God says of babies Leviticus 27:6: "For a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver." A Defence of the Idea that John Paul II used papal infallibility to declare female ordination impossible
Christianity treats men as having more rights than women.  It offers a male patriarchial God.  It may say that the fullness of male and female distinctives are found in God.  That might look like it makes God intersex or something.  So they answer that it is saying that God though called male is not for he transcends gender.  In practice however God is treated like a male.


The truly modern and mature person believes in sexual equality. It is awful whenever such people praise the Bible for it claims that women are just creatures to be dominated by men.

The mere fact that the New Testament affirms the Old Testament claim to be the word of God is sufficient proof of its anti-woman stance.

Genesis says that God made the first man the master of the first woman to punish her for leading him astray. Some say that does not mean that the same is to be true of all women but only married women. They say Adam and Eve were husband and wife and God was decreeing that the man must be boss. But why would God punish just married women? All women are to be punished by being submissive before men. When God made the punishments like painful childbirth and all be passed on this punishment of obeying the man was to be passed on too. Genesis spelled out only the two punishments for woman.

Genesis 1:27 says that God made man in his own image and male and female he created them. The original had no punctuation so the text can be read as saying that "God made man in his own image. Male and female he created them." This says nothing about the female being the image of God. And if the author meant that man and woman were made in the image of God he would have written, "God created male and female in his own image." The way it is written is odd if he wanted to convey sexual equality. It speaks of man as being the image and then after that it says there is male and female. It could be interpreted as saying that man is the image of God in the proper sense and woman is inferior as the mirror of God.

Christians who think that Genesis does not forbid equal rights for men and women centre on Genesis 1 where God tells the first man and woman to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth and all on it and conquer and control it. But Genesis says later that the man and woman later sinned and lost God's blessings and then God turned nature against them and ordered the woman to accept the man as her master and be his slave. Man then is to subdue and conquer woman as well. The command to control and subdue all on earth didn't apply any more in those changed circumstances. This would indicate that the promise of equality would depend on man and woman being faithful to God. If a rebellion happened, God could render women obedient to men.

Adam and Eve were not literally married. If they were innocent and never sinned they didn't need to be. Marriage is only necessary if people do wrong. Thus a case can be made for saying the story means all women must submit to men. It would be strange if God punished woman and decreed punishments that apply only to married women or women during childbirth. The submission thing is the main punishment and applies to all women. The punishment of submission to men was for all women.

The Bible says that man is the head of woman for Eve was made for Adam for none of the animals were suitable partners for him (Genesis 2). Paul says that women were made for men and Adam was made first to show supremacy just like Genesis says (1 Corinthians 11:9, 10). It says man and not just husbands, which makes it worse.

Paul is not just saying that wives were made for husbands – though he brought Genesis up to defend this view – for it makes no sense to say a wife is inferior to a husband and that women are not inferior to men in other things for the other things are not as serious as marriage so he is saying that women in general are made for men and made to serve them.

Wives are told to submit to their husbands for they are as inferior to husbands as the Church is to Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5). The man loves his wife as his own flesh but she is not told to love him as hers so her body is as much his as his own. The love the Bible commands for wives does not mean that the husband is equal to or inferior to his wife but his wife only has value in so far as she is his body. The husband gives the orders which gives him the advantage, the control inferring that women must be dopier than stupid husbands. But the smartest person should be allowed the final decisions if mutual agreement is not possible. It is impossible to imagine that the ordination of women could be allowable when you read all this.

The early Church had a problem with women based cults springing up.  That probably explains why we read in the First Letter to Timothy chapter 2 that Adam was not deceived by the serpent's lies but his wife Eve was.  Some say it blames Adam for the first sin for he knew what he was doing and listened to a deceived woman.  Others note that the Bible often says deception in spiritual matters is often self-inflicted so she was the one to blame.  Whatever the story is, the message is that a man is at risk of being fooled by a woman.  There is no room though for the idea that Eve was innocently led astray - being deceived and being at fault for it are compatible.


The Old Testament has a very low opinion of women.

God approved of men having several wives at the one time for he could have said he didn’t approve even if it was something he had to allow or tolerate. When God calls the second or whatever woman a wife it is most likely that he thought that was what she was (Exodus 21:10). He could have limited sex with the other wives but did not so they were real wives in his view. God never even tried to put Abraham or David or Solomon off polygamy and they could have gotten away with having one wife which he should have done if he couldn’t tell everybody that it was wrong.

God could at least have forbidden sex between the man and the second or third or whatever wife. God condoned adultery. God could at least have been honest enough to tell men to have other women if they wanted and to make some kind of legal contract with them but not to regard them as wives. To call a second wife in addition to the first a wife is to say that plural marriages are valid. And the Old Testament does that many times.

God apparently had tremendous trouble with his stiff-necked people and when he forced so much on them – like the overused death penalty - that was unwelcome he could have declared women equal to men. Perhaps he could have ordered them to believe that women were equal and let them treat them as inferiors for once the belief is changed the discrimination will gradually be phased out. If you believe in the Bible you must denounce the doctrine of sexual equality.

God is evil if he has given men and women different roles and these roles were for making husbands the masters of their wives (Genesis 3:16). Liberal Christians say that the man can be the master of his wife as long as she is his master. But read Genesis chapter 3 which says God made man the master of woman to punish her – it was something she was not supposed to like. It would not be punishment if it was mutual submission for that is necessary for marital harmony. It would not be punishment if she were so stupid that she needed somebody to tell her what to do UNLESS God was making woman stupid so that she needed a man. That would be a daunting punishment indeed.

The Old and New Testament says that Eve’s punishment is given by God to all women (Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:14,15). It is obvious that when childbirth was made painful for Eve after her sin and all women suffer that the curse was meant for all women. God punished Eve by saying her husband must rule over her and said this in the context of dishing out permanent punishment to Adam, her and the snake and to their offspring so it means all women must be ruled by their husbands. You can’t have a woman minister or priest who is ruled by the husband so women clergy are prohibited.

God could have made us as hermaphrodite creatures which can have sexual relationships and which only have babies if they are ready and by self-impregnation and only if they are moral. It is wrong to create roles where none are needed. That is discrimination. To praise the Bible God is to praise sexism. The current system in which any nincompoop can be a father or mother is diabolical and clearly proves that God does not like children.

If a man lies with a married slave they are not to be put to death (Leviticus 19:20). If she had not been a slave the pair would have been stoned to death (Leviticus 20:10). All the man had to do to atone was to have a ram sacrificed. The man should have been put to death if the law that adulterers should be put to death was fair. God does not think much of the woman when he regards her as no better than a sex doll and her marriage as insignificant.

Women could not become priests under the Jewish Law. And divorce was the privilege of the men.

A pair who were married and divorced were not allowed to remarry each other if the woman had married another man in between for it was an abomination before the Lord (Deuteronomy 24). The Law makes a difference between men and women so since it does not lay down the same rule when it is a man who married someone else it is inferring that it is okay for a man to do what the women did. The rule is plainly absurd. Marriage should be for life and marrying a previous marriage partner again is better than marrying somebody new. The Law forbids adding to its rulings meaning that it is a sin to make a rule allowing women to divorce even if times change.

The Old Testament demeans women by having one rule for the men and a harsher one for the women.


When 1 Corinthians 14 says that women should not speak in Church and ask questions at home instead for it is shameful when a woman speaks in Church for the Law says that they should be subordinate to men, it is being sexist. Especially, when it says this is the rule in all the Churches. There is no evidence that women were ever allowed to speak in Church so then this is an absolute sexist ban. Chapter 11 permits women to pray and prophesy but only with covered heads. This does not mean in Church for Paul begins to discuss conduct in Church afterwards (v17). Paul never even hinted that only disruptive and chatty women were forbidden to talk in Church but talked as if he meant all women. This was sexist for men with the same fault were unmentioned. Paul believed that the Law did not allow women to speak at worship. This is true for they were not involved in Temple worship or synagogue worship. Paul had already given rules to make meetings orderly and did not need to urge women to be orderly. So, what he said was based on sexism and not on the desire for other.

Many meetings would have been comprised of tiny groups for some people prefer it that way which proves that Paul was being sexist for he never said it was okay for women to speak at small meetings.

The word for the silence the women were to keep was sigao which denotes total silence and since we are not told that just asking questions was banned they were forbidden to open their mouths. If women were a nuisance with questions he would have condemned their rudeness not their speaking. And pagan society had nothing against women in religion so don’t think the ban was just a custom to please others it was a law. If women were causing trouble and altercation in Church the men would have been as bad.

Paul cuttingly asked women if the word of the Lord originated with them or reached only them (14:36). The Amplified Bible tries to say that Paul meant if the word started with the Corinthians. But when the Bible itself says men decided prophetically what the word of God is, that interpretation is unnecessary and quite wrong. Corinth would not have been the only place where women or anybody wanted to chat about God in Church and proclaim the word of God. Paul meant that women were disobeying the divine ban on women teaching the word of God and because they disobeyed he decides to be sarcastic.

Some say that what Paul is doing is giving a hint that the women were claiming a monopoly on God which was why they were silenced by him. The Bible is clear that God did not give his doctrine through women. So Paul meant that only men get the word of God. If that justifies Paul’s criticism then God does not like women. So, the reason Paul says women act as if the word of God was theirs only is that he thinks they are doing what is forbidden by God in speaking as if God allowed it.

If God inspired Paul then it is a fact that God regards women as not being as important as men.

Does the Bible contradict itself on whether men and women are equal?

Paul declared that all were one in Jesus because all were baptised into him so that there was no slave or free or man or woman (Galatians 3:27, 28). This does not mean that all are the same and equally valuable for some are more wicked and some are more important than others. Paul does not mean that all are treated the same for all are at different levels of goodness and different jobs. It means that all are treated the same as regards being accepted by and united to Jesus for the context is union with him. They may be unequal in other ways. This is not denied. So this is no proof text against women clergy or sexism or racism.

Women were chosen as the first witnesses to the resurrection. That does not prove that women are as good as men because men saw Jesus later and men were the important witnesses or apostles in God and the New Testament’s eyes. It is the same with prophetesses like Deborah in the Old Testament. They had to prophesy and then male prophets passed them, they examined and approved their prophecies, so it was all under the control of men.

It is not said that Deborah in the Bible was able to give out scripture. She may have been a prophetess in the loose sense. And one woman among tons of male prophets who were able to write scriptures means nothing. It is an insult to women to say it does.

Jesus is praised for upholding the single life meaning that he liberated women in his society from the wife and mother role. But did he? His praise for celibacy was addressed only to men. He never encouraged any woman to be single.

It is said that Jesus denied that women were mere objects when he accepted even converted fallen women as disciples. Though he treated women as disciples, he never affirmed them as women. There are no sermons on the greatness of womanhood.

It is said that when Jesus said it is only what is in the heart that makes one unclean he was rejecting the Jewish doctrine that menstruating women were unclean. But he was talking about unclean food not menstruation. It could be thought that menstruation is the body's response to sin in the heart.

It is said the gospels honour female testimony to the risen Jesus. The gospels do not mention the names of males who saw the risen Jesus but only the women. It does that at first but males including Thomas are mentioned later. Also, it tells us elsewhere who the disciples are. Plus it was men, the gospel writers, who were saying the female testimony was valid. So the testimony of women had to be approved by men - it is no better than a male testimony.

The fact that the Virgin Mary in her apparitions that have been “verified” by the Catholic Church never says she is a priest, for you would expect God to have ordained his mother, and condemns women priests indicates that it is wrong to ordain women. The message this sends is this: it is right to hurt women’s feelings over faith though there is no harm in them functioning as priests. That is hatred towards women and these apparitions should be given no credence. The Roman Church says that women are priests and have the right to offer Mass but not as ministerial priests. The Church teaches the priesthood of all the validly baptised so to say women are priests but cannot be ordained priests so that they can consecrate the sacrifice that the priest together with the people of God offer to God shows the intrinsic misogynism of the Christian faith.

The Roman Catholic Church is a cult for it would and indeed does harm the rights of women. It makes even men who believe that women are equal subconsciously adopt serious forms of chauvinism. Christianity looks down on women. The Bible does it and therefore the Bible should be a banned book. To revere the sexist Jesus is to revere the oppression of women for he is regarded as an infallible being.

The Amplified Bible


Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann, Penguin, London, 1991
Reality, Vol 61, No 4, April 1996
The End of Silence, Karen Armstrong, Fourth Estate, London, 1993
The Head Covering, Timothy Nelson, Mourne Missionary Trust, Kilkeel, Co Down
The Woman’s Role, Dr Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1985
Your Daughters Shall Prophesy, Rita W McCormick, Outlook Press, Co Down, 1979

The Furrow is available from
St Patrick’s College,
Co Kildare