Creation based Gender equality in the Quran and the Bible

[jessehove]

I would argue that both the Quran and the Bible see the original creation of men and woman as equal companions to one another. Here is a good comparative analysis of how this plays out scripturally:

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2013 ... quran.html

Can this be a foundational element for ecumenical conversation between Muslims and Christians? Particularly for women who share in the falsity of a male dominated world in both Christianity and Islam.

-Jesse

[Divine Insight]

I personally feel that it's truly sad that people continue to cling to religions that they need to argue over in terms of what these religions even claim.

If you have to argue over what the "Word of God" even has to say, then how clear can it possibly be?

Also, I personally do not support male-chauvinism. But the story of Adam and Eve is hard to argue with.

I'm not certain of what the Qur'an has to say in this regard but the Bible makes it pretty clear that Eve is to be ruled over by her husband.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

It states in no uncertain terms that God has commanded that the man shall rule over the woman. And Adam and Eve are generally taken to be representative of mankind in general. So it's an easy interpretation to proclaim that this applies to all men and women and all marriages.

Like I say, I'm not supporting male-chauvinism. On the contrary I renounce these ancient fables as being totally absurd and having nothing to do with the commandments or directives of any God.

My question to you is why bother to cling to these ancient God myths if all you're going to do is attempt to argue against what they say?

Why not just reject these ancient myths altogether as having no more merit than Greek Mythology and move forward to higher moral ground?

You don't need to become an atheist to do this. There are many other spiritual philosophies and religions throughout the world that do not proclaim that God supports or has commanded male-chauvinism.

Why "argue" with scriptures in an attempt to perpetuate them?

If you have have to "argue" with the supposed "Word of God" in order to support it as a viable religion, how can you even begin to stand behind an idea that it's even remotely clear on what it claims God even wants from mankind?

These Abrahamic religions are so ambiguous and self-contradicting that, IMHO, it's genuinely impossible for anyone to point to them as having any "clarity" at all.

What good is any religion that is supposed to be the "Word of God", if all it amounts to is nothing more than people arguing over how that supposed "Word" should be interpreted?

If it's that ambiguous and unclear, then it's ultimately worthless.

Whether God supports male-chauvinism or not becomes nothing more than arguments of interpretations.

And how can you even begin to argue with Genesis 3:16?

It states pretty clearly "and he shall rule over thee".

You'd have to argue that this has nothing to do with mankind in general but only applies to Adam and Eve specifically?

That's going to be a hard argument to sell. In fact, if you could sell that argument then you could argue further that the whole "Fall from Grace" scenario shouldn't be applied to all of mankind in general. But then you'd be pulling the rug out from under the entire foundational principle of Islam and especially Christianity.

Like I say. Why even bother arguing over these religions? If you have to argue over a the meaning of "God's Word" then how could you then claim that "God's Word" has any absolute meaning? The whole religion reduces to individual opinions (which of course is precisely what has happened to all the Abrahamic religions without exception)

They are indeed ambiguous and self-inconsistent.

On that point, I will agree.

[jessehove]

The problem here is that you are interpreting this from a modern literalist perspective. Genesis 3:16 needs to be understood as a cause of the fall. This was not the original intention of creation. The original intention of woman was that she be a helper toward man in a similar (but obviously different way) that God is a helper to us (Genesis 2:18; same hebrew word used for God as helper in (Ps 10:14; 54:4; 22:11.)

And Man is to cling to her (Genesis 2:24). With the fall of man this good dynamic becomes tainted and patriarchy takes over. Scripture is never to be read as God's rule book solely, but as a meta-narrative in God's great redemption plan.

You suggest that this makes things to convoluted and we should just do away with it all. But I do not want a scripture that has perfectly defined moral principles. Because this is not the way the world is, and it is not how God chooses to work. He chooses to become human, he chooses to get dirty, get tempted, get killed, for our own sake, for our own freedom. This is a God who tells us who he is, and calls us to reflect his purpose for our lives in a large scale way, not as a patronizing dictator, but as one who allows us our freedom and creativity to discover what it means for us to be in him as individuals and community. This might makes things "convoluted" in your eyes, but not in mine.

[Divine Insight]

This might makes things "convoluted" in your eyes, but not in mine.

But that's all that's important.

Ultimately I don't care what you personally believe about this region. It doesn't matter to me whether you personally believe in it or not. That's a totally moot point.

I address the fact that this is a highly accusatory religion, as well as being a highly evangelistic and proselytizing religion. Not only by its followers, but within the original scriptures themselves which is where the followers get these kind of arrogant ideas about this religion.

Paul claims that men are without excuse for not believing in this religion. I say hogwash, there are more than sufficient and sound reasons to reject this religion as being highly contradictory and utterly absurd.

In fact, you've brought up another absurdly contradictory point which I'll address shortly.

You suggest that this makes things to convoluted and we should just do away with it all.

Absolutely. I totally disagree with your conclusion that Eve is merely supposed to be Adam's helpmate and that should give him the right to "rule over her".

To begin with in Genesis 3:16, this is being delved out to Eve as a punishment.

Also, there are far more realistic and practical reasons to suggest that these patriarchal myths have everything precisely backwards from how they should naturally be.

Why would a creator create a Man first and then a Woman as a helpmate?

What would the man have needed help with?

Adam was basically useless. He couldn't procreate or give birth. So what would have his purpose been? He wouldn't have any meaningful goal, and therefore no need for any help.

The woman, on the other hand, is the child-bearer. She could potentially procreate and therefore have a meaningful goal and responsibility to raise children. Thus it makes sense that she would need a helpmate. Someone to tend to the garden and be sure there's always food on the table whilst she raises her children.

These Hebrew fables have it exactly backwards from what could have potentially made some sort of sense.

If you were a creator, you wouldn't create a useless man first, and then as an afterthought create a child-bearing woman to be his helpmate.

That doesn't even remotely make any kind of sense at all.

But I do not want a scripture that has perfectly defined moral principles. Because this is not the way the world is, and it is not how God chooses to work. He chooses to become human, he chooses to get dirty, get tempted, get killed, for our own sake, for our own freedom. This is a God who tells us who he is, and calls us to reflect his purpose for our lives in a large scale way, not as a patronizing dictator, but as one who allows us our freedom and creativity to discover what it means for us to be in him as individuals and community.

I highlighted in red in your above post what I personally feel is utter nonsense.

If Jesus was indeed God incarnate, then how could he possibly be tempted to sin?

Sin is by definition that which God hates and disapproves of.

If Jesus was God, why would he be tempted to do things that he hates and disapproves of?

Was Jesus tempted to become a homosexual?

Was Jesus tempted to rape a woman?

Was Jesus even tempted to have sex with Mary Madelene? And if so, why didn't he just ask her to marry him? Then it would have been ok.

In short, if Jesus was God (as you seem to be suggesting) then why would God be tempted to do anything that he hates and disapproves of?

The very idea of God being tempted to do anything that he himself considers to be a sin is itself a totally contradictory idea.

So in your attempt to suggest to me that there are no contradictions in these myths you've just opened up a whole can of worms that suggests to me that the contradictions are endless.

Like I say, if you want to believe in the religion for yourself, by my guest.

But if you intend to hold out the notion that this religion itself is infamous for (i.e. that I'm somehow an immoral person who is refusing to obey some God) just because I see the entire religion as being absurd is not going to fly.

This thread itself is about Gender Equality in the Qur'an and the Bible. You can't claim to have gender equality when the God of this religion has proclaimed that the Man shall "Rule Over" the woman. That's not considered to be equality in today's world. It's considered to be male-chauvinistic oppression of women.

And therefore this religion supports the male-chauvinistic oppression of women, especially with respect to their husbands who have been commanded by this God to rule over their wives.

In short, if you agree with this religion, you agree with male-chauvinism in the home and in marriage. And even in social affairs, the women must be subservient to the man. In this religion this is a punishment handed down by God himself to the primordial woman for her failure to obey him.

I reject this religion for countless reasons, this is merely one drop in an ocean of absurdities.

~~~~

By the way, if you agree that there is a problem with "literalism" in religions, then you're very close to tossing in the towel on them.

Once you do away with literalism, and allow things to become highly abstract and open to individual interpretation, you end up with a "doctrine" that only has whatever meaning the readers themselves assign to it.

Once you do that, you need to realize that it is indeed the readers of the myth who are ultimately placing their own moral values onto the mythology.

And once you realize that, you should be able to come to the final obvious realization that any moral values assigned to the religion at that point are actually originating from the minds of the "believers" who are indeed placing their own moral values onto the mythology via their own personal interpretations.

In short, any so-called "Word of God" that cannot be taken literally, is truly worthless.

Yet, you yourself confess that there is a "Problem with Literalism" when applied to these myths.

I absolutely agree with you on that point!

[jessehove]

What you are choosing to not understand, is that the Christianity that you are attacking is a modern invention, just as your attacks are. The early church fathers along with the history of Christian interpretation has always left room for different interpretive frameworks in scripture. Your suggestion that I am throwing in the towel but appealing to the history of interpretation, is ridiculous. That is like me telling an atheist that they are throwing in the towel if they don't agree with everything Stalin ever had to say. History is complicated, scripture is complicated. Christ incarnate is complicated. You want to simplify everything, so you can attack it. You want to put sin and temptation in the same category, you want to put Orthodoxy and Fundamentalist in the same category, and you want to say that YOUR interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is the right one. We can probably both agree that anyone can make scripture to say what they want it to say. But I am appealing to a larger methodological practice of biblical metanarrative which is grounded in the history of the church, and the continuity of Abrahamic monotheism. What is your interpretation grounded in? Modern bullshit. You and the fundamentalists are the same.

[Divine Insight]

you want to say that YOUR interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is the right one.

I'm basically not interpreting it at all. I'm just taking it for what it clearly says outright within the context of the story in which it makes its claim: No Interpretation Required.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The context of the story is that Eve disobeyed God and God is delving out punishment for this. Just before he turned to Eve he had cursed the serpent to crawl on it's belly and eat dirt for the rest of its days. (I take that literally too and I think it utterly silly)

So there is no interpretation even required. I'm just addressing what these myths actually have to say.

The mere fact that you feel that need to be interpreted already shows that you too see them as being utterly senseless if taken literally. So your very suggestion that an interpretation is even required is already a confession on your part that you are not happy with what they already say literally.

We can probably both agree that anyone can make scripture to say what they want it to say.

No, I don't agree with this. I agree that anyone can claim to reinterpret it into something that it doesn't actually say. But I disagree that you can make scripture say what you want them to say.

It clearly says that God is punishing the women with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth and that he he also punishing her by proclaiming that she shall now be ruled over by her husband. The idea that this is a punishment is crystal clear from the context of the story and that too is not an 'interpretation'. It's just obvious what the this event is all about. Eve had just done something that God had forbidden her to do, he had just cursed the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dirt, and not he turns to Eve and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, and commands that she shall now be ruled over by her husband and her desire shall be to him.

There's no interpretations required. The only reason you would need to proclaim that you require any interpretation is if you are disagreeing with what this story has clearly already stated literally.

But I am appealing to a larger methodological practice of biblical metanarrative which is grounded in the history of the church, and the continuity of Abrahamic monotheism.

In other words this whole religion has a history and habit of pretending that these stories might actually say something different from what they actually say.

That's all you're telling me there.

What is your interpretation grounded in? Modern bullshit.

No. I don't even need an interpretation at all. I just look at what the story actually says. My conclusions are firmly grounded in what these myths are actually claiming.

You and the fundamentalists are the same.

I do agree with the fundamentalist on their stance that the Bible must be taken literally if it is to have any merit at all. I agree that it's utterly meaningless to claim to have a doctrine that is considered to be the "Word of God" and then to also claim that it can't be taken literally. To me, that is as absurd as things can get.

So I agree with the fundamentalists that the Bible must be taken literally, or not at all.

And since I see it as being a literal absurdity, I chose not to take is seriously at all.

Instead of making endless apologetic arguments for it based on the idea that we can pretend that it actually says something different from what it actually says, I just confess that it has no more merit than Greek mythology and move on to more meaningful things.

All you're doing is basically saying, "I don't like what the Bible has to say literally either, and so this is why I hide behind illusive murky interpretations that are designed to try to twist it into something that might seem to make some sort of sense."

Sure, you can do that. But why bother?

All you're doing is taking an outrageously absurd fable and pretending that you can make something meaningful out of it if you ignore what it actually literally says.

On that point I agree with the fundamentalists. Once you go down that road you may as well just toss the book away. All you're doing is pretending that it says things that it doesn't say.

[jessehove]

lol.... no interpretation required. Your ridiculous.

On the most basic level, Genesis was written in Hebrew. So simply in translation interpretation is required.

Atleast you admit it is a narrative though. In a narrative, there are chapters in a story, this is chapter 3...How does chapter 3 relate to chapter 1 and 2, are they the same story? Different stories combined. Is God commanding this as a punishment? Or is God simply making a statement of reality, that as a result of the fall, men will end up being rulers over women, not as God's will, but because of our own sin. These are all interpretive questions, in which you have already decided your answer to.

To make matters worse, you can't even admit your interpreting. People who think they can simply read scripture with a blind eye, and magically know all it intends. They are just so great...

[Divine Insight]

lol.... no interpretation required. Your ridiculous.

On the most basic level, Genesis was written in Hebrew. So simply in translation interpretation is required.

Atleast you admit it is a narrative though. In a narrative, there are chapters in a story, this is chapter 3...How does chapter 3 relate to chapter 1 and 2, are they the same story? Different stories combined. Is God commanding this as a punishment? Or is God simply making a statement of reality, that as a result of the fall, men will end up being rulers over women, not as God's will, but because of our own sin. These are all interpretive questions, in which you have already decided your answer to.

To make matters worse, you can't even admit your interpreting. People who think they can simply read scripture with a blind eye, and magically know all it intends. They are just so great...

You just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

If the literal meaning of these ancient fables has indeed been lost through translations, etc., as you claim. Then their meanings have indeed been lost. Period.

If you think that you could resurrect their original meaning via speculative interpretations based on what you wish they meant you're only kidding yourself. Also, the fact that there exist entire organized churches who have also bought into this kind of delusion doesn't change the fact that it's an unwarranted delusion.

I agree with the fundamentalists. If these ancient scriptures are going to be held up as the word of God they necessarily need to be held up literally. Otherwise, they have no merit at all.

I accept this without question.

But unlike the fundamentalists, I disagree that these literal stories make any rational sense. On the contrary it's crystal clear to me that they are indeed totally fabricated rumors, superstitions, or even outright deceitful and intentional lies made up by men who were claiming to speak for some imagined God.

In short, if these fables must be taken literally, I reject them as having no more merit than Greek mythology.

So if I accept the fundamentalist's position (which I do), then I must reject these fables as being utterly absurd and far removed from anything I would expect any genuine all-wise divine being to behave or support.

So that's an easy rejection of the Hebrew myths as having no more merit than Greek mythology or any of the other mythologies that were created in the Mediterranean region depicting stories of personified egotistical human-like Gods and their demigod offspring that were born of divinely impregnated mortal women.

Those types of myths were commonplace all throughout the Mediterranean region and even beyond. Most rational people have dismiss the vast majority of them. The Abraham myths survived until today pretty much because they specifically created a very Jealous God who will kill anyone who dares to so much as not believe in him.

That appears to be the brainwashing trick that will keep a mythology afloat for quite some time. Along with the very real act of stoning sinners and heathens to death, nailing people to poles, burning accused witches on stakes, etc.

And let's not forget about the crusades and the burning of "pagan" temples (i.e. any religion that didn't at least worship the God of Abraham).

Either believe in this God and religion, or you'll be extremely chastised socially, or possibly even stoned to death, or beheaded via the swift wielding of a sword.

That's the only thing that kept these Abrahamic myths alive.

In some Arab countries today they are still stoning people to death on charges of blaspheme against these ancient fables. So it's no wonder they have remained alive over the millennium. The social fear-factor was immense.

In as recently as Isaac Newton's day it was dangerous to suggest that you did not believe in or support Christianity, for example. Isaac Newton came to the conclusion that Jesus could not have possibly been the son of the God depicted in the OT. Yet, he could not share these views publicly or he would have lost everything and been socially crucified (if not physically crucified).

And that was just a mere few hundred years ago.

People like you (and these apologetic churches) are attempting to keep these ancient fables alive by basically denying the "Best Translations" of these stories and pretended that they may have actually said something else before they were destroyed in translation.

Well, pft.

I mean seriously.

Even if that were true, all they would be doing is confessing that if there ever was any meaningful story in these fables it's long since been lost and all we could ever hope to do at this point is pretend to imagine what we would have liked for these stories to have meant.

In other words, all you're really doing is making up your own religion based on these totally untrustworthy and corrupt stories (corrupt via translations by your own confession) and pretending that the new stories you construct by doing this might have something to do with some original imagined God.

And sure, you have lots of company in the churches. There appears to be quit a few people who are desperate to support some form of these stores. Probably because they are still subconsciously frightened of being condemned if they don't support them to the best of their ability.

So they create totally new fables that have nothing to do with the corrupted translations that actually exist. And this is precisely why there are literally tens of thousands of sects, denominations, and opposing views on what these meaningless ancient fables might have meant.

How can you claim to be in possession of, or even following, the "Word of God", when all you could possibly possess, or follow, is nothing more than your own preferred imaginary interpretations of stories that you, yourself, confess have long since been lost to poor translations.

IMHO, that position right there is absurd.

Especially if you're going to hold it over my head proclaiming that I'm "disobeying God" if I don't accept YOUR interpretations of something you claim has virtually been lost to translations already anyway.

That's an oxymoronic position, IMHO.

I mean, if you want to believe it for yourself. By all means, please do.

But if you have any intention at all of holding up your interpretations as "The Word of God, from fables that you have already confessed have been lost to poor translations, you're not going to impress me, I can assure you of that.

You have already confessed that even if there was any "Word of God" in those fables at some point, it's long since gone by now.

Anything you have to offer at this point can be nothing but, your own personal interpretations, hopes, and dreams. By your very own confession that the original content of these stories has been so lost that even you can't count on what these stories have to say literally.

[jessehove]

People who view Scripture my way:

Saint Paul, Galileo Galilei, Saint Augustine, Isaac Newton, Jesus Christ, Thomas Aquinas....

People who view Scripture your way:

Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins....

I would much rather hang out with my friends then yours. No offence.

[Divine Insight]

People who view Scripture my way:

Saint Paul, Galileo Galilei, Saint Augustine, Isaac Newton, Jesus Christ, Thomas Aquinas....

Isaac Newton ultimately concluded that Jesus could not have been the son of the God of Abraham. I'm in total agreement with Isaac Newton.

Jesus himself could not have viewed the scriptures in any way. He was long since dead and gone before the NT rumors were ever even written. And it's clear from those rumors that if the man existed at all he rejected the teachings of the OT.

By the way "Christ" was not Jesus' last name. The NT rumors are rumors that proclaim that Jesus was "The Christ". And again, Isaac Newton concluded that he could not possible have been "The Christ"

So Isaac Newton is on my side on the issue. As are Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, and countless other brilliant minds.

People who view Scripture your way:

Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins....

I would much rather hang out with my friends then yours. No offence.

That's a laugh. Pat Robertson would have ideas far more in line with yours.

As far as Richard Dawkins goes, he's a highly intellectual man who clearly has a much firmer grasp on reality than do religious zealots. I actually wouldn't be offended to be associated with him, however, the fact of the matter is that I'm not in complete agreement with him on all points. Although I do agree with him regarding the absurdities of the Abrahamic religions.


Your desperate act of attacking me on a personal level by attempting to insinuate that I have "ignorant friends" only reveals the fact that you have been defeated in this debate and cannot produce a meaningful argument against the actual points that I've made.

So thank you for conceding defeat, and have a nice day.