Is patriarchy inherently wrong?

[AgnosticBoy]

This topic is related to another topic that questions why God would make rules that subjugate women. I can accept that there are rules in the Bible that subjugate women. What I don't agree with are the views and that says that all rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are wrong. I question these views because there are some patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women.

When I've had this conversation in the past, I tend to find a lot of assumptions of how patriarchy should be (as if there's only one way to lead - the dictator way?) or I find a lot of double-standards. So let's debate!

Is patriarchy inherently wrong (meaning any or all forms are wrong)?

[mms20102]

[Replying to William in post #38]

So you are denying basic biology and want to argue about God, seriously.... I have nothing to discuss if it's going to be only sophistry.

[William]

Does mind need blood and Oxygen and other things to live ?

No.

Let me tell you what God is, he is not like anything and yes when we say he in Arabic it's not meaning a Gender unlike when we say she we are specifying a gender

I thought you argued God was not male or female? Why allow for a double standard?
Perhaps the better word to use is "It".

Understanding Hebrew will make you understand why the word father was used, Hebrew is a symbolic language and people at those old times knew the difference between biological father and symbolic father.

Understanding Hebrew mysticism also has its advantages - Shekinah as one example, and deeper still, re the Qabalah and Zohar.

Do you also think that the ancient folk understood the difference between a symbolic mother and a biological mother?
Shekhinah: The Divine Feminine

[Replying to William in post #38]

So you are denying basic biology and want to argue about God, seriously.... I have nothing to discuss if it's going to be only sophistry.

It is hard to determine why you are accusing me of what you are accusing me of.

[help3434]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #40]

Which study?

[mms20102]

[Replying to help3434 in post #43]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25942288/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 3215618378

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21247983/

[help3434]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #44]
Okay, do you have an argument to make? What about those sources?

[mms20102]

[Replying to help3434 in post #45]

Some how you took your whole time to prove that the link is sarcastic but now you ignore every study, nice play.

Well, if you are welling to have a discussion it's simple read the conclusions and you will see that homosexual adopted children are have more problems that heterosexual children.

I'm amazed on how you people dodge everything in life just to appear as right.

Try to take a moment and search for the truth other than search for victory.

[help3434]

Some how you took your whole time to prove that the link is sarcastic but now you ignore every study, nice play.

I didn't ignore it, I asked you to make an argument with them. Posting links without comment is not an argument.

Well, if you are welling to have a discussion it's simple read the conclusions and you will see that homosexual adopted children are have more problems that heterosexual children.

Therefore, what? There should be stricter penalties for abuse and hate crimes? More screening of adopting parents? Common, man, make an argument!

[mms20102]

[Replying to help3434 in post #47]

Tell me did you read the earlier posts or you just play around ?!

We were speaking about homosexuals adopting children and I was proving that it's negative for children and you came and said the source was not reliable now you want to know the argument?! What argument the source wasn't reliable for is the same argument for the links you haven't seen is the same argument of the links I sent.

Now I want to know what are you arguing about ?! Because your last 3 posts is not adding anything to the discussion.

[mms20102]

[Replying to William in post #42]

I'm not accusing you I'm showing you reality that you deny.
Any mind needs source of power to work and since it needs something it can't be God. I just want to know why are you deviating from the main topic I recommend making a new subject and add me

[help3434]

Tell me did you read the earlier posts or you just play around ?!

I read them

We were speaking about homosexuals adopting children and I was proving that it's negative for children

I don't think you proved it.

and you came and said the source was not reliable now you want to know the argument?!

I said you misunderstood it. Then later you dropped three links that were studies of abused lgb kids without comment. You didn't use them to bolster an argument.

What argument the source wasn't reliable for is the same argument for the links you haven't seen is the same argument of the links I sent.

I don't understand your grammar here.

Now I want to know what are you arguing about ?! Because your last 3 posts is not adding anything to the discussion.

Make an actual argument and then I can respond to it.