No Loving God

In a recent hour of Dennis Prager’s radio show, Bart Eherman, professor and author of many books critical of Christianity, was the guest brought on to discuss belief in God. During the discussion, Mr. Eherman articulated what may be the most classic argument against the God of Judaism and Christianity.

"In the Judeo-Christian tradition, people have typically made three assertions [1) God is all powerful. 2) God is all loving. 3) There is suffering.]. Each one of which seems to be true on it’s own, but when you put them together there seems to be some kind of contradiction. The reason it creates a problem is because if God is all powerful then he is able to do anything that he wants, and if he’s all loving then he doesn’t want people to suffer and yet there is suffering. Why did this world have to be created in such a way as to cause such suffering…there is nothing written into the rules of the universe that says the world has to be this way.”

Apparently, to the atheist/skeptic this argument is very convincing, judging from the frequency with which it is raised.

I bring up this little episode because there is one thing this particular argument demonstrates very effectively, unfortunately for people like Eherman it’s not that the God of the Bible is rationally inconsistent, but rather that otherwise intelligent and well-educated people are not immune to believing wholly foolish things.

The argument, as Eherman correctly posits it, relies entirely on three assumptions:
1) The understanding of what “all-powerful” means.
2) That one knows what God would do in a certain situation.
3) Related to 1), that the world could function differently than it does.

I will take 1) and 3) together since I believe them to be related. Many people, Christians included, labor under the impression that being “all powerful,” or “omnipotent” as the Bible puts it, means that any being who possessed that quality, i.e. God, could do anything. This is simply not true.

The problem arises because most people confuse power with ability. Some Christians may want to write me off after they read the next sentence, but please hear me out. God is limited in His ability, not in His power; there are things that He cannot do. He cannot do anything against His own nature (unloving, unjust, unrighteous, etc.) nor can he do anything irrational (He can’t create a square-circle, for instance).

This brings me to the third point, that the world could function differently than it does. Possibly. But theologians have argued for millennia that for God to create a creature (man) that was truly in His image that creature must be capable of a number of qualities, love among them. For love to be genuine it must be freely given, there is no such thing as forced love. Thus for man to be made in God’s image and to love Him, man required the ability to reject God and engage in behavior disobedient to His laws. We call this disobedience immorality which often results in suffering. Theologians and philosophers have long understood that for man to be genuinely created in God’s image, the world could not other than it is.

Point 2) is far easier to clear up than even 1) and 3). How do we, with our limited understanding of the world, claim to know what a being such as the Judeo-Christian God would do in any given situation? In reality, all Mr. Eherman has done is tell us what he would do with limitless power, but with incredibly finite foreknowledge and understanding. This is truly incredible arrogance.

Sorry Bart, the old argument doesn't wash. If you want to indict the Bible for inconsistencies, then you need to do so on it’s terms and not pour your own presuppositions into the text.

What is a Christian to Say?

The famous British philosopher and noted atheist, Bertrand Russell, asked the following question of Christianity in his book ‘Why I am Not a Christian’: What is a Christian to say when seated at the bedside of a dying child?

For many atheists and agnostics, this question is a powerful one. They see it as striking at one of the core belief of Christianity – that God all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly loving. Would not the fact of a child dying of leukemia, for instance, have to contradict one of those beliefs? Because the child will die, and thousands upon thousands do die all the time, then if there is a God He must be deficient in one or more of those three areas (I will address this precise objection in another post).

However Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig was able to turn the question around and answer it in a brilliant and satisfying way: What is the atheist to say when he’s seated at the bedside of a dying child? (Tough luck?).

His observation is powerful. For the atheist, that child was dealt a terrible draw in life’s lottery. Oh well, that’s just the way things go. For the Christian, we acknowledge that life is full suffering, nothing about our beliefs shy away from that fact, the Bible clearly teaches us to expect that. But it goes so far beyond the transient nature of this life! That child can know that death is not the end of the line, that that child, through the grace of the Father and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, can expect to raised to life again and live forever with God and His followers. That at such a time God will address all injustices and all wrongs will be made right. What a powerful message.

P.S. For another brief post on why the problem of evil and suffering doesn't contradict the concept of a good, loving, and powerful God, see this post.

Things I Learned on the Train

I used to ride the “Coaster” to and from work every day, a trip from the North County area of San Diego into the city of San Diego itself; about a 50 minute ride. Surrounded by professionals commuting back and forth everyday, the train car is fertile ground for interesting discussion, at least when I sit near someone interested in talking. Twice I have had very interesting conversations with an older gentleman, an aggressive atheist who claimed to be writing a book that would put the final nail in the coffin of Christianity.

I would like to take a few moments today to focus on tactics; what did I do right during these conversations? What did I do wrong? Hopefully, I (and you) can learn a little bit through this self-examination on my part and be better prepared next we are faced with a similar opportunity.

In thinking over the conversations, I have identified one primary misstep that I made several times throughout the discussion: I allowed him to dominate the conversation. I don’t mean that he spent most of the time talking, but rather that I spent most of my time responding to his claims rather than making him work as hard as he worked me.

In conversations such as this one, the gentleman I was debating is known as a “steamroller.” The general M.O. of a steamroller is to ask a question, listen to the answer for a few moments and then either interrupt with his own thoughts on the subject, cutting the other person off, or ask a completely new question, without responding to anything the other has said or allowing him (me in this case) to finish the thought he had begun.

My “opponent” was a classic steamroller who jumped from topic to topic, the gospels aren’t reliable, the genealogy of Joseph is contradictory, the two versions of the ten-commandments are different, various failings of early church writers, morally problematic passages in the Law, without letting me finish a single thought or ever responding to any of the arguments I made. What can one do if caught is a conversation like this?

The answer, in hindsight, is perfectly clear.

I have spent the last third of my life studying history, culture, theology, textural criticism and philosophy - in short apologetics, and was well prepared for most of my fellow conversationalist’s questions; I felt that I gave very good responses to most of them. However, by allowing him to control the topics, I let him get away from arguments without ever truly engaging them.

I should have taken control of the situation. Allowing the atheist or skeptic to control conversations is one of the most common mistakes that Christians make. It always goes like this: The atheist makes a claim. The Christian does an enormous amount of heavy lifting in the arenas of Scripture, History, Culture, Archeology, etc. to refute the claim. The atheist makes a new claim and the process is repeated until the Christian doesn’t have a satisfactory response and the atheist claims victory.

I should have kindly and politely interrupted the gentleman, saying something to the effect of, “Excuse me, but you claimed that the events of Jesus’ life, as reported in the Gospels are identical to many of the events in the life of the Pagan deity Mithra. I have demonstrated that this simply is not the case. What do think?” In other words, politely request that he finish the conversation that he began. This is not rude, or aggressive; it is asking him to do the courteous thing and respond to my comments on his original claim. Not only is it respectful for him to address my comments, but his failure to do so allows him to skate through the conversation without doing any of the intellectual heavy lifting.

In thinking back on the conversations, I believe that I did two things right in particular.

The first thing that anyone must know, particularly Christians as we are always hot to defend Christianity, is that the one who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. For example, while engaged in another conversation with an atheist, he made the claim, “Belief in God is irrational.” What many Christians do, and what I used to do, at this point is launch into a full scale argument demonstrating why this claim is false. Instead, the right response is to say, “Oh really? What do you mean?” and then to wait.

You see, my friend made a claim, but if he can’t back it up with evidence or an argument, why should I (or you) have to put yourself through all the trouble of refuting it. In addition, allowing him to expand on and defend his claim lets you know exactly how you should address it. Maybe he has a specific beef with the rationality of belief in God that you might miss completely if you just launch into a full fledged defense of it.

This occurred several times during my conversations on the train, and thankfully I recognized them and bounced that ball right back into my friends court with a simple, “What do you mean by that?”

The second thing I did right, on several occasions, was to recognize when an a claim was irrelevant. In my second conversation with this atheist gentleman he kept bringing up examples of self-professed Christians who have engaged in gross immorality during some time in their life after openly accepting Christ. It should be immediately apparent to everyone that immorality or criminality in the lives of certain self-professed followers of Christ has little to do the main topic we were discussing; namely the reality of God and the truth claims of Jesus and the Bible.

I thank God that he gave me the insight during these conversations to not fall into the trap of defending or rejecting the imperfect lives of certain believers, but to simply point out that Pope so-and-so had multiple children out of wedlock and murdered his rivals says nothing about the truth of Jesus, only that we human beings are sinful (which the Bible points out numerous times itself).

Two closing thoughts: Some Christians object the term ‘tactics’ when thinking about how we should engage unbelievers in conversations; they believe the use of rhetorical tactics is somehow tricking the unbeliever or is unchristian in some way. I disagree, tactics, when used fairly, are simply the wise application of knowledge in a conversation. All Christians should be able to condone that.

Secondly, many Christians question the value of discussing apologetics with hardened atheists. They claim that we should just give them the gospel and let them do with it what they will, allow God to work on them. This is true, we do need to give everyone the gospel and God will work on them; but some, like the gentleman on the train, have erected mental road blocks to God which need to be torn down before they can genuinely accept the gospel message. God often uses other believers to accomplish this.

As I was getting off the train, this man thanked me for the conversation and then said something that floored me: “I have never spoken with a Christian believer like you before.” This man has gone his whole life, apparently, believing that Christians are irrational and must ignore science, history, and culture in addition to doing mental gymnastics to get around supposed Biblical contradictions. In me, by the grace of God, he saw a follower of Christ who doesn’t do any of those things, one who didn’t fit his mold. Maybe, just maybe, his first mental road-block has fallen away.

Moral Foundations, Necessary or Not?

All laws must have a moral backing, that is, a moral law as their foundation. Contrary to those who say that "You can't legislate morality," I say, "If you don't legislate morality, what do you legislate?" Without that moral foundation, any legislation is simply argumentum ad baculum, or (paraphrased) in English, "persuasion from the barrel of a gun." You will do what we say simply because we want you to do it. The only obligation that you have is to the government and there is no one greater than us to whom we are accountable. And if you don't like it, lump it.

Without some higher authority morality is reduced to ice cream; you like vanilla, I like mocha almond fudge. Except we're talking about morality here, so it becomes, you prefer not taking other peoples' stuff, I like to help myself to any of your possessions that catch my eye. Who's to say who's right? In fact, without that objective, authoritative moral standard, even asking the question "who is right," is nonsensical. If there is no higher standard there is no right or wrong, just personal preference; your decision not to steal is no better than my decision to steal.

Some people who want to deny the necessity of an objective, authoritative (thus God-based) moral foundation argue that we get our morality through periods of trial and error, discovering what works.

But who's to say what works for any given society? Certainly, cutting the hearts out of living victims kidnapped from other local tribes by the thousands seemed to work quite well for the Aztec civilization. African slavery worked great for most of the world (including most of Africa) for hundreds of years. Purging their society of the aged, the handicapped, and the Jews looked like it might "work" for the purposes of the Nazis. Without a moral standard outside of human government and culture, these atrocities cannot be judged as "wrong." Without an authoritative moral standard, the strongest statement one can make about these events is, "Personally, I don't like that." Seems pretty weak to me.

"But," the secularist argues, "all those examples involve hurting other people. Thus, we can say such actions are immoral." Really? Where does one, outside of an objective, authoritative moral standard, have the ability to say that hurting people is wrong? Let me put it another way: You claim there are no transcendent moral standards, but we shouldn't hurt people. If that's true, then isn't "not hurting people" a transcendent moral law? To say that there is not an authoritative Law Giver who we are obligated to obey, but at the same time claim that we are obligated not to hurt people is a contradiction. May I also point out that if we agree that "not hurting people" IS a transcendent moral law, then couldn't there be other transcendent moral laws as well?

The strongest statement the secular legal scholar can make is, "I don't like being hurt, therefore I chose not to hurt other people." Wonderful! That's an excellent reason for you not to hurt people, not for anybody else not to hurt people. What if I like hurting people? By what authority, other than one's personal preferences, could I then be told to change my behavior? There is none.

Without a God, who is The Moral Authority, people have no obligation to help or be concerned for others, all societies from the most violent and degraded to the most kind and altruistic are on the same level, one can't be said to be better than the other (the idea of "better" implies an objective standard). Words like "corruption" and "justice" become meaningless. There can never be such a thing as a moral reformer, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.; in fact, in what 99.8% of people would surely consider a bizarre twist, in a world where culture, society, or government truly was the highest authority, M. L. King, Jr. would be considered immoral (I'm not going to take up more space here demonstrating why that would be).

Without God, the whole philosophical basis for a justice system or a legal system breaks down completely. And the result are truly ugly to behold.

God and Your Job

Recently, I have handled a number of questions from friends and acquaintances asking about "God's will for their life" with a particular emphasis on jobs and vocation. Does God have a specific job he wants you to do, or a specific company He wants you to work for?

The question is closely tied to the common Christian assumption, widely held today, that God has some special blueprint for your life; where you will live, who you will marry, what job you will have, etc., etc,. Certainly God knows all of these things, but the question is whether God is making these decisions for you and if you need to figure out what His choices are before you can make a move.

Does God have this blueprint for you and He's dropping little hints here and there, trying to get you to figure out what He wants you to do? Personally, I have a hard time thinking of a more hurtful or confusing teaching within the mainstream Christian Church today than this one.

Having studied the Bible with the same questions in mind, I found that the Bible communcates God's will in two different and distinct ways; what many have come to refer to as "God's Sovereign Will," and "God's Moral Will:"

God's Sovereign Will: What God designs or decrees. We can only discover what God's sovereign will is in two ways, through hindsight and through what is revealed in scripture. We see what happened yesterday and realize that what occured did so by God's sovereign will. God establishes rulers and authorities, kings and kingdoms; He has supreme authority overeverything that happens. It is God's sovereign will that lost be condemned and the saved be sanctified and redeemed; we see this in scripture. There are a number of prophesies in scripture which inform us of God's sovereign will for the future. That said, the vast majority of the time we don't have access to God's sovereign will for the purpose of decision making.

God's Moral Will: What God desires. This tells us how we should live: that we should submit ourselves to His authority, that we should live righteously and not sin. God's Moral will is completely revealed to us in Scripture. It does not give individual guidence to Christians, but applies to all Christains equally.

As far as what many Christians call "God's Individual Will" for each one of us, I can't find that taught anywhere in scripture. I know of many passages which are used to justify such a teaching, but when read in context they don't actually have anything to do with such an "Individual Will". It appears clear from the Bible that God doesn't decide things like occupation, spouse, and living location for us, He dignifies us with the responsibility of making significant choices ourselves.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that God doesn't care about the decisions that we make, but that he allows us to make the decisions that are best for us, and is pleased with our choices as long as they are in accordance with His moral will as revealed in scripture. As far as how to apply God's will to your life, it really is very simple: The Bible doesn't tell us where we should live, but what kind of neighbor we should be. It doesn't tell us what job we should take, but what kind of employee or employer we should be. It doesn't tell us who we should marry, but what kind of spouse we should be. The Bible doesn't tell us who we should have a freind, but what kind of friend we should be.

In short, if you think that you need to change occupations...DO IT! If you truly desire to honor God, you will honor him whether you decide to stay in your current position, or leave to do something new, as long as your decision is in line with His moral will as clearly communicated in the Bible.

Advice for Young People Considering College

I work a great deal with the High School kids in my Church; I teach on Sunday mornings and I am considering facilitating another small discussion group one night a week; so I am exposed to a lot of the issues, problems, and questions that young people today, especially in the Christian tradition, are dealing with. One issue that I am particularly passionate about is decision making, how one goes about making wise decisions.

This subject is especially relevant to high-schoolers as they are quickly approaching some major changes in their life, some major decisions that will have very real and serious ramifications for years to come, possibly for the rest of their lives. What do I do after high-school? Should I go to college? What school should I attend? What career do I want to pursue? Should I get married?

In this vein, a friend recently wrote me to ask how I had decided on pursuing (and eventually completing) my degree in Engineering. I would like to share my response, as I think it contains some good advise (if I do say so myself), specifically about picking a career, but also how to deal with life questions generally.

I got into engineering for two reasons:

1. I liked technical drawings. I always enjoyed looking at technical drawings and I figured I would probably enjoy creating them too. It turns out that I was right, and that had I natural talent for it (I was far-and-away the top student in every technical drawing class I ever took).

2. I wanted a career that would provide a comfortable income and relative job security. Engineering does both. Engineers are paid well and there is always a demand for them.

While I started with technical drawing classes, which I continued to love, I found that I also enjoyed most of the other engineering classes I that began taking (advanced math, physics, dynamics, testing, technical writing, problem solving, etc.). My enjoyment of the material I was studying and the potential for a solid, respectable career, confirmed the wisdom of the choice for me. That’s pretty much it.

Apart from that, let me give you some advice. I don’t have a very high view of going to college simply for the sake of getting a degree. I know too many people who have spent a great deal of time and money getting degrees in things like theater or “liberal arts” and upon graduating have no career prospects. Three years after completing their education they are working at Safeway, a decent job, but not what most people want to do for the rest of their life.

In my opinion, college is a tool to provide one with the resources that one needs to get started in the career of his choice. Think hard about what you want to do after college, and then take classes and get a degree that will help you achieve that goal. Maybe the career you want to have in 15 years doesn’t require a college education (there are plenty of great options that don’t), if your ideal career doesn’t require college then the 4+ years and all the money you will spend there are wasted. Start working toward what you want right now instead of waiting years and wasting money that could be better used in achieving your specific goals.

If you don't know what you want to do right now, then go out and experience real life for a while. Get a job, work, and see what it really takes to get by in real life. A year or two of doing this and most young people will discover what they would like to do with themselves. I cannot tell you how valuable this is! Until you know what you really want to do you'll just float in University limbo, or worse, spend a lot of time and money getting a degree you have no use for and setting yourself back four, or five, or six years.

My point is this: Decide what you want to be doing in 15 years, both in your working life and in your domestic life. Think hard about what you need to do to achieve those goals and make realistic plans. If you have an idea about a specific career, seek out people who work in that field and ask for their advise about what to do, most people like helping.

Once you have a plan, buckle down and get to work. Nothing worth having is going to be easy; I worked for nearly seven years in college before graduating, and even then I had difficulty finding a stable job. It’s taken me almost 4 years since graduating to get into a career I enjoy, want to continue in, and will provide my family with a decent living.

I hope that helps. It’s the best advice I can give you right now.

The Bible and Women in the Church

Recently, I was asked by an acquaintance what I thought the Bible says regarding women teaching in church. This is one of the questions that elicits gut emotional responses in most Christians; I have known commentators on every side of the debate ignore information that needed to be dealt with and make dogmatic stands when they have no reason to do so. To the best of my recollection, I have only ever heard one commentator make a truly convincing argument on this Biblical issue. I hope that I did better in the letter to my friend, which is reproduced below:

The issue you raised of women teaching in regard to the Church/Bible being out of step with what we consider modern "human rights" is an interesting one. May women teach in the Church?

There are only three passages that I am aware of that are appealed to in order to make the argument that God doesn’t allow women to teach. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul spells out the requirements that one must meet who desires to be a leader in the local church:

1 Timothy 3:1-2
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…

Paul goes on and on. Clearly, this level of leadership is restricted to men, as that leader must be married to a woman. But this passage says nothing about whether women should be allowed to teach. We know there were a great many members of the local church who taught and yet were not members of the leadership; this is true today, I myself have held lengthy teaching positions in two churches, yet I would never have been considered a member of the Church leadership. Therefore, women cannot be excluded from teaching based upon this passage.

The next is located in 1 Corinthians 14:33a-35, in which Paul writes:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

It seems clear, taken in isolation, but what is really going on in this passage? If you read the paragraphs above this section, and the paragraphs below this section, Paul is addressing problems that are disrupting worship in the church at Corinth. This section is only one small part of a larger passage in which Paul is attempting to promote orderly worship.

Look at the sentence that immediately follows verse 34 (the verse cited to support women not teaching):
If they [the women] want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Verse 34 provides insight into the specific problem Paul is writing to address in the previous verse. Apparently, women (who were generally far less educated at that time) were asking questions of each other, or their husbands, or the teachers during the service, and thus were causing a disruption of worship.

Paul doesn’t address teaching in this paragraph, he addresses talking during the service; much like kids today who disrupt the lesson for everyone else when they speak out of turn in class. If what Paul means here is that women shouldn’t be teaching, then verse 34 is a non sequitur. It makes absolutely no sense.

This leaves us with the final passage:

1 Timothy 2:11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 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. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I know this seems to be set in concrete, but let me put forward a possible alternative interpretation that I believe does complete justice to the text and to all of Paul’s other teaching.

The Greek word for ‘woman’ in this passage is ‘Gune.’ While 'gune' is the most common Greek word found in the NT for ‘woman,’ it also happens to be the most common word in the NT for ‘wife’ as well. The Greek word used for ‘man’ in this passage is ‘aner.’ 'Aner' also happens to be the most common word in the NT for husband. It was the translators’ decision to interpret these two words as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ because they believed that the context of the passage called for it to be this way.

But is this right? The vast majority of the time, when these two Greek words are found together in a passage, they are translated as ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ unless there is very clear reason not to. Although I am not a Greek scholar, I don’t see any such reason in this passage, nor have I ever heard one presented beyond the personal beliefs of the interpreters on this issue.

So let’s insert the other linguistically acceptable translation and see if it works as well or better than the traditional one:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to teach or to have authority over a husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But wives will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This alternative works. It does justice to Paul’s teaching in other letters and it makes sense in light of the surrounding passages. What was the relationship between Adam and Eve, seeing as Paul is justifying his preceding argument upon the relationship that existed between them? Nearly all who point to this verse as a prohibition on women teachers say the relationship in view was the first man and women. Maybe. But, in my humble opinion, the relationship could just as easily be that of the first husband and wife! In fact, I find this possibility more likely, as this is how Adam and Eve would have related to each other.

It also makes sense in light of the following passages where Paul asks the Church in Rome to greet his fellow servants in Christ:

Romans 16:1-4, 6, 12, 15
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them…Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you…Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord…Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.

(Aside: It is unclear whether Julia is a man or a woman. In every instance of this name in ancient texts but two the sex of the bearer of that name is unknown. In one of those instances the bearer is female, in the other the bearer is male. So without further information, it is impossible to say whether the Julia in this passage is a man or a woman.)

I don’t believe that when Paul is talking about the great work these women have done for him and the church, he is referring to baking food for the local meeting. These women’s names are mixed up with men’s names, men who we know were teachers.

Acts 18:24-26
Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

In both the Old and New Testaments there were prophetesses, teachers of the people (I might also point out that prophet’s spoke with the authority of God, so when a prophetess spoke it would behoove both women and men to listen and learn):

Exodus 15:20
Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dancing.

Judges 4:4
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Luke 2:36-37
And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers.

Acts 21:8-10 On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.

It seems pretty clear that there is no prohibition on women teaching, and even teaching men, but rather on women holding leadership positions in the church. So again, your stated opinion that the Bible in some way contradicts our ideas of human rights (at least on this issue of the equality of the sexes) is flat out wrong (I hope you’re pleased to hear that). Instead, the Bible was far ahead of its time.