Does the Bible Degrade Women?

[@GodOfBrevity]

If a scholar looked at me the way Dan does when he said “okay let’s see it” I would stop talking immediately.

[@cjstone8876]

I note he always says, "ALRIGHT, let's see it," because it proves just how much a fanboy he is. In the OLD TREK episode "The Conscience of the King," Spock and McCoy come to Kirk with a report about Lt. Riley being poisoned. Kirk says, "Alright, Mr. Spock, let's see it," exactly the way Dan does.

[@Sirfredrickvlogs]

Dan, I love that I could see the disdain on your face. Keep up the great work!

[@nathanparrott247]

"Still not helping" 😂😂😂

[@pansepot1490]

“Rhetorical prophylaxis for male headship” Dan has the most fascinating turn of phrases I ever heard. 😊 Perhaps it’s normal scholarly lingo but certainly they are not common irl.

[@DoloresLehmann]

"Not helping!" That dry comment was comedy gold!

[@lc3]

"Not helping" haha. Love you man.

[@20quid]

"It's not that men are unequal it's just that they have different roles, and those roles happen to be unequal." Where do these people get off?

[@NataliePine]

I hate that it used to make sense to me. The mental gymnastics are real.

[@likemanner]

They get off on not equating value and role. It's almost as if they believe everyone is of equal value regardless of their position, whereas, according to Dan, they aren't.

[@NataliePine]

@@likemanner If you tell one of two people in a partnership "on the basis of you being a woman and your partner being a man, your role is to obey your partner", how is that not degrading to women? Equality in value is meaningless if it leaves women disenfranchised and subservient. But it doesn't matter because "everyone is of equal value" is actually an unbiblical concept. The Bible is very clear that women are worth less than men. See Leviticus 27:2-7.

[@likemanner]

@@NataliePine So you're saying that someone's worth is equivalent to their economic value?

[@NataliePine]

​@@likemanner Can we keep the goalposts where they are please? You implied that it's fine to put people in unequal roles as long as you see everyone as equal in value. I pointed out that the Bible does not. Now you're implying that it's fine to assign people unequal value as long as you assign them equal "worth", which is an even more nebulous term. This is just a repeat of the error that @20quid is calling out in their comment. Do you not see how the Bible assigning different economic value to different sexes is degrading to the 'cheaper' sex? To split hairs over a person's role, value, and worth is to miss the point entirely. The Bible either legitimises and upholds a system that oppresses women, or it doesn't. It plainly does, and people could concede that this is no longer acceptable and move on, but that would require letting go of the notion that the Bible is unquestionable and authoritative. So they try to rationalise how it can still be unquestionable and authoritative if their cultural belief that all people are equal is *also* correct. And the result is this hair-splitting nonsense about "equal in value but with different roles", which satisfies people's need to feel good about the Bible, but also perpetuates a view of women that directly leads to oppression.

[@EricMcLuen]

As a side note, the Methodist minister who performed my wedding refused to have father's give away the bride like property or use the 'submit to your husband' verbiage which is quite common in more conservative/fundamentalist congregations.

[@mrq6270]

Good minister

[@drlegendre]

I adore the whole "sloppy hipster" vs. "upright young man" paradigm.

[@leadsheep]

Someone had better call the burn unit...

[@NielMalan]

Anyone who wants to convince me that the Bible reckons women to have equal value to men needs to show me where in the Bible king David's daughters are listed, and who their mothers were. There is such a list for his sons, so if his daughters were considered of equal value, surely they would also be worth listing?

[@MM-jf1me]

David himself didn't care for his daughters as much as his sons so it's no surprise that the Bible doesn't even record the names of the former. 2 Samuel 13.21 explicitly states (in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) David refused to punish Amnon for raping Tamar because of his love for Amnon. How loved and valued Tamar must've felt in that moment when she learned her father was not going to do anything to punish her assailant!

[@JustHuman87]

Just because it’s a story doesn’t make it right. No where in the context of that story does it say God was pleased with this behavior and decision making. In fact there’s plenty of scripture to tell us that behavior is against God.

[@NielMalan]

@@JustHuman87 I'm not asking anyone to defend anyone's behaviour. I'm saying it's clear that the Bible does not value men and women equally.

[@LDogSmiles]

I agree with you. But apologists will always find a way around it. They’ll argue that “the ancient societies did not value women as much as men, so the Bible is just reflecting the social norms of the time. But the Bible itself most certainly values women.”Some sort of BS like that. There’s always a way for them to bend the Bible to fit their dogma

[@heathersnyder8789]

@@MM-jf1meexactly

[@lobachevscki]

The 'not helping' threw me so hard hahahahah

[@Mon-Alisa]

Thank you, Dan! I can’t express just how much I appreciate what you are doing.

[@Mon-Alisa]

“If you have two groups and you constantly have to tell one that they are of equal value, and you never have to tell the other……... that first one is of unequal value.” My whole life I’ve heard people in the church (mostly men, but women as well) trying to explain how women are still equal to men even though they can’t have the priesthood and can’t be in leadership positions, in the room where the decisions are made, where their input and ideas have weight. And you’re so right, I’ve never heard of anyone trying to find ways to convince men that they are equal to women - the thought is laughable, really! The church often compares the priesthood with motherhood- women don’t need the priesthood because they have the power to create and bring about life and men don’t have that, so men and women have different “powers” given to them. But when was the last time you heard the church try to explain to men why it’s okay that they don’t bear children like the women? And why God only lets women bear children, and it doesn’t mean that men are less-than, etc., etc. I’ve personally never heard anything close to that.

[@rahrahrobbbieee]

Dan, truly the Batman! Good job! 🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇

[@scottyvanantwerp]

Rhetorical prophylaxis...dying! :D I am so borrowing that. Thank you for you mind and voice!

[@katryntjiexx]

"not helping" and your eyes. Love it.

[@Noneya5555]

There is nothing more convincing than a person debating themself. 🤣

[@mrq6270]

Yeah, I love it. It’s like how when I played by myself as a kid I used to win every battle thanks to my awesome imaginary karate skills!

[@jon4574]

If the bible verses said the opposite: husbands submit to your wives, the wife is the head of husband as Christ is the head of the woman, husbands call your wives lord, I do not permit a man to each or have authority over a woman, and men must ask women questions at home because it's shameful for a man to speak in church - this religion never would have gotten off the ground.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah I completely disagree. Yes people have taken advantage of this passage to degrade women. But one of the main driving motivations behind traditional gender roles is directly built on this passage so I don’t think your theory carries much weight to it.

[@jon4574]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 What you pretend is taking advantage of the passage is really just reading it for what it says and being honest about what it says. Downplaying and ignoring sexist rhetoric is pure apologetics.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@jon4574 Lol I literally said nothing about weathering out the passage itself was sexist. I’m a main point was that I tried to do this in a respectful way that your idea that Christina D is built on marginalizing women which is what you seem to be implying is total and complete nonsense in carries no weight to it, he didn’t even say anything about whether or not the passage itself is sexist, but you immediately stoop to defense mode and attack my motives when I literally said nothing 🤣🤣🤣🤣. Really just goes to show how insecure you are. If you want a good resource for this passage I recommend Craig S Keener. There’s many different interpretations when it comes to this passage. I’m not ignoring or downplaying anything I’m specifically attacking your theory which is complete revisionist nonsense that has no weight to it. I think the passage said the same thing about men Christians would say the same thing about men’s roles they do about women’s roles today. Your comment strike me as being desperate for attention. Traditional gender roles are not inherently sexist. I’m not downplaying anything you’re over exaggerating things and blowing things out of proportion to support your dogma.

[@jon4574]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 LOL, your accusations are just confessions. Keep liking your own posts.

[@joshridinger3407]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 traditional gender roles are definitely sexist.

[@boboak9168]

Just read through the bible once. No apologetics can then overcome the overwhelming sexism on obvious display throughout. You need some hardcore motivated reasoning to argue otherwise. The Christian content creator: ‘Hardcore motivated reasoning, hmm? Hey, hold my beer!’

[@Jake-zc3fk]

I love it when I see a Dan McClellan video! Keep ‘em coming Dan, you are doing a great service to humanity, I truly mean that. ❤

[@GreaverBlade]

The look on Dan's face before he says the line sets up this entire video so well.

[@tiffanyklepper7206]

Thank you so much Dan!

[@AMoniqueOcampo]

I hate that I wrote a whole Bible study about this verse and actually tried to defend it.

[@PeapodCenters]

As someone that had deep religious convictions and had adjusted my lifestyle to accommodate a belief system that I was told not to question..... Getting to the point of willingness to deconstruct religion and see that you've been lied to, is one of the hardest steps. It took me three years to the point where I knew that there was a problem, before I was willing to explore it.... I've been working on this project for 32 years which is going to end up being also in a series of four autobiographies, the second one called "tornado in the garden of Eden" is going to walk through the steps that it took me over the years to accept that religion was a lie. I can tell you that it's a little bit like the grieving process with a few extra steps. * before I speak with too much plan… I have thought about laying out the fabric of religion in the second one, and then expose it in the third… That book title is called "twisted tornado." For whatever it's worth the first book is called "Tornado in in the garden" and the last one is called "tornadoes revenge.".... And they are autobiographical. I've been planning on them for 32 years.

[@MrLogo73]

There are Christians, who actually tried to defend Exodus 21. Try and top that.

[@localraccoon0218]

I used to defend it too 🤦‍♀️

[@dorothysay8327]

You shouldn’t ‘hate’ that. It was a moment in your life.

[@dorothysay8327]

@@PeapodCentersI can tell you without caveat that you were never ‘lied’ to. People who believed what they believed and had reasons for that? passed their traditions on to you. It included MUCH WISDOM as well as some fallacious stuff. The whole course of religious history hasn’t been designed to ‘lie to’ people, any more than it’s been designed (as Dan futilely states again and again) to consolidate and negotiate power. That’s only ONE aspect of religious thought, and not even the most important one. People need to study more history.

[@DoloresLehmann]

Oh! And I just have to add a quote from "Madagascar 2" here: "It's nothing personal. It's just that we're better than you."

[@ritawing1064]

I saw an hallucinatory paper on male headship the other day: enlisting quantum mechanics to show that the Fall only happened when Adam bit into the fruit, although Eve had already done so: Schrödinger's Apple!

[@rainbowkrampus]

Yes. Though I'd argue that it is degrading to everyone.

[@jasonwhite9895]

> Not Helping ... Still not helping 👏😆

[@zypherwtempest8691]

bible mental gymnastics at its best

[@jimwyatt9894]

As always, accurate, clearly presented material. Rad!

[@Yourghostuncle]

He said seperate but equal 😂

[@IfbbProMartaeRuelas]

Submission = Voluntary Cooperation

[@Benjaminimize]

Yep it’s there in black and white “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28

[@stephenleblanc4677]

Naanaa naanaa, Da man! When it comes to refuting false biblical nonsense.

[@dimitrioskalfakis]

biblical religions poisoned the concepts of love and equality as well.

[@azophi]

Yeah most likely we aren’t talking just about Ephesians 5, although that doesn’t help Leviticus 27- a woman is literally worth less than a man As well as the sexual slavery taking place in Deuteronomy 20, etc. where they keep all the virgin age women to themselves

[@Metanoia7-J]

There is no mention of sexual slavery LoL

[@mrq6270]

@@Metanoia7-Jthey didn’t have to spell it out.

[@Metanoia7-J]

@@mrq6270 Also Leviticus 27 contain regulations regarding the valuation of individuals for offerings to the Lord in ancient Israel, but it doesn't inherently suggest that women are worth less than men. In that context, it's more about the age and condition of individuals rather than their gender. However, interpretations can vary, and it's important to consider historical and cultural contexts when understanding ancient texts.

[@2121bassplayer]

Idk why this guy makes me chuckle more than usual at this bs Its the obvious strawmanning but also the cheery responses to serious and damning questions It’s like, “Isn’t it discriminatory to force someone into a subservient social role based on their body shape?” “but wait! the people who benefit from this will totally definitely in theory lay down their lives for you and will definitely not abuse this massive power imbalance because Jesus!”

[@christasimon9716]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal." Oh, wait...

[@rickedwards7276]

That original creator should submit to clear thinking and reality. Then his rhetoric would be of equal value to Dan’s despite the differences in their roles.

[@jks612]

Anyone know how I can send this to Dallin H. Oaks?

[@PeapodCenters]

They know who he is, he (if I'm not mistaken) he worked as a church historian??? for the Mormon church until last year...???? I think it was.

[@Dalekzilla]

Maybe this is because the men who wrote the scriptures lived in a time in which it was believed that women were indeed inferior to men. The authors of the Old Testament clearly believed this, and Paul believed sex was dirty, and that men in particular should ( if they were able to) avoid "touching" a woman and remain celibate. He also espoused his belief more than once that women were inferior, should remain silent in church, and be subservient to their husbands. I'm not aware (accorrding to The Gospels) that Christ believed ANY of this. And who was it that gathered at the foot of His cross, and came to venerate Him in the tomb? Men?

[@user-kv1po2dm5j]

I have a question. Relative to the other cultures and ideas around them at the time, would you say that the writings of Paul are more “progressive” (to use modern terminology) than the writings of other philosophers, religious groups, etc? I’ve heard this argued before, but I didn’t know if it really held any ground.

[@JDrocks4ever]

Sarah called Abraham “Lord”, which is highlighted in the NT as an honorable thing. To what woman did any man call “Lord”? Wouldn’t that be equality? Separate but equal is true equality to many people ig🤷‍♂️

[@LDrosophila]

What about the last verses in the Book of Thomas which states women cannot enter into heaven?

[@mickeydecurious]

Considering having may be filled up with these Conservative Republican Christians; as a woman I say thank God😂

[@doclees11]

I'm going out on a limb here and assume these 2 are not identical twins in different clothes. So anyone that needs to talk to himself to convince themselves of the Bible's meaning has serious mental issues.

[@mrq6270]

Hey, it’s a great way to win all your arguments.

[@creamwobbly]

Hoisted by his own petard. That punchline ‘given different roles to display his glory and tell his story’ seems also to be hinting that husbands give their wives a different role _to display the husband's glory and tell their stories._ It may not indeed be what he intended, but you know for goddamned certain that little men who buy into the submissive wives rhetoric absolutely see it that way. I hope his wives find a path to safety.

[@thundercatt5265]

Yes "flesh of her flesh blood of her blood" menstrual cycles is where all civilized men come from,born from a womb not of this earth, Annunaki and Modern females alike has been disrespected, that is Enlil's false curse,now these are true facts of life compare this to what said to the truth

[@dancancro5524]

Women "In a Christian wedding, why do fathers give their daughters in marriage but mothers don't give their sons in marriage? Why do women take their husbands' names but men don't take their wives' names? If a woman is forced to marry her rapist (Exodus 22:16-17), should she be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day (Deuteronomy 22:30)? Why is it okay for men to divorce their unfaithful wives, but not for wives to divorce their unfaithful husbands (Matthew 5:31-32)? Are wombs the property of the cis men who own the wombs' women (Proverbs 31:2)? How is a woman unclean after giving birth? Why is she unclean for 14 days after having a baby girl but only unclean for 7 days after having a baby boy (Leviticus 12:1-5)? Why is female virginity so important in the Bible but male virginity is not? If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night should she be stoned to death on her father's doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:20)? If a man is not a virgin on his wedding night should he be stoned to death on his mother's doorstep? Why do men get to eat holy meat but women don't (Leviticus 6:29)? Is St. Paul right that it is okay for men to speak in church but wrong for a woman to speak in church and if she wants to learn anything she should not ask in church but should ask her husband at home (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)? that men are the image and glory of Yahweh, but women are only the glory of men (1 Corinthians 11:7)? that women were created from and for men (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)? that a woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness and may not teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:11-14)? that women have to give birth in order to be saved (1 Timothy 2:15)? Do you think that all women who do not have children will burn for eternity in the lake of fire (Mark 9:43, Matthew 13:50, Matthew 18:8, Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Revelation 14:10, Revelation 21:8)? Why do women have to cover their hair but men don't (1 Corinthians 11:5)? Why do male slaves get freedom after six years but if you sell your daughter into slavery she can only be bought back if she doesn't please her master (Exodus 21:7-8)? Do you agree with Yahweh that you can sell your daughter into slavery and allow her master to rape her (Exodus 21:7-10)? Why would a loving god allow masters to rape their female slaves and then order the slaves to be punished (Leviticus 19:20-22)? Why are only males to appear three times before the Lord (Exodus 23:17)? Why does Yahweh dictate a fidelity test for women but not for men (Numbers 5:11)? If male travelers are staying in your house and the locals come by to gang rape them, should you give your daughters to them and let them rape your daughters instead of the travelers who have super powers and surely don't need any help defending themselves against a few mere mortals (Genesis 19:8)? If a mortal male traveler stays at your house and a gang shows up to rape him should you give your female concubine to them to rape instead? (Judges 19:16-30) Why didn't Jesus have any female apostles? Why wasn't the Acts of Thecla included in the Canon? Why did Yahweh talk to Abraham but didn't include Sarah in the discussion about murdering her son Isaac? If men and women are equal in the eyes of Yahweh, why did Yahweh curse women to be ruled over by men (Genesis 3:16)? * Yahweh thinks that the value of a woman is 60% the value of a man and the value of a girl is 50% the value of a boy (Leviticus 27:1-8). Do you think so too? * Yahweh says that women should be stoned to death if they do not scream loudly enough when they are being raped (Deuteronomy 22:24) * Yahweh says that if you rape a virgin you will be forgiven if you pay her father and marry her (Exodus 22:16-17) * Yahweh promised to pull up the Israelites' skirts over their faces to expose them (Jeremiah 13:22-26) * Yahweh considers a person unclean if they touch the bed of a woman during her period (Leviticus 15:23) * Yahweh caused head scabs and exposed private parts of women who are haughty, walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walk and mince as they go, and make a tinkling with their feet (Isaiah 3:16-17) * Yahweh commanded banishment of women for seven days every month while they are on their period (Leviticus 15:19-24) * Yahweh closed up all the wombs to punish Sarah (Genesis 20:18)" www.stopindoctrination.org/#women Christianity's War Against Women Linda LaScola www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2020/02/christianitys-war-against-women Letting go of God - Mormon women Julia Sweeney kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWiXXplqj7tgqdU Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbon explains why he opposes women voting @resist45ideology instagram.com/reel/C5MoDVqxtMm Conservative Pastor Preaches That Women Should Be Banned From Voting And Confined To Their Homes Stephen D. Foster Jr. churchandstate.org.uk/2016/02/conservative-pastor-preaches-that-women-should-be-banned-from-voting-and-confined-to-their-homes Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World (3/5) - Women Sam Harris kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGHFfWWVZbV0p68 Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World (4/5) - Women Sam Harris kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6Pbn2aIrJudn9U Are religions unfair to women? Tr3Vel0cita kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4HapIOca9ujrtk Biblical sexism rationalwiki.org rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_sexism Bible: Women skepticsannotatedbible.com skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html The Top 10 Reasons Why the Bible is Repulsive - Misogyny GIIVideo kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJy7gKp4freLbbs 11. Women skepticsannotatedbible.com skepticsannotatedbible.com/ejat/women.html "Dare To Doubt" Episode #189 with Alice Greczyn The Free Thought Prophet podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-free-thought-prophet/id1355376385?i=1000467642580 Sharing permitted. Click the first link for more.

[@Emptytopfloor]

You just went all out 👏🏼

[@dorothysay8327]

This was *very* well explicated. Thank you for that.

[@rager4able]

I believe yes the man is the final authority.

[@4LLT0G3TH3R]

Believe what you want, doesn't make it any less of a lie.

[@txikitofandango]

I would die for my slaves, everyone knows that

[@Theprofessorator]

If Jesus isn't equal to God, nearly the entire Christian religion is guilty of breaking (at least) the first two of the 10 Commandments, and I believe that they are. Trinitarianism is a theological, pun not intended, Hail Mary to try and avoid that. 🙂

[@mrq6270]

Certainly almost all of the modern church, yes. But not all the denominations believed that God and Jesus were equals. Especially in early Christianity. But the trinitarians ended up dominating.

[@trevorprice2490]

Thanks Dan. I'm glad when you give us verses that actually help use the bible to make the case for good policies or practices too

[@angreehulk]

🤘

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Yes. But it does degrade men a bunch too.

[@ronjones1414]

There is a fine detail that I take issue with. The husband is never assigned authority to be "in charge" of his wife. This is what Christianity has gotten wrong about this passage for as long as I can tell it has been read. Paul's letter to the Ephesians assigns no "Biblical rights" to a husband over his wife. If a wife does not submit to her husband, its between her and God. Yep, a whole lot of men who want to justify their horrible relationship abilities refuse to actually read the text that they are citing, probably because they don't want to understand they are not given the authority they were told they had by Grand Daddy.

[@jaclo3112]

Ephesians 5:22-24 does tell wives to obey husbandsIN EVERYTHING. It places the husband in the position of a god and in charge of the woman. A vile and disgusting command when you understand that men are not inherently capable of leadership and throughout history and present, patriarchal male headship inevitably results in increased rates of rape, paedophilia, domestic abuse, corruption, crime and poverty. This is how you know the bible was written by men and not all knowing, wise gods.

[@Uryvichk]

No, women are absolutely considered the property of their husbands in Jewish and Christian theology and the inferiors to men. Women are even stated to be unsuitable for leadership because Eve was deceived. You can't salvage this garbage text written entirely by men (and entirely human men, at that), it's beyond that and must be thrown out.

[@joshridinger3407]

the relationship between wives and husbands is to be exactly like the relationship between the church and christ. that is, of slave to master.

[@ronjones1414]

@joshridinger3407 wondering what scriptural reference you're using?

[@mrq6270]

By instructing group A to “submit” to group B, you have automatically granted authority to group B. Otherwise it’s completely meaningless. The instruction to “submit” has to cover both positions or it says nothing.

[@Jeffertoya]

I can’t argue against your main point because a I agree with it and be it’s pretty solid… But there is a thing you did in making that point that I found sort of laughable… You quoted Jesus with regards to who is greater he the father… As if it were a fact. As if that is in fact, something that Jesus said, and we know that. But your own video show that we can’t know what was said based on what’s in the Bible Just seemed a little incongruent to first point out the unreliability, especially of the New Testament and then in a defense as if it’s definite

[@pragmaticcrystal]

If your answer is no you should reevaluate and maybe do some self reflection

[@Merrick]

Does the bible degrade women? well, it depends if you consider women people or not

[@ricklamb772]

No,but it shouldonly about 5 or 6 good ones mentioned in the bible.And the Psalms 31 woman dont exist.Andcthe end time woman teaching in the church is a Jezebel sleeping with her congregation.And all the descriptions of the end time women,will make you run for your life.Nit one good thing said about them.

[@AmbyAntidevolution]

We are one in Christ.

[@mickeydecurious]

Therefore your transgender would you not agree 🤔

[@larryrollyson3344]

Bible is a group of books , it dont do anything but tell the story,buy ya books send ya to school ,cant teach common sense 😂

[@SES06484]

LOL, tell my wife that she doesn't get to influence decisions! How are the concerns of women marginalized if their husbands love them sacrificially? Explain that to me. And men never fell like that don't have value? Starting in Ephesians 5:15, Paul challenges his readers to walk in wisdom, understanding what God wills for believers’ lives (Ephesians 5:17). They should be filled or controlled by the Spirit of God, who already dwells within them (Ephesians 5:18), they should be singing to each other and to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19), they should be always filled with thankful prayer (Ephesians 5:20), and they should “submit to one another” (Ephesians 5:21). {Critics always forget about verse 21} Husbands are to align themselves under their wives by loving them selflessly for their sanctification, illustrating Jesus’ love for His church (Ephesians 5:25-33). Children ought to align themselves under their parents in honor and obedience (Ephesians 6:1-3). Fathers need to align themselves under their children by not provoking them to anger and by training them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). At first glance, it may seem difficult to submit to one another or to treat others as greater than oneself, because it makes the submitting person vulnerable to the other. However, when both parties are treating the other as worthy of more honor than themselves, the needs of both are met, and wonderfully so.

[@Uryvichk]

It's still making women out to be inferior and subservient (and this is obvious from other passages), and that aside, it's utter arbitrary nonsense with no basis in reality. "Loving sacrificially" doesn't even mean anything, it's just puffery and fancy words to make it seem like the subjugation of women is not as bad. Women are accountable to their husbands -- real, existing, human beings they have to live with and who may abuse them for failing to show submissiveness -- while men are accountable to Christ -- a made-up invisible man who cannot hold them accountable at all. There is no parity here, it's a farce.

[@joshridinger3407]

if your wife is influencing your decisions you are living unbiblically. the church does not influence christ's (god's) decisions; they obey even unto death or they are cut off. the patriarchists are right about one thing: there is no such thing as mutual submission.

[@NataliePine]

One of the problems with this argument is that it paints asymmetric relationships as "submissive" on both sides when practised ideally, but there's clearly a hierarchy of submission being described. In your example of fathers and children, fathers "submit" to their children by not being mentally abusive and by instructing them, but the submission of the children is far more extreme. The fathers have almost total authority over the children, choosing when they go to bed, what they do during the day, what they eat, where they live, what they wear. The authority given to husbands over wives in Ephesians is a similar level of control, as Dan calls out in his point about the relationship between Jesus and the church - and this is not made up for by the fact that the husband is to "love selflessly". I used to use these same mental gymnastics to justify what's being said in Ephesians 5 and elsewhere, but the problem is that those mental gymnastics are an attempt to sideline what's actually being expressed in the passage because it's not something that sits right with us. You're joking when you say "tell my wife that she doesn't get to influence decisions!" but the fact is that by the authority granted to you in Ephesians you absolutely could tell her that. The reason you don't, and the reason your wife (by the sounds of it) plays a strong role in the decision making of the household, is probably because you have different values to the author of Ephesians - and because you still want to be on the side of the text, the text needs to be re-read in a way that portrays an equitable relationship of loving give-and-take. Which is perfectly fine, but it doesn't magically make the source material egalitarian.

[@mrq6270]

@@NataliePineagain…well said Natalie. You make clear, well delineated arguments. I was going to chime in, but no need!

[@NataliePine]

@@mrq6270 Thank you, that's very kind!

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Hey Dan, what about this much simpler answer. Ephesians is forged.

[@svezhiepyatki]

This is an interesting but sort of irrelevant point. Whoever wrote that letter doesn't matter, the text of it is treated as authoritative by some people.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

@@svezhiepyatki Some people believe in Santa Claus, some people believe they will be raptured, some people were millerites, some people drank the KoolAide in Gyana. There will always be some people. Start with the most obvious deviation from the truth. The epistle to the Ephesiams claims to be written by Paul but it was not, therefore the pretext for what is quoted is a lie.

[@Uryvichk]

I mean, the entire Bible is just made up and has no basis in reality, so if we're going to throw out Ephesians as the nonsensical rantings of some anonymous yahoo -- and I agree that we should -- the whole book might as well go with it. What makes the real Paul any more authoritative than the fake Paul? Paul didn't even want to marry, why is he allowed to have any opinion on marriages? He doesn't know the first thing about being married, who cares what his opinion is.

[@DemocracywinswithHarris]

Everything the apostate apostles said about women, was not what Christ said. Stop listening to them, they failed their main mission by Acts 6.

[@JustHuman87]

Jesus made himself less on Earth to die for man’s sins. So in that sense, yes Jesus was less than the Father.

[@hughlowe4431]

What about the whole homosexual thing . Is the original saying god is against them ?

[@4LLT0G3TH3R]

Original text says men are not to lie with [BOYS], correct?

[@ramadadiver8112]

Just a note . If your going to claim a fallacy . Define it and demonstrate it Also I believe there is a lot of rhetoric in this video . Hence the lack of scholarship

[@4LLT0G3TH3R]

It's a youtube short. You're welcome to read a scholarly article if you'd like

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Dan’s politics are definitely showing in this video. I think the point is making is that women and men intrinsically have equal value in safaris that they are made in the image of God, but in terms of certain roles they are not equal. I can see your Point isn’t terrible. His point is that in terms of ontological status many women are equal but when it comes to specific roles they are not. And Hugo to John 14:28 to support your case that Jesus and the Father are not equal 🤦🏻‍♂️. What does Jesus mean by the Father is greater than I,Jesus it’s not saying that the Father is greater than ever in terms of his divine nature, or agency, but he is going to him in terms of his role of authority, in the hebrews 1:4-14, it says Jesus is now superior to the angels after the resurrection, the context is clearly talking about the his role in heaven and Earth not his ontological status because obviously he is superior to the Angels in the ontological status and I’m pretty sure you would agree with that as well. This is just a bad Unitarian apologetic argument, even Bart Ehrman points this out and how Jesus became God and one of his blogs. And this is entirely based on circular reasoning you’re assuming that Jesus can be equal to God and so therefore we have to interpret passages a different way if we can demonstrate that Jesus is equal to God in the New Testament, The development of the doctrine is irrelevant. John 1:1-3, 14, 18, are very clear and obvious signs of Jesus being equal to the Father, ​sorry it’s taken so long to respond. And thank Wallace addresses this more thoroughly and his great grandma be on the basics, Pages 269-284. There is also very good evidence to support the The Logos being translated as “and the word was God” rather than divine. And no I am not assuming the Bibles univocal by using Hebrews there’s absolutely nothing wrong with cross referencing, you do it all the time. Footnotes of the NET “tn Or “What God was the Word.” Colwell’s rule is often involved to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a Predicate nominative, ahead of an equative verb be translated and definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term to be term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God” from a technical standpoint, though, it is permissible to see a qualitative aspect anarthorus θέός in John 1:1c(Exsyn 266-269) translations like the NEB REB, and Moffatt, are helpful and capturing the sense in John 1:1c that the Word was fally deity in essence (just as the much God as the Father). However in the contemporary English the “Word was divine” (Moffatt), it does not quite catch the meaning sense, “ divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was to. This points between the unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in survering a number of naive Speakers of English, some of whom had some formal theological training and some whom did not, the editors conclude the fine distinctions indicated by what “what God was the Word” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “ the Word was fully God” was chosen because it was more likely to convey the meeting to the average English reader that the Logos(which “ became flesh residence look up among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God” shows that the Logos it’s distinct in person from God the Father, and the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently thrives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is as much God as the Father. This can be seen, for example in John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“So that they can be seen as one just as we are one”), and John 8:58(“before Abraham came into existence, I am”) the conclusion in John 1:1c does not equate the word was with was person of God, this is ruled out by John 1:1c “The Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence”): Jesus is clearly equal to the Father in the New Testament, hebrews 1:1-3, John 1:1, and John 15:17-25, are pretty explicit. To say because a specific articulation of the doctrine of the trinity or the doctrine of God was not explicitly used until a certain time. Therefore the doctrine it’s self didn’t exist it’s just fallacious and has no basis. And your development of the trinity is a complete over exaggeration the actual development was over the specific articulation of the doctrine of the trinity which there are many but they still agree on the basic or tenants of the doctrine they just have slightly different articulations, Tertullian, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Athanasius of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom, i’ll have the same doctrine of God but slightly different articulations, and they still all agree on the fundamental court tenants of the doctrine of the trinity the idea that there is one God, that exists between three coexistent coeternal persons. And just because they doctrine was in dispute does not mean it didn’t exist you are saying until there was absolutely uniformity which that sounds like what you’re saying the doctrine was not established which is ridiculous, this is irrelevant to whether or not the doctrine is actually taught if we can demonstrate that taught in scripture whether or not it was Whiteley excepted in early Christianity which I believe it was is irrelevant. He was not to force a consensus it was toforce uniformity and stability, and even as Bart Ehrman points out Nicaea did not establish Jesus divinity, that is one of the biggest myths out there. I think the husband is seen as more of a guardian figure. I don’t really care for Daily disciple I watched a couple of his videos there’s nothing that intellectual or outstanding he seems like a very nice guy and he’s doing the lords work so I give him that. But to say that this video is for male headship I find to be incredibly disingenuous, I don’t think that’s the point the video I think the point of the video is to appeal to progressives or doubting Christians or people in general who look at passages in the Bible and have a problem because I think the Bible supports inequality, and I don’t think his point is that there’s absolutely no difference inequality whatsoever I think his point, is that men and women are equal in terms of their status as creatures since they are both made in the image of God but however God assigns them different roles. And that’s why he uses the Jesus analogy Jesus and the Father are equal, however Jesus and the Father’s roles are not the same. Is there anything wrong with negotiating with the text though because you are doing a lot of mental gymnastics and negotiation with the deity of Christ and the conception of the trinity in the New Testament and in early Christianity. But this I would agree with that I would agree there’s no clear consistent conception of the role of men and women in the New Testament or the Bible in general I think it’s mostly conditional and based on conditions in certain circumstances. So trying to use one passage, authoritatively to dictate how we should view men and women’s roles is a bit fallacious.But also you have an incredibly woke and postmodernist take on gender roles so I don’t think we entirely agree in that regard. I think we should give priority to the most clear passages and interpret the less clear ones in light of the more clear ones, I don’t think that’s a bad criterium, and scholars often do this.

[@Uryvichk]

Utter nonsense. Jesus being God or equal to God was invented (as, possibly, was Jesus himself, given his historicity cannot be convincingly demonstrated), women in both Old and New Testament absolutely are considered inferior to men and unsuitable for leadership positions (and in most cases, as the property of their fathers or husbands whose sole value is having children), and the notion of intrinsic "roles" is completely made up and arbitrary. It's not "woke" to dispute the stupid and unsupportable notion that teleology exists. Wanting to discard Aristotle's long-discredited metaphysics is not wokeness, or else woke as a term has lost all meaning (if it ever had any).

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@Uryvichk “ Jesus historicity cannot be convincingly demonstrated)” that is complete nonsense and not really up for debate at all there are no scholars who deny Jesus historicity that is exclusively a fringe conspiracy theorist position, that no respect to scour or any scholars for that matter at all besides Carl A.P Rock. We literally know somebody who is a contemporary of Jesus time who knew his brother and his disciples I mean if that’s not convincing evidence I don’t know it is and plus he’s confirmed by secular history, and no Josephus and Tacitus are not just mentioning a title they are mentioning a person. Galatians 3:28 clearly contradicts this it says that all are one in Christ including women, guess women’s roles were significantly reduced in many ways, but women are still held to a very high regard in the biblical text, The book of Ruth is about a gentile becoming an Israelite and becoming a follower of God. The women’s testimony at the tomb as well. Yes the culture at the time is very patriarchal. Yes I agree in terms of certain leadership positions women were considered inferior, but it wasn’t inferior in the sense that you’re less than human than men or you’re not good enough therefore you shouldn’t be in a position of authority. It was actually to help the women in many cases, men rashly substantiated to extreme Labor and that no one was subjugated. But yes it is undeniable that women at this time especially with treated horribly and were discriminated against. Children are also considered property, and they are property in the sense that they are the parents guardians. That is not how the Bible views women in anyway, how the culture of the times these women yes I would probably agree with that, but that was really women’s how are useful for if women can get married or have children, Women themselves as having much value value either. Mini women during the woman suffrage movement actually use the Bible as justification against sexist laws and other sexist rhetoric of the time. I would agree to a certain extent. Yes but many people in the comment section have a very woke idea of what gender roles should be. I never said it was what does this have to do with anything? Yeah I would agree pretty much the most part I hate using the term but I honestly don’t know what else to use progressive maybe?

[@legron121]

​@@pleaseenteraname1103 "My father is greater than I" is a simple statement which doesn't require all the distinctions you're making (none of which are found in the NT). Jesus was simply acknowledging God's superiority. Period.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@legron121 no he’s not even Bart Ehrman this is a statement about his authority not his nature.

[@Uryvichk]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Most scholars of the NT support historicity because they have signed documents asserting historicity as a precondition of their religious commitments. They are not credible, and that aside, it wouldn't matter if 100% if scholars believed he existed if in fact he did not. I'm not saying he definitely didn't, but that he plausibly could not have and still resulted in Christianity. Your evidence is shoddy and unconvincing. Josephus's reference is a forgery or at least tampered with by Christians, Tacitus is merely stating what Christians believed (no one disputes that Christians existed and believed Jesus existed, but so what?), and Paul's reference to James is contextually ambiguous and may only mean a James distinguished from James the apostle. Outside those scraps there is nothing, only incredible claims. Best I'll concede is there perhaps could have been a historical figure, but evidence was either never compiled or not preserved to make confidence in his historicity rational. We would doubt the existence of any other claimed figure with documentation this poor, even if we allow they might have existed. Jesus deserves no special treatment in this respect. And either way he was never the Jesus of the Gospels. Either a historicized angel or an unimpressive apocalyptic preacher whose followers got lucky, but either one ain't God, so it makes little difference to me.

[@bombarde99]

Now, reading the whole chapter 5, you will notice that it's not a "degrading" of women at all! That's just a lie. It continues with the verses: 25 - Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 - to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 - and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 - In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 - After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church- 30 - for we are members of his body. 31 - “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 - This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 - However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Can't find a verse out of the atheists holy books that so beautifully describes the love the man ought to show his wife! That's because you have none. You want to criticize the real deal? Why don't you compare the role of women in Islam to the role of women in Christianity? And study Muhammads life with his 13 wives, one of them a little girl aged 6, and his sex slaves? Maybe teach us how he raped women, of which their husbands he just slaugthered. He attacked and conquered tribes and took the women and children as slaves and destributed the women as sex slaves to his troops. (biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq) Real Degrading of women in islamic sources: The majority of the denizens of hell consist of women. (Sahih Muslim, Book 36, Hadith 6596) Muhammad says he "has not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than women." Sahih-Al-Bukahri, Book 6, Hadith 301 Also, in the eyes of the "holy" Prophet, women are just sex objects: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 54, Hadith 460) The "holy" Quran allows beating of women, Sura 4:34: "As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them." In the book of Tafsir Al Kaber, Mafateeh Al Gaeeb, by Iamam Al Razi, women are compared to animals (Tafsir Sura 30:21), just being created for men to serve the man and fulfill his needs. In Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith 1034 we learn from Muhammad that "A woman, an ass(donkey) and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.", proving further that only men are human in Islam and women are seen as animals. These are just a few examples of hundreds out of Islamic Sources that REALLY teach us the definition of "degrading women". Maybe you will wake up to the real opression of women that finds place in all the islamic world until today. Study it!

[@svezhiepyatki]

That 5:33 verse. In your translation does it have a footnote for the word "respect"? Perhars saying that it can also be read as "fear"? Really does change the way you read that verse, right?

[@jaclo3112]

When you realise how abusive and cruel jesus is to his church, you understand why that depiction of love, coupled with the morally depraved command that women obey husbands in everything, is just outright disgusting. Those verses are nothing more than a guided cage. Which is still a cage. No woman wants to be loved by a man she must obey and who lives her like jesus loves his church...ie, threatens to torture for eternity those who don't obey and love him back. Jesus is the poster boy for a domestic violence abuser and his church is his battered bride. And can we not forget that jesus didn't sacrifice his life at all as he got it all back with extra superpowers. The husband doesn't have to do jack shit but gets to control the life of another grown ass adult. Not sure why you are trying to compare islam as worse than christianity when traditional christiansim over the last 2000 years have treated women the same way islam does. Even now it is legal in the US for adult males to marry and rape little girls.and it is conservative christians who fight to keep these laws on the books. And now we have chtistians creating laws to return women to the state of male owned property as was the case in christianism for the majority of the last 2000 years.

[@Uryvichk]

Women are property in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic holy texts, because they are all ordinary human works by specifically human men in societies where only men were considered people. It doesn't matter which one criticizes: All the Abrahamic faiths are deeply rotten at their core and should be discarded entirely as worthless nonsense.

[@joshridinger3407]

yes, the whole thing is modelling the relationship of husbands to wives on the relationship of gods to humans. humans are, to gods, degraded and pathetic objects.

[@bombarde99]

@@svezhiepyatki In my german translation (Schlachter 2000) it reads: "Ehrfurcht" which translates in to respect. On the website "biblestudytools" I compared this particular verse translation in 39 different bibles. (Can't post the link because of Spam filter) Only 3 of these 39 bible translations use the word "fear"! The vast vast majority use the word "respect" and very many of them even use the word "reverence" and one even uses the word "honor". So here you can see the clear bias of this video maker and his not so honest approach to the real translation of the verse.

[@robertnutt7861]

There is inequality in everything, so why try to separate people in this category. Your KZbin is better than somebody else’s KZbin, that is my perception, so you need to be punished because of inequality?

[@boboak9168]

Dan never said anyone needs to be punished because of the inequality in the bible. He simply acknowledged it is there, because it is, no matter how apologists try to excuse it. Were you critiquing the bible for punishing (degrading) women based on gender alone?

[@travis1240]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that sexism exists that degrades women and women should just accept it because life isn't fair? IMO we can do better.

[@robertnutt7861]

@@travis1240 basically yes, there is always going to be someone or something “on top”. We just need to do better.

[@jaclo3112]

@robertnutt7861 how is accepting sexism doing better?

[@Uryvichk]

@@robertnutt7861 I suspect you cannot support the idea that hierarchies are natural with any meaningful argument. It's kind of depressing that people lack the imagination to conceptualize systems in which hierarchies don't exist because they refuse to accept that they don't have to any more than any other social construct has to. The fact of the matter is that no social construct lasts, so we should assume that all the ones we see right now are also temporary, which means they can be replaced with something else.