Do (many) religions tend to demean women?

[Zzyzx]

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

Examples?

Justification?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 29 by bluethread]

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.

YES WE AGREE THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT. It seems you missed the intention of what I was trying to say instead focusing on perceived uncivil and shotgun tactics.

1. I did not bring up abortion
2. I did not suggest Christianity was the cause of reduced abortion in S. Korea.
3. I was pointing out that scripture really has nothing to do with abortion
4. I was pointing out how the 6th commandment did not relate to abortion

Additionally I was trying to show that in Asian culture they do not necessarily see abortion the same way that Wootah does and that even christians there generally do not share Wootah's view either.

It was Wootah's position that christianity was the cause of reduction in gender based abortions in S. Korea. I am simply saying that there is no reason for that to be the case as you pointed out:

Abortion isn't even on the radar in the Scriptures.

I am not trying to shoehorn anything just pointing out there is nothing to shoehorn in there is no reason in the bible to make the argument that Christianity is the cause for the decline in gender based abortions in S. Korea.

So you can stop saying my position my take my stance because it was never about my position and I DID NOT BRING UP ABORTION. Why are you trying to foist this on to me? it really seems like if anyone is being uncivil it is your vain attempt at participating in an abortion straw man so we talk about that instead of the real issues in the bible with regards to women. THIS IS NOT AN ABORTION THREAD.

It seems to me that when one runs out of straws one latches on to whatever moral high ground they think they can take even it is not related to the subject at hand.

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?

Clearly you have misunderstood my position. I was worried this was the case, but I figured that you would understand what I was trying to say. I guess I was wrong there. Let me try to refine my earlier comment.


Regardless of the circumcision(is that more PC for you?) It is the concept of showing value. Lets say for a second that the mark of the covenant was just a dotted tattoo the size of a dime on the shoulder.

All the boys get this special mark and all the girls do not. This special mark signifies a special bond or covenant one has with their god. The girls do not receive this mark. This creates a society that places a special value on boys over girls. The ROOT or the basis of this practice is demeaning. It doesn't have to be genital mutilation no sir you are the only one suggesting that needs to be the case. I am simply pointing out that concepts in the bible regarding gender are often unequal.

Do you call a sex change operation "genital mutilation"?

Stop with the red herrings and staw men. I find these debate tactics as excruciatingly uncivil debate tactics. This is not related and you know it. I get that you think I am using "scattergun tactics" that is because you just perceived my words and positions in a different manner in which they were presented. You think I am being uncivil so you are reacting in a manner you perceive as similar. I am not using scattergun tactics though and we(albiet from differing methods) agree that the bible has nothing to say on abortion. that is the point. So please no more red herrings and straw men it has no place in this debate.

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.

IT WAS NEVER MY LOGIC, stop with the false foisting of beliefs upon my shoulders. I NEVER MADE THE ARGUMENT IT WAS OK TO ABORT BABIES BECAUSE OF THAT VERSE.

I was simply pointing out that other cultures notably Asian cultures could use that verse as a confirmation of their beliefs about issues on abortions etc. That there is no verse on abortion and no true biblical stance on it. That Christianity is not responsible for the decline in gender based abortions in the bible.

Quote:
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.

Since when does "I don't agree"= I don't understand" I am not an English major perhaps you could correct me here. Am I using the wrong words. What words should I use instead. I understand but don't agree? is that better?


Yes it is a different culture and I was trying to show as I have repeated so many times in this thread how as you put it shoehorning the bible into that culture does not have the same effect it does when you use it in other cultures.

I DID NOT BRING UP GENDERCIDE. If you are going to complain about shoehorning scripture then talk to Wootah whose assertion that Christianity will end gendercide in Asian cultures. Which I think just to be clear that Wootah was not shoehorning but recognizing a correlation and there is nothing wrong with that.

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?

This may shock you but its both demeaning to men and women and people who are not healthy. I believe insurance should be a flat fee but that is my personal opinion on the matter that you probably wont agree with. and Shockingly not related to the subject at hand. Another strawman for the books right?

[KenRU]

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.

Since when does "I don't agree"= I don't understand" I am not an English major perhaps you could correct me here.

I majored in English and can safely say you spoke correctly. Those two sentences are not equal.

Resume play.

[bluethread]

Since when does "I don't agree"= I don't understand" I am not an English major perhaps you could correct me here. Am I using the wrong words. What words should I use instead. I understand but don't agree? is that better?

Sorry, I misread that. Let's clear the table. Regardless of what has been said to whom. Please, restate the things you find demeaning to women in HaTorah and we can deal with them one at a time.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 26 by DanieltheDragon]

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.

I think you wish to avoid facing the facts that the current secular religion demeans totally. You are in a religion and not seeing it for what it is. Just because you don't go to church or pray doesn't mean you don't have a god and aren't in a religion.

Understanding that might enable you to consciously choose your religion.

What metaphysical concepts are left Undemeaned by materialism?

What are we really choosing when we follow the crowd and say we are atheists and that evolution is science?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

I am sorry what religion am I in? What are the facts of this religion that I don't know that I am in and how are they demeaning? Since you seem toknow my position better than me can you please tell me what I believe so I can better understand my position what is demeaning about it and how I can rectify it.

Also do I have to choose a philosophy or religion? Do I have to choose between materialism, humanism, and naturalism or can I choose none?

If evolution is not a scientific based theory how should I address it?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by bluethread]

Certainly i will make a bulleted list when I get home and don't worry no abortion

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 34 by DanieltheDragon]

I am sorry what religion am I in? What are the facts of this religion that I don't know that I am in and how are they demeaning? Since you seem toknow my position better than me can you please tell me what I believe so I can better understand my position what is demeaning about it and how I can rectify it.
Also do I have to choose a philosophy or religion? Do I have to choose between materialism, humanism, and naturalism or can I choose none? If evolution is not a scientific based theory how should I address it?

That's your discovery process Daniel. I can only show you the evidence of this thread and many others where the evidence shows that some beliefs demean more than others. What belief systems would want you to demean so totally? Why accept them?

I can only say that I believe that of all the gods I prefer mine and I prefer to be conscious of the choice.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

You said I worship a religion that is the ultimate in demeaning of all people. You said it like you knew what religion I worship. Is this not the case? What about my "religion" is demeaning. You said they were facts I would appreciate to know what these facts are.

[Zzyzx]

.

You are in a religion and not seeing it for what it is.

Why do religionists so frequently attempt to identify non-religion as a religion?

Is it a sign of insecurity in their own beliefs that requires that they think that everyone believes in "gods?" Do they think that others consider them foolish for believing in invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities -- and try to justify that by claiming "everybody does it?"

Perhaps it is appropriate to equate religions' gods to money, entertainment, employment (or whatever religionists identify as the "gods" of others). That would indicate the god is rather mundane and conveniently exchanged for other pursuits (then called "gods" also).

Just because you don't go to church or pray doesn't mean you don't have a god and aren't in a religion.

Exactly what determines any other person's "god" or "religion" and who is empowered to make that decision (based on what authority)?

Is it inherent in religion that partakers assume the ability to identify and categorize the religion of others? Many seem to also credit themselves with ability to determine the level of religiosity or faithfulness or degree of Christianity of others. Are those abilities imparted by a holy spirit?

Understanding that might enable you to consciously choose your religion.

Some of us choose NON-Religion and do not worship anything (though many Theists attempt to say that nature or the real world or science or economics are "gods" – presumably equal to their own objects of worship).

What are we really choosing when we follow the crowd and say we are atheists and that evolution is science?

If one wishes to "follow the crowd" they become religious -- since that is what the majority (of US citizens) claim. Atheists are far fewer in number and do not constitute a "crowd" by any stretch of the imagination (though Theists often try).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 38 by Zzyzx]

Why do religionists so frequently attempt to identify non-religion as a religion?

Just a short reply. You do realise that I am not nor do I see myself as a religionist. But you keep insisting as well.