It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".
Originally posted by riley
Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".
Yeah right.. and "Love honour and obey" in christianity was 'for her own good'.
It's only in the last sixty years that it's been illegal to beat your wife.. the bible said they were property so so did the law.
They included many great women. You know the Prophetess Deborah? No? Oh well. What about Mary (mother of Jesus Christ)? Despite what some Anti-Catholics may say, she played an enormous part in religion. In Islam, there is Aisha, and Khadija, who played a great part.
It doesn't say "Marry as many women as you like". It says "Marry women you like, two or three or four, but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one".
Also, it's not a branch, it's grass. It doesn't say that it's ok to beat your wife with it, though. It's talking about Job. I don't see how hitting someone with grass is meant to hurt very much. Also, I don't understand why you brought forward a (suspiciously unsupported) reference to Mosiac law while discussing Islam. It might (although I doubt it) be Mosiac law, but it's certainly not Islamic.
You have to remember, at the time of these books, women couldn't do much without men. The men were the main bread-winners of the family. Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".
Originally posted by MacDonagh
All the major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all stem from the olde Abraham tree
No. All major religions do NOT stem from the Abrahamic tree, only those three plus the Bah'ai faith. Even restricting ourselves to non-modern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Sikhism, and many others have roots completely outside the Abrahamic soil.
And if you DO include more modern religions, you must include my own -- Neopaganism -- which most emphatically does NOT subordinate women in any way, shape, or form.
I see this all the time from atheists: an attribution to "religion" in general, what really is a specific characteristic of one, or of several, specific religions. Belief in or experience of a higher power is not what leads to these abuses, yet it is what atheists often (conveniently and quite irrationally) blame for them. And that is why I always ask atheists in these religion discussions one question: "What would God be if he, she, or it did exist?" It is necessary to define precisely WHAT you don't believe in, and what you are asserting that a belief in leads to villainy of whatever kind, without vagueness or guilt-by-associating inappropriately applied.
Originally posted by MacDonagh
Oh, my bad. Surely "those" religions are free from such blame right? WRONG!
Neopaganism? Lookie here boy. Making up religions isn't cool. You just add fuel to the fire. If your talking about paganism, then I'd tend to agree with ya, but NEOpaganism?
You assume that I'm an atheist because I question. You've no idea what I believe in.
If you read the rest of my post, you will see that I'm not saying they are free of it. They emerged during the period of classical civilization, too. What I AM saying is that you expressed yourself carelessly and in a manner containing gross factual error. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to avoid that sort of thing. It makes you look like you're writing off the cuff, and too lazy to do your homework.
I'm talking about the modern pagan revival, for which "Neopaganism" is an accepted term. Actually, ancient and original paganism in its many forms usually DID oppress women.
I am not making anything up, as you would know, except that apparently you haven't done your homework in this context, either.
Bar the possible exception of Paganism, but I've not read too much into it.
Point taken, although in fact I never said you were an atheist, I only said this is what I say to those who are. Consider the question asked now, and if my assumption is incorrect I shall apologize.
Originally posted by MacDonagh
Women are subjugated by Religion
Originally posted by MacDonaghWhich part of "can't be assed" didn't you understand? Did you not read MAJOR religions?
Who can claim to have been bigger opponents to women's rights then Christianity, Islam and Judism? I don't want to talk about other religions, because it'd be too gruelling to start going for ALL of them.
What makes your way different from the ways of old?
Why should I consider it?
My spiritual views or values have no place in this thread.
Originally posted by MacDonagh
They included many great women. You know the Prophetess Deborah? No? Oh well. What about Mary (mother of Jesus Christ)? Despite what some Anti-Catholics may say, she played an enormous part in religion. In Islam, there is Aisha, and Khadija, who played a great part.
I presume that they were all obedient and stoic right? The few heroines that are found in the holy books are just that, and that's what women should aim for, to be like those women. Silent and obedient.
Originally posted by MacDonagh
Anyways, what else did you say?
It doesn't say "Marry as many women as you like". It says "Marry women you like, two or three or four, but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one".
How can you know if you can deal "justly" with them? Is there like a rating system or something or is it left to the bloke's judgement?
Originally posted by MacDonagh
Also, it's not a branch, it's grass. It doesn't say that it's ok to beat your wife with it, though. It's talking about Job. I don't see how hitting someone with grass is meant to hurt very much. Also, I don't understand why you brought forward a (suspiciously unsupported) reference to Mosiac law while discussing Islam. It might (although I doubt it) be Mosiac law, but it's certainly not Islamic.
Islam was made hundreds of years after Judasim, or Christianity. They have taken bits from Mosaic law which suit them. Don't believe me? Orthodox Jews attack Israeli women for wearing sleeveless dresses and deigning to pray at the Wailing Wall. Probebly something that is frowned upon in Mosaic Law right? Islam takes it to new extremes by introducing burkas or stupid wee tents to put over their women.
Originally posted by MacDonagh
Okay, I must take you up on this. Why bother to hit them in the first place? It's a little bit strange to have a verse dedicated to hitting women with grass eh?