 7:21 ).

    What had the babies done to deserve being killed? Or the unborn? Why didn't God give them the chance to please God and be spared? Which is more likely? That this Genesis account is just the opinion of the Bible writer about a flood and what caused it, or it is God-inspired account of something that God actually said?


    If the stories in Deuteronomy are true, then a jealous God ordered the swords down onto the suckling because its parents worshiped other gods: " They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God...I will spend mine arrows upon them....The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs."( Deuteronomy 32:21-25 ).

    Why did the suckling babes have to be killed? Which is more likely? That the Deuteronomy author was just expressing his opinion about what God might have said, or that God actually said this?


    The priest-prophet Ezekiel tells of the following pitiless order from an angry Lord: "And the Lord said unto him, Go through...the midst of Jerusalem, and... smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women..." ( Ezekiel 9:4-6 )

    It gets worse.


    The prophet Hosea, who pointed to the rottenness and faithlessness in Israel as the cause of its unhealth, gave this description of a punishment from the Lord brought down on a rebellious people: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." ( Hosea 13:16 )

    If Hosea's god existed, then one can only hope that Hosea misunderstood him. If the words of these prophets are untrue--either because they misunderstood God's words, or deliberately or carelessly misspoke, then there are important falsehoods in the Bible. The readers thus have two choices: believing in a heartless, horrific, jealous god who murders suckling babes, or accepting the fact that the Bible writers were mistaken.

    Now, where are the examples of God loving man that are powerful enough to offset the many egregious examples of God's apparent cruelty (if you can believe the Bible writers)? True believers often point to the "fact" that God gave up his only begotten son so that we might be "saved," but how great a sacrifice was that, really, for either God or Jesus? Jesus apparently had about thirty years to walk the earth, then for less than three days he was in his tomb, but he knew all along that he would rise rule with God in heaven for an eternity. Who among us would trade three days for an eternity as a god?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"

    Edited by - JosephAlward on 16 October 2002 14:28:50

  • Silverleaf

    SYN, you're misunderstanding me. You wrote:

    Holy crap!! Are you for real?

    Hope I don't ever meet you in Field Service! You seem pretty nasty! Nearly as bad as the Dubs, in fact. You only want to destroy fully half of the human race, but they want to destroy 99.9% of it...well I guess it's true what they say, you get all kinds of people on discussion boards...

    First off, I was never a JW - so no worries about meeting me in field service. Second I don't WANT to do any such thing and I never said that I did, so please relax. I'm trying to say that through scientific means, IF something happened to the male population the female population has the medical technology at hand to repopulate and if all the males disappeared, it stands to reason that perhaps the remaining females would institute a matriarchal society - it's been examined in science fiction a number of times as someone mentioned. IF on the other hand all the females disappeared, the remaining males would have a much harder time repopulating because they would have to find a way to create an artificial womb which as far as I know does not have an existing prototype yet. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be a lot more difficult for the men since the technology already exists for the women to reproduce by themselves.

    Sorry if I upset you. I was speaking philosophically, not literally.

    Silverleaf -

    and yes, you DO get all kinds on these discussion boards

  • funkyderek


    With no men around, how would the women open the jars storing the sperm

  • JosephMalik

    Here is the evidence that the Bible writers believed that God thought women were inferior and wanted them to be kept in a position of subservience:

    Woman Belongs to the Man, Who Is the Glory of God

    "I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.....For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:2-9) "For a the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
    (1 Corinthians 11:2-9)


    I thought that women would carry this thread since this matter was discussed on this board before several times but I guess not. Most of this is covered in the Document Beyond Watchtower Doctrine or and my wifes Synopsis of the Bible found on my web page. To keep things short and to the point I will deal with this one statement.

    There is a difference between Paul teaching something and his quoting a teaching sent to him and believed at the time among the Corinthians and Jewish Christians in other places for that matter. Would Paul agree with them or would he refute them?

    But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. Every man that prays or prophesies having something on this head shames his head; but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a [woman] with a shaved head. For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is Gods image and glory; but the woman is mans glory. For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels. [1 Corinthians 11:3-10, NWT]

    Notice that 1 Corinthians 11:3. Yes, verses 3, and this is an often misused verse, through 10 are a Corinthian doctrine (ignore paragraph at verse 7). Paul will refute this doctrine in verses 11 thru 16. This was not his view and he would not agree with them. Verse 1 and 2 are also part of this Corinthian doctrine for we know that Paul did not want anyone belonging to or following him (1 Cor 1:12) as this divides the faith. Paul in these verses is still refuting material the Corinthians sent him, as mentioned at 1 Corinthians 7:1. He quotes from it or refers to it as he does here. His response to their argument is.

    :11 Judge for YOUR own selves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray uncovered to God? (Before the congregation, of course, as this is the context). Does not nature itself teach YOU that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? Because her hair is given her instead (notice this) of a headdress.

    So, she does not need a head covering as the Corinthians demanded. Furthermore, men and women were equal in the Faith. For just as the woman is out of the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are out of God (vs 12). This argument by Paul also refutes the Corinthians statement made in verse 3 as to who is head over who.

    The problem for many is the way that Paul writes. It is his use of sharp contrasts and the seeming lack of transitional phrases that we need today to keep thoughts separated for us.

    Translators put in I where They would be more appropriate as Paul quotes from or explains the work of others. In this way simple words are used to force doctrine that Paul tried to stop. Instead of jumping to conclusions we should attempt to understand Pauls method of writing and we should learn more about him, his responsibility in the Faith, his acceptance of women prophets (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:3), and his constant war against apostasy (Acts 15:1-35 21:13-28) such as this.

    This is what he did as an apostle and it took only a few verses from verse 11 to support women in the faith. Far less than it took to explain it here.


    Edited by - JosephMalik on 16 October 2002 18:11:7

  • Silverleaf

    Funkyderek writes:

    With no men around, how would the women open the jars storing the sperm

    Darn, I didn't think of that. Looks like we're doomed after all.


  • czarofmischief

    For the dude who is denying the resurrection:

    It is very easy to categorically deny eyewitness accounts - you can mess with anyone who has seen anything. So the accounts mean nothing on their own. The real proof, I have found, in the resurrection is that by praying to Jehovah God thru Jesus, I have developed a relationship with Him. Does not the Psalmist urge us to test God out and see that he is good? So it doesn't even matter if the resurrection really happened or not! Or whether Jehovah is a Trinity, a leader of a polytheistic Olympus, or a pot-smoking Rastafarian. The point is He will let you believe what you need to believe in order to serve him.

    And to accuse him of killing the innocent? So what? Babies die every day. Good people die every day. A whole bunch of people in Iraq are going to die, and most of them don't "deserve" it. Get off your high horse - if God wants to kill any one of us, guess what? Not a damn thing we could do! I support invading Iraq, although I know that it will result in killing many babies. So what if God ordered a strike of similar proportions on Amalek?

    The point is - God is the boss. If we have faith, he has promised to make it all right in the long run.

    As for all the people who are leaping to the glorification of women - I think Paul was just harassed. I think the thorn in his flesh was some crazy woman!


  • SYN

    OK, Silverleaf. It was just the tone of your post that got me all riled up!

    If anything, I think you'd find that most of the men on this site actively advocate and are helping to improve the rights of a very specific group of women, all around the world. Who are these women whose lives we're trying to improve? Simple:


    There are roughly 3 million of them. Most of them have no choice but to follow the iron rule of the men in their Congregations. It's almost as bad as Afghanistan, only more subtle! I'm sure you know all about the ridiculous, degrading "Bible Based (TM)" laws that the Tower exhorts women to follow, and rigidly enforces. The rape rules. The molestation guidelines. The men-are-superiour-to-women drivel.

    All of that must end, and by the very virtue of being Apostates and going up against this sick Society, a lot of the men here are doing a great service to the women who are indentured in Dubland against their will.

    You see, the worst imprisonment of all is the imprisonment which you truly in your heart believe to be freedom.

    And that is what we are trying to help these women from. A major part of my own personal "awakening" from the Tower was the way that the women were treated. They were treated like so much dirt, and that isn't right, and it got my blood boiling. It still does. Men and women should be equals, treated equally.

    Remember, if there is a war between the sexes, there will be no people left.

    PS. Just a quick comment on your post. If there were no women, men would just clone a women and let her mature sufficiently until she had a functional womb. No need to create an artificial one. Besides, us guys wouldn't be able to live without a nice warm LADY to curl up next to every night!

  • Silverleaf

    Hi SYN,

    to quote you: And that is what we are trying to help these women from. A major part of my own personal "awakening" from the Tower was the way that the women were treated. They were treated like so much dirt, and that isn't right, and it got my blood boiling. It still does. Men and women should be equals, treated equally.

    I absolutely agree, and one of the reasons I joined this board and I keep coming here is for the chance to help someone who may be going through what I went through with my experiences with JWs. I saw the inequality first hand, not to mention the emotional blackmail, the arrogance and the cruelty that was dished out to women and men who were looking for spiritual security and basically ended up in a psychological prison.

    I've always applauded Simon for his efforts here and if our ranting, bickering or just plain discussions can help someone see the truth about the "Truth" it will be worth it.

    Blessed be,


Share this