Should I cull from only this thread, or may I harvest from others?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
Should I cull from only this thread, or may I harvest from others?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Part 1
There you are quite wrong, misogyny is a prejudice against women. Prejudice, implies intent. To find the intent, you must first examine scripture as a whole regarding the subject in question, not take it piecemeal and say "look at what I found here"Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Its kind of like loopholes in the law. You may say this law takes all the X rights away. But when you read the body of law, you will find there are other laws written that limit and enhance said law. Really, the law takes X rights away under circumstances in law V and W, provided: Y and Z. Much different characterization.
Biology is irrelevant. Biology is not the domain of actions. Biology is a body of knowledge and an area of study. It cannot by definition be misogynistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Having a set of rules that applies to one gender and not the other is not evidence of prejudice.
Is having a private place for women to undress (locker rooms or dressing rooms) misogynistic?
Lets look at some sexism against men in today's America:
The Draft applies to men and not women.
Paternity Laws largely favor the mother, while custody, and maternity are a given for the mother, the father must use the courts to acquire even visitation.
Rape is defined as a penetration of the anus or vagina without consent in the US. A women can rape a man without ever legally raping him, it is sexual assault, not rape. Examples: here, here, and here. Not to mention the slew of false accusations of rape women hold over men, roughly 1 in 10 reported rapes is later found to be false, while often ruining the person's job, marriage, life, etc...
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 protects women, not men.
Domestic violence against men is a real problem: The Guardian asserts as much as 40% of all domestic violence victims are male. Yet we don't have any men's shelters or laws that protect men. As a matter of fact, men's claims are more often ridiculed or not taken seriously by the police or the courts.
We could go on about the social side of things too, but you get my point. Is this all misandry? Is this the progress we've achieved since bible times?
This is a false equivalency. You keep asserting misogyny, without proof of prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Your example would be better stated: "Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who killed three people.
Then you might ask, why did he kill them? They may be justified, or accidental, or in the course of war. You are looking for intent behind the actions.
The OT laws largely protected women against the predations of unruly men, gave them legal protections against the actions of their husbands, and gave them rights that were unseen in the rest of the world. All this while leaving room in society for women to rise to rulers, judges, and crafts(wo)men. This doesn't imply prejudice, the intent may well be the opposite.
This was an argument against wondergirl. She plainly stated "Paul also says we women should wear a head covering" among other things. This is not the implication of the passage in question. It is to show that these beliefs are natural, but, under the law and under the domain of the church, there are "no such customs."Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Rejecting hierarchy doesn't make it go away. This is the point often missed by the rebellious. A new hierarchy will form in its place: We are, by nature, hierarchical creatures (as is 99.9% of the animal kingdom). We can reject the current system of power, but a new one will form in its place. If we are not careful restructuring hierarchies, then we may well find we have built a new one that is oppressive and ill functioning. You can see this play out on the stage of geopolitics in real time or view history through this lens, and watch different societies restructure unto oblivion, oppression, starvation, and so on.
Feel free to do as you please!! Just bear in mind what an ad hominem attack is. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Perfect example. "And introducing the AskMeHelpDesk champion ad hominem poster -- JL!"
Part 2
As in the fashion of my first example: see Here, and here, and here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
In Genesis it says that the man was with the women, and she gave to him the fruit. Any further reading into this is futile, the details simply not there. Later in Genesis we are told the man was not deceived. For whatever reason he took the fruit anyways, and was condemned as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Refutation of this argument here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
As far as Augustine being the first, hardly. He may have invented the terminology, but these ideas predate him by a lot. Justin Martyr believed that sin was brought about only by actions, Tertullian, 2 centuries before Augustine asserted that original sin was passed through souls, being formed by their fathers' and mothers' souls. Sirach (200 BC) blames women for death entering the world while The Wisdom of Solomon (100BC) blames the devil for sin entering the world. Even in Genesis it says "the imagination of a person’s heart is evil from his youth." In the Psalms, David says "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
This concept has been in development since times immemorial.
Luke 3:23 has a genealogy that goes all the way back to Adam. Matthew 1 only goes to Abraham, but even so, Abraham's lineage in Genesis 11, goes to Adam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
He's not a liar, he just said a lot of things that aren't true.
Here are some other stories Christ told:
He believed in Abel and Zachariah on the same evidences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke 11:47-51
Quote:
Originally Posted by John 8:54-56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke 13:28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 22:29-32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke 16:31
Need I go on...He believed the Old Testament in its entirety and taught on these things throughout His ministries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark 7:6-13
He was either lying or crazy.
Patriarchy is not the question, having a patriarchy doesn't mean misogyny. I defer back to my thoughts on hierarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Women were not second class citizens, as stated over and over again, they had many rights and duties not seen elsewhere. They were only restricted in matters of family and worship. They were even given a series of vows in the marriage ritual describing their property rights and other promises by the husband. This was even evidence in court in case of a dispute. A few simple rules like "they cant worship the same" or "they needed a man's permission" doesn't negate the fact that they were protected and cherished. A man who abused his responsibility (it wasn't a right to be over a woman) was punished accordingly.
Furthermore, "unintentionally" means NOT MISOGYNY...it requires intent.
Then go on, use fact to refute these things....So far you have simply said Christ didn't mean what He said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Both you and wondergirl take a piece of history or a piece of the scriptures and divine its meaning through some unknown mechanism without known facts to support an ideology you hold as truth. Why is your "reason" superior to the reasoning and wisdom of historical sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Do you have a crystal ball where you can look into history and decide what actually happened?
Are your ideas "truth" over the ideas of long ago society?
If you aren't using facts or logic, then you are simply asserting it on your own authority. You can do better, you seem pretty smart.
Very well said. Speculation is not proof.Quote:
In Genesis it says that the man was with the women, and she gave to him the fruit. Any further reading into this is futile, the details simply not there. Later in Genesis we are told the man was not deceived. For whatever reason he took the fruit anyways, and was condemned as well.
Absolutely true. Their basic approach certainly seems to be, "Believe this because I say so." And thus WG ends up believing David, Jonathan, Paul, John, and even Jesus were gay, and that despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. Post 25 scripture passages where hell is spoken of as real, and you will incredibly be accused of cherry picking.Quote:
Both you and wondergirl take a piece of history or a piece of the scriptures and divine its meaning through some unknown mechanism without known facts to support an ideology you hold as truth. Why is your "reason" superior to the reasoning and wisdom of historical sources?
The "attacks" are true. Jl deserves a piece of his own medicine that he so frequently dishes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
See my first sentence above.Quote:
Me calling you a hypocrite would not be ad hominem but rather a statement of fact
Of course it is - "saying" does not make it so. You need to think about that.Quote:
Me saying you are misinformed are not ways to attack your character,
Your opinions are not enough to claim anyone/anything fallacious.Quote:
but to show you where you information is fallacious.
Interesting statement that is not only ad hominem, but also untrue - two faults you criticize in others but reserve as legitimate for yourself. As I say, interesting.Quote:
Me saying you are confounded, is not a diversion, but rather to emphasize the point of confusion you authored.
Except that you are always strangely unable to point out any of these places where I am dishing out "medicine". I think you consider it to be insulting when someone simply does not agree with your views and points out where you are wrong. There is, for instance, the issue of your misrepresentation of complementarianism which you have not addressed, or your insistence on singling out "white" evangelicals when there are black, Latino, etc. evangelicals who believe the same teachings. And for that matter, you didn't even mention Muslims who certainly genuinely do oppress women. It's this impression you give that you seem to be above having to explain yourself that is really "interesting". And then you start tossing out insults instead of explanations. Very interesting indeed.Quote:
Jl deserves a piece of his own medicine that he so frequently dishes out.
Here are a few dished out to me because I didn't agree with you:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You can't be honest and it gets old.
Why not knock off the dopey answers and try to be a little serious?
Sure looks like lying to me.
That's called cherry-picking. Which is exactly what you're doing while denying it should be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Don't play the lawyer - you're not qualified. You have truly bungled the attempt.Quote:
Its kind of like loopholes in the law. You may say this law takes all the X rights away. But when you read the body of law, you will find there are other laws written that limit and enhance said law. Really, the law takes X rights away under circumstances in law V and W, provided: Y and Z. Much different characterization.
You're agreeing with me. Thank you.Quote:
Biology is irrelevant. Biology is not the domain of actions. Biology is a body of knowledge and an area of study. It cannot by definition be misogynistic.
Obviously not ALL rules, Captain Obvious.Quote:
Having a set of rules that applies to one gender and not the other is not evidence of prejudice.
Like Jl, you're playing with semantics and missing the point. See again my reply above.Quote:
Is having a private place for women to undress (locker rooms or dressing rooms) misogynistic?
To what point? You're deflecting/diverting by bringing in an issue not being discussed. Yet, you blame me for the very same tactic! Heal thyself, Physician!Quote:
Lets look at some sexism against men in today's America:
WOW! You really hate women, don't you? I had no idea. Helps to better understand you. It's not pretty.Quote:
Boy, I sure did get your point. It's funny how these posts often reveal hidden attitudes people possess on a deep level. That's not ad hominem, it's simply observation.Quote:
We could go on about the social side of things too, but you get my point
If you're denying progress re women since Biblical times, you're worse than you've revealed here. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you denying progress since bible times?Quote:
Is this all misandry? Is this the progress we've achieved since bible times?
The proof is in the Bible, as you yourself originally asserted before you decided to backtrack. (Shades of Republicanism. I must ask, as an admiited Trump lover, are you a republican? Don't answer if you don't want to - it's not part of the discussion).Quote:
You keep asserting misogyny, without proof of prejudice.
Note the use of MURDER. Murder, by definition, is never justified or accidental or in war.Quote:
Your example would be better stated: "Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who killed three people.
Then you might ask, why did he kill them? They may be justified, or accidental, or in the course of war. You are looking for intent behind the actions.
That does NOT absolve misogyny. You're confused about justifying one because of another. Think about it.Quote:
The OT laws largely protected women against the predations of unruly men, gave them legal protections against the actions of their husbands
"Unseen in the rest of the world". Hmmm, I suppose you can support that statement?Quote:
, and gave them rights that were unseen in the rest of the world.
Again, see my reply to this false analogy above. Here's one for you - Frederick Douglas was a well-respected black man. Therefore there was no black slavery. Not perfect, but you should get the point.Quote:
All this while leaving room in society for women to rise to rulers, judges, and crafts(wo)men.
You're hung up on intent. Misogyny is never well-intentioned, otherwise it would be called something else.Quote:
This doesn't imply prejudice, the intent may well be the opposite.
Talk about diversion! Is this some arse-backwards support of OT patriarchy? And therefore, misogyny?Quote:
Rejecting hierarchy doesn't make it go away. This is the point often missed by the rebellious. A new hierarchy will form in its place: We are, by nature, hierarchical creatures (as is 99.9% of the animal kingdom). We can reject the current system of power, but a new one will form in its place. If we are not careful restructuring hierarchies, then we may well find we have built a new one that is oppressive and ill functioning. You can see this play out on the stage of geopolitics in real time or view history through this lens, and watch different societies restructure unto oblivion, oppression, starvation, and so on.
Lol - "further reading into this is futile". From the Bible expert who cannot even see that the Adam and Eve story is not literal. Soon he'll tell us the color of the fruit and why that carries great significance to the present day. Sorry for the sarcasm, but it really gets absurd when trying to discuss the Bible with literalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Not exactly, what I said was: He was the first to PROMOTE the idea. But ok.Quote:
As far as Augustine being the first, hardly. He may have invented the terminology,
Not "a lot" - very few. Tertullian and the Wisdom of Solomon are not Biblical. Is it now ok if I use non-Biblical sources? In the past, that has been a major criticism of anything I write. The other "sources" for original sin are, as usual with Bible references, quite a stretch to make a point.Quote:
these ideas predate him by a lot.
"Time immemorial"? Exaggerate much? What HAS been in development since before and since the Enlightenment is the idea itself. Augustine, btw, had some very weird ideas, but not here for discussion. Suffice to say,"original sin" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible - a favorite argument of fundies.Quote:
This concept has been in development since times immemorial.
Which one did Christ "allow"?Quote:
Luke 3:23 has a genealogy that goes all the way back to Adam. Matthew 1 only goes to Abraham, but even so, Abraham's lineage in Genesis 11, goes to Adam.
Surely, a typo on your part.Quote:
He's not a liar, he just said a lot of things that aren't true.
What follows are several Bible verses that A) prove I'm evil, B) prove all Info's claims, and B) prove I'll go to hell.Quote:
Here are some other stories Christ told:
No, you need to begin using your intelligence, not a substitute of blind belief because the Bible tells you so.Quote:
Need I go on...
Of course he did. The stories were as valid during his time as they were previously.Quote:
He believed the Old Testament in its entirety and taught on these things throughout His ministries.
Be careful what you say about Jesus. He may send you to hell for eternity.Quote:
He was either lying or crazy.
Nobody said it MEANT misogyny. What it does is allow misogyny.Quote:
Patriarchy is not the question, having a patriarchy doesn't mean misogyny.
You're reverting to the argument that rights that have nothing to do with certain wrongs eliminate those wrongs. Think about it.Quote:
Women were not second class citizens, as stated over and over again, they had many rights and duties not seen elsewhere.
Misogynists are quite capable of protecting and cherishing. If only you could truly understand what you're saying as you dig deeper and deeper into the confusion of your own making.Quote:
A few simple rules like "they cant worship the same" or "they needed a man's permission" doesn't negate the fact that they were protected and cherished.
Punishing wrongdoing does not eliminate misogyny. I know what you're trying to say, but you're not accomplishing what you want.Quote:
A man who abused his responsibility (it wasn't a right to be over a woman) was punished accordingly.
Wrong. I does NOT require intent. It can be carried out with the best intent in the world - it is still MISOGYNY.Quote:
Furthermore, "unintentionally" means NOT MISOGYNY...it requires intent.
The problem has nothing to do with my refutation. It has EVERYTHING to do with yourQuote:
Then go on, use fact to refute these things.....
unreasoning attempt to worship a book written 2,000 years ago.
I use the exact same mechanism you do when discussing the Bible - or anything else for that matter. We both use our minds. Next, we differ in our approach. I question in order to understand. You do not - you simply accept the written word without question. WHY you do that is a matter for psychology, not reason. The primary reason for your acceptance is that you were born into that belief. After that, it's psychological. The answers are within you.Quote:
Both you and wondergirl take a piece of history or a piece of the scriptures and divine its meaning through some unknown mechanism without known facts to support an ideology you hold as truth. Why is your "reason" superior to the reasoning and wisdom of historical sources?
No, I have a brain that I use to examine what I want to examine.Quote:
Do you have a crystal ball where you can look into history and decide what actually happened?
Without a doubt, YES! Some of yours are, too. I'm sure you don't believe in a flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth. At least, I hope not.Quote:
Are your ideas "truth" over the ideas of long ago society?
Both you and Jl have used this argument. My assertions use facts and logic to reach conclusions. You assert the literalness of the Bible based on your own authority to believe what that very Bible tells you to assert. That is your right, your choice, your assertion, your authority - no one else's. But facts and logic, it is not.Quote:
If you aren't using facts or logic, then you are simply asserting it on your own authority.
"You can't be honest and it gets old." You were going down the road of your ideas about Genesis 3 resulting in "no more binary". I called you on it and you refused to simply be honest and admit that your contention was wrong.
"Why not knock off the dopey answers and try to be a little serious?" This was the dopey answer you gave. "Oops, sorry -- forgot you don't understand anything beyond that." (speaking of literal) I would admit that "dopey" was a poor choice of words.
"Sure looks like lying to me." That was in response to your silly defense of your Genesis 3 contention. It did indeed look like lying.
All of the above came from your dishonest contention that Genesis 3 resulted in homosexual and transgender people. No such thing is ever said or even intimated. So it was not because you didn't agree with me which, I think, you full well know. It was because you were being completely evasive. None of those were ad hominem contentions. They were all based upon responses that you had made previously. And in none of them did I resort to name calling.
Athos, I can see you are misunderstanding me. Let me explain my reasoning regarding intent.
Misogyny
1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, manifested in various forms such as physical intimidation and abuse, sexual harassment and rape, social shunning and ostracism, etc.
2. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against women; sexism.
Can you hate without intent? Can you dislike or mistrust without intent? Can you intimidate and abuse without intent? Can you harass without intent?
I assert that this is impossible. You can do it misinformed, ignorant, trepidatiously, and a slew of other adjectives. However, not unwillingly or unintentionally.
Lets examine "institutionalized prejudice," it seems more related to this topic.
Institutionalized
1. created and controlled by an established organization
2. established as a common and accepted part of a system or culture
The first definition seems irrelevant, as prejudice is not controlled or created by an established institution.
The most relevant definition of misogyny, relating to ancient Israel, seems to be something like "ingrained prejudice against women established as a common and accepted part of a system or culture."
How can one be unintentionally prejudiced? How can one be hostile towards an other's sex accidentally? It comes down to this: Either they hated women, thought less of women, and thought men superior, or they didn't.
How you think about something is the intent. If the thoughts are not there, then there is no intent. If they didn't feel and think a certain way about women, then they are not misogynistic.
The flavor of the OT laws is to uphold the family and to protect women; to cherish them and make room for them in society to flourish. Thus their intent is not prejudicial, and thus not misogyny. How they went about it may be good or bad, but that is a far more complex debate.
Now I challenge you to show me where biblical views regarding women engender hatred, mistrust, or dislike concerning women...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a rule that discriminates against women is not any kind of misogyny, having a rule that discriminates against women because you hate them is misogyny.
Intent matters.
Things like murder are separate from manslaughter because intent matters, discrimination from whatever-ism because intent matters.
A law that disproportionately affects an individual group over another is not prejudice unless the intent of the law was to affect one group over another while harboring hostility and judgement of said group.
The actions are not misogynistic as much as the intent is...why did he ban women from entering? Not Did he ban women from entering?
That is the question of misogyny.
Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience and their rejection of God’s authority over them, men and women have been subject to conflict in their relationships.
As soon as the Evil One insinuates himself in the garden, it is to disengage, dislodge, the relationship between Adam and Eve, cause them then to be immediately opposed to the very design and role for which they have been fashioned, and as a result of that, down through that line and down through the ages, marriage itself remains under attack.Quote:
Nope. God gave them free will.
Better?The model for and the measure of a husband’s love is quite simply Jesus Christ.Quote:
We've come a long way from Bible mandates, written millennia ago in a totally different culture, regarding marriage. Marriage is a partnership. The wife doesn't assist". Husband and wife work together as equal partners.
The great issue is the matter of Christ and the church, and the love of Jesus for his own. In many ways, the Bible is a story of God choosing a wife for himself. The point is simply this: that it is only in the gospel that the great quest for this kind of unity actually ever is going to take place. If our marriages do not display the union that God intends as a result of paying attention to the instruction God provides, then you cannot have a united church with disunited husbands and wives.
If you are loving one another, if you are submitting to your husband, if you are loving your wife, then although you do nothing else, you are proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Athos-
Regarding the rest of your comments, skipping the useless responses:
Its not so easy to dismiss my point. You have stated that disallowing women from pastoral office is misogynistic, and that misogyny is connected to violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
If you're trying to imply that the unequal access to the pastoral office is misogynistic, then my statement stands. If you're trying to discuss why or why not women should be allowed, then refute the commandment on the grounds of biblical authority, scientific fact, or some other relevant domain.
This is precisely my point, that prejudice is never justified, but discrimination is. Semantics matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
You must first demonstrate where the bible shows a hatred and dislike of women to even accuse misogyny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I believe you are equating discrimination with prejudice. One is the action, the other is the intent. 2 separate domains.
Read through the Wikipedia page regarding Legal Rights of Women. You will see that the Jews treated their women better than nearly all ancient cultures, and most pre-modern cultures. The main exception would be Egypt. They seem to have a pretty accepting view of women in their laws. I might point out that their laws are strikingly similar to much of Israeli law. Maybe one affected the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
That's the point. The Mosaic law had good intentions, thus was not misogynistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The idea was called many things prior to Augustine...they have been discussed for at least 200 years prior to Augustine; given apocryphal sources, it has been an idea in discussion for 200 years prior to that. There are even some obscure sources in Talmudic tradition that discuss these ideas 500+ years prior to the apocryphal sources. You can use any sources you like, as long as you use sources. I provide them when I can, and try very hard to support my arguments with full context and evidences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No, what followed, was several quotes from Christ stating that the scriptures were as real to Him as an encyclopedia is to us. You reading more into these verses is on you. You cannot say He played along to teach a moral lesson when He says ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” He either is speaking established fact, was a liar or was crazy. There is no middle ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
In that case your prior point is moot. Allowing misogyny is a feature of freedom. In order to have the ability to think freely, one must allow the possibility of misogyny. What you're saying now is that the patriarchy allows misogyny while before you were saying this is why misogyny exists in that society. You even went on to explain that because of the reasoning of the patriarchs, misogyny is "such a deeply rooted part of that society."Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
That, again, is my point. You use your minds without examining evidences and arguments regarding the topic of debate. You mischaracterize and debase original texts to support the ideas in your minds. You ignore historical fact and common wisdom to support the ideas in your minds. You should learn with the intent of enriching your mind. Your mind is not the mechanism in which to discover the world around you, but rather the world around you should be the fertile ground in which your mind is allowed to reason and to strengthen belief and virtue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The "go to" excuse Athos uses when he runs out of arguments. It's as though the "point" can somehow be separated from the meaning of the words and sentences used to describe it.Quote:
Like Jl, you're playing with semantics and missing the point.
If the husband is physically handicapped (or becomes so) or is diagnosed with a mental illness (usually shows its face in the early 20s) or is tested and found to be on the autism spectrum (can't make decisions, is unable to make reasonable purchases for the home and pay household bills, is socially nowhere and refuses to interact with people), then what? Working together as partners in a marriage (no submission required) is proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
You cannot ignore the clear mandate of the Bible and then claim to be proclaiming the Gospel. At some point you must stop confusing your own ideas with the teachings of scripture.Quote:
Working together as partners in a marriage (no submission required) is proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I will say that submission and domination are not the same thing. The wife's job is to respect and submit to her husband. It certainly does not mean she has no responsibilities or opportunity for input. The husband's job is to love his wife in the same manner that Christ loves the church. And thus we see the true picture of complementarianism.
What is the Bible's definition of "submission", "submit to her husband"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If I tell you what it is, are you going to accept it?
ACCEPT it??? Are we in the Scouts or 4-H here?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM. |