Do (many) religions tend to demean women?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:45 pm

.
Do (many) religions tend to demean women?
If so, why?

Examples?

Justification?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:08 am

[Replying to post 20 by Wootah]

The source you provided looked into that and found that Christian families were committing gendercide at the same rate. What you are doing is committing a correlation fallacy.

Let me give you a classic example. The common cold got its name because more people caught it during winter thus the correlation with temperature. In reality it was that people were in closer proximity. Because it spreads from breathing and touch not exposure to cold weather.

Also specifically what about the bible encourages people against gendercide?

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:11 am

[Replying to post 21 by DanieltheDragon]
Off the top of my head:

Though shalt not murder.

Men and women both go to heaven.

God died on the cross for men and women indicating that we are all of value.

It all points to the valuing of us all far more than we value ourselves.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:11 am

[Replying to post 22 by Wootah]

[Replying to post 22 by Wootah]

Alright, but culturally they don't see a fetus as a person. So what in the bible says that you cannot abort?

Also remember that numbers does not count a baby as a person

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

So the South Koreans don't view this as murder they don't think they are murdering anyone. There is nothing in the bible specifically saying you cannot abort. Sure it says don't kill another person but culturally they don't see it as another person at this stage. So in their minds they are not killing and hence not committing any crime.

In fact the bible might even reinforce the gendercide with its literal value of women. Here by the Lord's standard women are 3/5's the value of men. This is the essential problem in Asian culture with regards to gendercide is that they view women as less valuable then men.

Leviticus 27:1-6American Standard Version (ASV)

27 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall accomplish a vow, the persons shall be for Jehovah by thy estimation.

3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:18 pm

[Replying to post 23 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes it appears that the current religious culture seeks to demean humanity on that point and not just women.

It is hardly a winning direction to take your argument - it's like saying "I'm not sexist I demean everyone."

Do you think your view of the early stages of human life demeans (takes away) the person of their humanity?

Aren't you directly showing how the current cultures religious beliefs demeans far more totally?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:24 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 22 by Wootah]

[Replying to post 22 by Wootah]

Alright, but culturally they don't see a fetus as a person. So what in the bible says that you cannot abort?

Also remember that numbers does not count a baby as a person

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
By that logic, you are saying that infanticide is acceptable, as long as the child is under one month old. However, the male child receives the sign of the Covenant on the eighth day. He is recognized at that time as a member if Adonai's people. The reason for the one month cutoff is that prior to that the child is not acceptable in the Temple because of the issue of blood in His birth. The substitutionary redemption of the first born was an apples to apples comparison. This passage has nothing to do with abortion and you know it.
In fact the bible might even reinforce the gendercide with its literal value of women. Here by the Lord's standard women are 3/5's the value of men. This is the essential problem in Asian culture with regards to gendercide is that they view women as less valuable then men.

Leviticus 27:1-6American Standard Version (ASV)

27 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall accomplish a vow, the persons shall be for Jehovah by thy estimation.

3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
So, you think it is demeaning to women that they should pay less when they make a vow? So, is it demeaning to women that they pay less for life insurance today? Does that mean that a woman's life is worth less?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:41 pm

[Replying to Wootah]

Frankly it is not a competition to who demeans more. Its a simple question do religions demean women. As my position stated before, religions are cultural time stamps. Given the state many societies were in when most religions were founded, they were generally demeaning to women. I dare say that answer could change 2000 years from now when new religions crop up. Scientology could replace Christianity by then who knows. People were scoffing at the notion in 70CE that Christians would become a dominant religion, who knows what is in store for the future.

Do you think your view of the early stages of human life demeans (takes away) the person of their humanity?

Aren't you directly showing how the current cultures religious beliefs demeans far more totally?

I agree religious culture is demeaning in totality. Look at the mark of the covenant blue thread brought up. First it uses genital mutilation as a sign that you are with god. Secondly all those who do not have their genitals mutilated are less than those that do. Yes religion is demeaning in totality including women which this is what the topic is about.

Its not about winning for me, frankly I don't think debates are won or lost and it seems like we have reached some level of agreement on the matter. So I see no sense in continuing an abortion debate that is irrelevant to the original topic. It is also been hashed out ad naseum on this site already. I don't think we will see eye to eye on that issue no matter how many words we exchange

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:51 pm

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

We are not talking about me are we though. We are talking about a different culture.

By that logic, you are saying that infanticide is acceptable, as long as the child is under one month old. However, the male child receives the sign of the Covenant on the eighth day. He is recognized at that time as a member if Adonai's people. The reason for the one month cutoff is that prior to that the child is not acceptable in the Temple because of the issue of blood in His birth. The substitutionary redemption of the first born was an apples to apples comparison. This passage has nothing to do with abortion and you know it.

I am not necessarily saying abortion is acceptable. Frankly this is just one reason why I disagree with using the bible as a source for moral guidance. Also thank you for reinforcing that boys get the sign of the covenant(genital mutilation) and are considered Adonai's people at that stage while entirely excluding women when are they considered Adonai's people or are they?

By the logic listed above are you suggesting that up until 8 days after they are born infantacide is ok? What about girls when is it ok not to abort them?

Frankly the bible has nothing to say on abortion except for an obscure passage that suggests that when a wife is accused of cheating on her husband she must swallow cursed water and if she has conceived a child it will basically force her to abort it if she conceived it by another man. If not shes ok.

I don't agree with the logic of the bible I am simply pointing out that the laws contained do not necessarily support wootah's argument.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:55 pm

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 21 by DanieltheDragon]
Off the top of my head:

Though shalt not murder.

Men and women both go to heaven.

God died on the cross for men and women indicating that we are all of value.

It all points to the valuing of us all far more than we value ourselves.

I didn't say that women are not of value in the bible clearly the bible values women for prodcuing babies and the bible does put a value on women. Its just that the value it places on women is 3/5's of a man. In some cases its not that much.

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:08 pm

[Replying to post 28 by DanieltheDragon]

Leviticus 27 sets values on people. But that doesn't mean anyone is demeaned. In fact giving a value to something implies it means something to you.

For many roles the value of a person does vary and age, sex, height all act as variables. But no monetary value demeans a person.

Also it is not necessarily who is demeaned at all in Leviticus 27. What do you think it is about?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:25 am

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

We are not talking about me are we though. We are talking about a different culture.
A different culture, when it fits your needs. Since we are talking about a different culture, stop shoehorning in modern western concepts. Abortion isn't even on the radar in the Scriptures.

By that logic, you are saying that infanticide is acceptable, as long as the child is under one month old. However, the male child receives the sign of the Covenant on the eighth day. He is recognized at that time as a member if Adonai's people. The reason for the one month cutoff is that prior to that the child is not acceptable in the Temple because of the issue of blood in His birth. The substitutionary redemption of the first born was an apples to apples comparison. This passage has nothing to do with abortion and you know it.
I am not necessarily saying abortion is acceptable. Frankly this is just one reason why I disagree with using the bible as a source for moral guidance. Also thank you for reinforcing that boys get the sign of the covenant(genital mutilation) and are considered Adonai's people at that stage while entirely excluding women when are they considered Adonai's people or are they?
All children of Adonai's people are considered Adonai's people, boys just carry the sign of the Covenant. So, now you are saying that it is demeaning for women not to get what you choose to call "genital mutilation"? Do you call a sex change operation "genital mutilation"? Make up your mind. If you think circumcision is a bad thing how can you say that it is demeaning for women not to have it?

By the logic listed above are you suggesting that up until 8 days after they are born infantacide is ok? What about girls when is it ok not to abort them?
You mean your logic, which I reject? Of course, infanticide is not ok. My point is that excluding children under the age of one month does not mean they are not recognized as people. It has nothing to do with that.

I don't agree with the logic of the bible I am simply pointing out that the laws contained do not necessarily support wootah's argument.
Yes, you do not understand the logic of the Scriptures. However, that does not appear to stop you from misstating them so that you can use them to confuse the issue. As you stated at the beginning of this post, this is a different culture. Ripping something out of it's cultural context and throwing it at the wall, hoping it will stick, is not what I would call civil debate.

I didn't say that women are not of value in the bible clearly the bible values women for prodcuing babies and the bible does put a value on women. Its just that the value it places on women is 3/5's of a man. In some cases its not that much.
Yet, you have not answered my question. If it was demeaning for women to pay 3/5ths of what a man has to pay then, is it not also demeaning for women to pay less for life insurance today? That is the context of the passage where you took that 3/5ths valuation from. Please, stop the scattergun tactics and stop making arguments based on passages that you take out of a cultural context you admit you do not understand.