Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

[Shermana]

So, yes. Men ought always to dominate women and that women ought always to submit to men -- as in ancient cultures.

Thank you.

No problem. As long as you understand the context of "Dominate" and "Submit" and don't distort it. I can't imagine too many single marriage-minded women who wouldn't want her man to be dominant and assertive and have a sense of rules and order. And don't forget the "love your wife" part either.

 

[sojourner]

No problem. As long as you understand the context of "Dominate" and "Submit" and don't distort it. I can't imagine too many single marriage-minded women who wouldn't want her man to be dominant and assertive and have a sense of rules and order. And don't forget the "love your wife" part either.

"As in ancient cultures" implies all that comes with it: no property ownership, no rights, no honor, property of the husband, must submit sexually, etc. etc. You don't get to make up new rules for what is meant by "male dominant."

 

[Shermana]

"As in ancient cultures" implies all that comes with it: no property ownership, no rights, no honor, property of the husband, must submit sexually, etc. etc. You don't get to make up new rules for what is meant by "male dominant."

Where does it say in the Bible that women can't own property exactly? Did this change by the time of the writing of Judith? When the Persian King offered Esther up to half of his kingdom, was this a revoluationary concept of giving dominion to a Woman? What do you mean by "no rights" exactly? What does "No honor" mean in your terms? What kind of rights did men have that women didn't have in Ancient Israelite society? The right to see prostitutes? Where does it say she must submit sexually? It only says that the HUSBAND must submit sexually. Where does it say that they are property? You are confusing SOME cultural norms of SOME Ancient Cultures with what the text actually says, a common problem. I will bet you many dollars to few donuts that you will not be able to find too many sources on Israelite women having no actual rights or "honor" or being "property". Those concepts are typical Liberal buzzwords about the ancient culture, like "Ancient goat herders". The reality of those buzzword claims is a whole another story.

Thank you for revealing that you must use extra-biblical ideas to support your context.

 

[sojourner]

Where does it say in the Bible that women can't own property exactly? Did this change by the time of the writing of Judith? When the Persian King offered Esther up to half of his kingdom, was this a revoluationary concept of giving dominion to a Woman? What do you mean by "no rights" exactly? What does "No honor" mean in your terms? What kind of rights did men have that women didn't have in Ancient Israelite society? The right to see prostitutes? Where does it say she must submit sexually? It only says that the HUSBAND must submit sexually. Where does it say that they are property? You are confusing SOME cultural norms of SOME Ancient Cultures with what the text actually says, a common problem. I will bet you many dollars to few donuts that you will not be able to find too many sources on Israelite women having no actual rights or "honor" or being "property". Those concepts are typical Liberal buzzwords about the ancient culture, like "Ancient goat herders". The reality of those buzzword claims is a whole another story.

Thank you for revealing that you must use extra-biblical ideas to support your context.

Ah! Now we see the backpeddling. It's obvious that you know little about cultural anthropology.

 

[Shermana]

Ah! Now we see the backpeddling. It's obvious that you know little about cultural anthropology.

Thank you for once again admitting that you can't actually prove your claims or answer basic questions like whether this concept changed by the time of writing Judith, thanks again. And of course, Jezebel (despite being written as evil) couldn't have possibly held property or had rulership over such a society. Because Cultural Anthropology has somehow proven that the ancient Israelites oppressed women the way you speak of...somehow. Not like its just a baseless Liberal talking/attack point.

So for the record, there is NO evidence that the Israelites brutally oppressed women, and there is PLENTY of evidence that the text states they were able to have property, let alone BECOME REIGNING QUEENS. At best you have things like execution of non-virgins on their wedding night (Which can be interpreted to imply that they lied about their virginity, whether the test was accurate or not, it wasn't just death for all non-virgins).

Also, for anyone who's interested in actual Cultural Anthropology, you can see that much of the spiel about lack of women's rights in Ancient times.....is kinda propaganda. Not like they had it perfect, but much of the critique of ancient culture towards women seems to be distorted from a liberal-feminist "version" of the facts.

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/

And thank you for failing to clarify what "No honor" and "no rights" actually implies. Because as I said, loaded buzz words will often do the trick when you're short of actual evidence. Such a great substitute.

 

[sojourner]

Thank you for once again admitting that you can't actually prove your claims or answer basic questions like whether this concept changed by the time of writing Judith, thanks again. And of course, Jezebel (despite being written as evil) couldn't have possibly held property or had rulership over such a society. Because Cultural Anthropology has somehow proven that the ancient Israelites oppressed women the way you speak of...somehow. Not like its just a baseless Liberal talking/attack point.

So for the record, there is NO evidence that the Israelites brutally oppressed women, and there is PLENTY of evidence that the text states they were able to have property, let alone BECOME REIGNING QUEENS. At best you have things like execution of non-virgins on their wedding night (Which can be interpreted to imply that they lied about their virginity, whether the test was accurate or not, it wasn't just death for all non-virgins).

And thank you for failing to clarify what "No honor" and "no rights" actually implies. Because as I said, loaded buzz words will often do the trick when you're short of actual evidence. Such a great substitute.

Translation: "Blah, blah, blah. I can't get out of my agenda long enough to understand the culture. Blah, blah, blah."

Why do I need to explain the ancient concept of sexually-imbedded shame and honor to one as astute as you? Or the concept of levirate marriage? Or the concept of primogeniture?

 

[Shermana]

Why do I need to explain the ancient concept of sexually-imbedded shame and honor to one as astute as you? Or the concept of levirate marriage? Or the concept of primogeniture?

Ah, now it's about sexually embedded shame and honor? Ah, that's a whole social debate. I agree with this concept. Most men if you ask them would prefer to marry a virgin. Even in America! I suppose you think there's absolutely no shame in having sex with whoever whenever however? What do you think "shame" comes from?

Mobile Goal Posts are such fun.

Edit: Primogeniture I confused with Primanoctra. Oops. That's for another discussion, most noted is how Asian cultures were the most frequent to use this, even modern ones. It seems the Romans and Levant civilizations did not necessarily enforce this universally as the Asians did. Does the Bible say anything about it? The eldest male gets a double portion of the inheritance, not quite the same. It seems to be a more or less Eastern phenomenon and Medieval European. I can guess why it was considered best to give the male more inheritance than the female, back then it would be very uncommon for a woman to make efficient use of the land. I see no problem with a Law saying I give a firstborn son more than a daughter.

An entire thread could be devoted to the cultural context and reasons for Primogeniture, and why even today in modern times the concept still has justification. (I.e. The Father's name in many societies is expected to pass on to the male just because...without any religious reasoning, and it's NOT going to change.) The fact that Jezebel was allowed to become a reigning Queen however proves that the Israelite concept of Primogeniture was much different than the usual European example. In addition, the classical definition means the Eldest inherits the ENTIRE estate. The Israelite definition merely gives the Eldest a double portion. In a family with 6 kids, that means the Eldest wouldn't get substantially much more. If we're going to discuss "Ancient attitudes towards women", let's stick to the Israelite example.;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12362-primogeniture

The eldest son, who was to take the father's position, was to be placed economically in a condition to be able to preside with dignity over the family—something like the right of majorat. It is, moreover, probable that the first-born had the obligation of maintaining the female members of the family who remained in the household. For the Talmudic regulation of the status and maintenance of the unmarried daughters after the father's death see Ket. 68a, b.

Seriously though take a look at the link I added in the edit, women weren't treated nearly as badly as the Liberals want you to think.

I can't get out of my agenda long enough to understand the culture. Blah, blah, blah."

And of course this doesn't apply to yourself whatsoever. Not at all. Nope.

So do you want to answer a simple question about Judith and Jezebel or will you be honorable enough to admit that those examples prove you flat out wrong? I'm guessing not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thread Closed
​