Any discussion of bondage and the Bible would be remiss if the Biblical role outlined for women was omitted. In both
the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status
is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel,
and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance and even fewer are worthy of emulation.
Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then
Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Tim 2:12-14, NIV). Is it
any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative. With his usual wit Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion
has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true,
I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men" ("Ingersoll's
Works": Vol. I, p. 358). One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting
women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach
those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests.
To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only too well:
"...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen 3:16). "But I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man..." (1 Cor 11:3). "Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man" (1 Cor 11:9). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband
is the head of the wife... therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every
thing" (Eph 5:22-24).
Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut 21:10-14, 24:1-4; Judges 5:30; Esther 1:20-22; Rom 7:2; 1 Col 3:18; Titus
2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1; Lev 12:2, 5; Gen 3:20. If these are not sufficient there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists
try to softpedal the entire mater, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is
it any wonder that feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling
blocks in the way of woman's emancipation" ("Free Thought Magazine": Vol. 14, 1896). And she also said, "I know of no other
book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women" ("Eight Years and More," Elizabeth Cady Stanton, p. 395).
Not to be outdone Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it [the Bible] is not the friend of woman. They will
find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind
of necessary evil -- as mere property" ("Ingersoll's Works", Vol. 12, p. 43). "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter
of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation
and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ"
("Ingersoll's Works", Vol. I, p. 396). But, perhaps, George Foote made the most poignant comment of all: "It will be the proud
boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."