Aileron Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 No, Kings indulged in mistresses. It was considered an immoral practice which they could get away with. The Caliph's Harems were an official state installment...they would have an actual building devoted to it and everything. Not only that, but the harem actually replaced the queen. Yeah, sure polygamy isn't wrong at all. Its a legitimate process between a consenting adult and four or five teenage girls pressured into it by their parents. And this is great - I produce an example which occurs in the real world, and you cite some hypothetical case in which the hypothetical survival depends upon multiple women marrying one man. Look, muslim countries are generally second world, and certainly don't have throngs of starving masses. The way polygamy works in the real world is that you get one man with power, and neighbors who want to curry his favor will give their daughters to him. It has nothing to do with the needs of the individuals; its about the father's greed and the polygamists' lust. Sure, dressing 'modestly' and wearing a burka are the same thing. There certainly isn't a middle ground between showing one's whole cleavage in public and not showing one's face. Besides, Timothy said the women should do it themselves. He didn't say that it should be forced upon them by the state. That website is english. The laws are different in the east, but I will admit that generally the places where that happens are remote tribes with little internet access.
AstroProdigy Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 Look' date=' muslim countries are generally second world, and certainly don't have throngs of starving masses.[/quote']Fail at knowing the Muslim world.
SeVeR Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 (edited) Yea kings indulged in mistresses, and they could get away with it because the king wanted it, the mistresses wanted it, and the wife didn't know but would be beheaded for objecting to it. It's polygamy without an official marriage. Gee, i wonder how an extra bit of paper would make my point less valid. Even so, polygamy still has nothing whatsoever to do with treating women badly! I produce an example which occurs in the real world, and you cite some hypothetical case in which the hypothetical survival depends upon multiple women marrying one man. I'm not talking about a hypothetical case. I'm saying how polygamy benefits the survival of women in poor countries by allowing rich men to spread their wealth to those they can support. There's nothing hypothetical about it, it's a common sense fact, whether the intentions of the man are just or not. The man may be a perverted sexaholic, but if he can support three wives who all agree to marry him, then good! Speaking of hypothetical.... Its a legitimate process between a consenting adult and four or five teenage girls pressured into it by their parents Another "hyp" word springs to mind. Look, muslim countries are generally second world, and certainly don't have throngs of starving masses. I'm agreeing with Astro alot lately, and i have to call into question your knowledge of the Islamic world. Your favorite punch-bag Iran has 40% of it's population below the poverty line: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_...ow-poverty-line Not all men can support a wife, and there are just as many women as men in the Islamic world. Not all of them can get jobs, and not all of those jobs pay enough to live on. Simply put, it's called 'spreading the wealth'. To re-iterate though, polygamy still has nothing whatsoever to do with treating women badly. Sure, dressing 'modestly' and wearing a burka are the same thing. Both religions show the same intolerance by stopping women from dressing how they want to dress. Luckily Christianity has declined enough in Western culture and the Bible is not taken literally (and enforced by the state) anymore. Edited November 7, 2007 by SeVeR
Aileron Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 The difference between having mistresses and polygamy being official is that the former is the case of somebody doing something wrong, and in the latter the process is regarded as virtuous. So then why is it that wealthy women don't take on multiple poor husbands? Poverty line my !@#$%^&*, I didn't say that they would be rich or as well off financially, I said that the women would still be able to get food and shelter. I was thinking more along the lines of Saudi Arabia anyway. Its not like either Iran or Saudi Arabia are lacking the natural resources to become wealthy countries. The reason that 40% of Iran is below the poverty line is because their culture is backwards. So, poverty is not a proper excuse to justify culture being backwards because it is the backwards culture which creates the poverty in the first place!!! (You and your circular arguements) When did Christianity stop women from dressing the way they wanted to dress? Even in the Victorian Era, women dressed the way they did moreso to emulate their queen than due to any outside factor. Its the same thing with the infamous corset...they wore them to keep up with fashion, not because lack of wearing one would result in some mob being formed. I guess I can admit that Christianity did provide a moral structure enough that women didn't want to be called '!@#$%^&*s', but that's radically different from how the burka is enforced by the sword. Well, you do have me there...I'm not an 'expert' on Islamic Culture. I'm a scientist, not a historian. I have studied Islamic and European history more than other histories however, and I keep finding that the more I learn about Europe, the more I understand what caused so many people to sail accrossed the oceans to get away from it, and the more I learn about the Islamic world, the more I realize that they are just plain insane.
SeVeR Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 There aren't wealthy women taking on multiple husbands because it would be insulting for a man to be reliant on a woman. This ideal is still prevalent in our Western culture. I agree, the backwards culture keeps more of the population in poverty than is needed. The culture is almost entirely Islamic. I would never dream of defending Islam to beyond what it is, and that's a religion that deserves as much criticism as Christianity, but no more. Our backwards culture kept large swathes of Europe in poverty while Christianity was the ruling doctrine. You have to go a bit further back than the Victorian era to get a decent idea of Christianity's effect on Europe. The Victorian era was the time of Nietzsche and Darwin. You tell me that women dress that way in the Middle East at the point of a sword. I'll tell you !@#$%^&*. Living on a university gives me plenty of interaction with people from the Middle East, and the women choose to dress that way. In the same way Christian women chose and still choose to dress modestly, without jewelry, braided hair, or revealing clothes. Both religions tell women how to dress, because both see women as the tempter of men. Look at how Christian nun's dress and tell me that doesn't remind you of Islam. Islam made it a law, Christianity made it a social expectation. Looking like !@#$%^&* in Christian Europe was certainly not beneficial... can anyone say "witch-hunts"! You still haven't told me how polygamy causes women to be treated badly, and it's sidetracked the discussion a bit.
AstroProdigy Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 I certainly find Islamic polygamy to be better at least than what wealthy Christian men used to do, which was to have 1 wife and several mistresses. At least with polygamy now you have a legal obligation to all those women.
WongKonPow Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 (edited) The bible may say that women should let their husbands be in control, but back then, that was only out in public. In public, the man was in charge, but the home belonged to the women. So in the home, the woman was above the man, but in public, the man was above the woman. I don't think the Bible says anything about women being the boss of the home, and i don't think this is common in the history of Christianity either.... maybe post-war America/Western-Europe, but that's about it. But you're right, both books were written in more sexist times, and both books can thus be interpreted in sexist ways that can culminate in wife-beating. TJ: One case or 50 cases, it doesn't matter, Christianity has more than one case also. When you interpret the Bible or the Quran in a particular way you can justify it. that's nto about the bible, or christianity, that was the hebrew culture of that time. Note: Hebrew culture and christianity are completely different things! Hmm, well i don't know who's defending Islam. I'm saying both religions are as bad as eachother. There is still a difference though. Subordination is different than "he has the right to beat you". In both religions subordination can be interpreted as "he has the right to beat you". Can't you see how telling a man that a woman is inferior to him would lead to the man beating the woman in some cases? Until you produce one scrap of evidence that the quran says "you can beat your wife", then i'm going to assume both religions are as sexist as each-other, and that this sexism is what leads to wife-beatings in both religions. They do have "Jihad" as one of their pillars...the obvious interpretation is "wage war against other religions" The obvious intepretation? What about this intepretation makes it obvious? I mean, i know there has been alot of media attention for this word since 9/11... did you just suck all that up along with "Saddam = evil" and "atheists aren't patriotic"? I'm absolutely !@#$%^&*ing astounded. Moses lead his people away from their oppressors. Jesus sacrificed himself for the good of others. Muhammed conquered and killed anyone around him who disagreed with him Yea i think thats true. TJ: Beating your wife as a part of religion i dont think was normal then, and definitely isn't normal to still be following now. I'm pretty sure it's not normal in Islam either. I've already explained how sexism in a holy-book can lead to the beating of women; in the same way "thou shalt not kill" leads to Christians killing abortion doctors, or the way homosexuals are treated. If you can't see how mild, carefully-written, disgust of a group of people within a holy book can manifest into full-blown hatred with a justification for violence, then it's probably because you don't want to understand it. I don't know the actual verse, but I know for a fact that in the bible it says plainly that women need to be treated with respect, and that men must protect them. I just don't remember the actually verse, I'll look into it. ALSO, what christians used to do, is not the same as what they were supposed to do. What I mean is that even though many people called/call themselves 'christians' they didn't/don't actually do what being a christian entails. Edited November 7, 2007 by WongKonPow
Aileron Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 That verse comes immediately after the one where wives are told to respect their husbands. Obviously the statement is grossly taken out of context when used by people like SeVeR...I figured it was obvious enough that it didn't need mentioned.
LiDDiS Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 well i was taught to never hit girls when i was raised so im safe But what if she deserves it????????
JDS Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 Treating another human being poorly and justifying it on a book (what ever the book may be) is wrong, messed up, !@#$%^&*ed up, 'insane' , and backwards. we need to evolve past this nonesense religious !@#$%^&* and start treating other people the way we would like to be treated (ironic because thats the golden rule for all religions) And no one ever deserves to be hit, or killed. Its not for you to take someone else's precious life or infringe upon it. And aileron, our culture is the backwards one. We base wealth on peices of paper, we let single men rule entire nations, we listen to a television for all our media coverage, we are lied to constantly, money given to richer men.. constantly.. its all a trap, were slaves. Were useless slaves, and there is literaly nothing you can do about it unless you want to change to entire world. You people need to ask yourself.. are you content about living the way you are... there is so much more, we should not limit ourselves and think this is the end all and be all.. human = endless possibilities religion = limited potential hitting = unessesary.
WongKonPow Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 actually, that is the golden rule for christianity, not all religions.
ThunderJam Posted November 8, 2007 Author Report Posted November 8, 2007 Living on a university gives me plenty of interaction with people from the Middle East, and the women choose to dress that way. In the same way Christian women chose and still choose to dress modestly, without jewelry, braided hair, or revealing clothes.Christian women don't wear jewelry or braid their hair? That's news to me. Like i said friggin like 10 posts ago, those specific references were made to address fashions of the time. At their time those were considered marks of pros!@#$%^&*ute and the like. There no rules in Christianity that define what women can wear right now, but this is besides the point. As for all the times people keep saying "Tj show me where in the quaran it says they can beat women," i said previously, when i first made the statements that I havn't read the quaran so I can't speak on it authoritatively. What I did say is that all the people in these cases said that that Quaran specifically instructs their men to do so. I'm repeating what they said.
JDS Posted November 8, 2007 Report Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) actually, that is the golden rule for christianity, not all religions. all religions, you are wrong. different words, same meaning. Edited November 8, 2007 by JDS
NBVegita Posted November 8, 2007 Report Posted November 8, 2007 I do have to say I side with Sever completely. I will illeterate further later.
SeVeR Posted November 8, 2007 Report Posted November 8, 2007 ALSO, what christians used to do, is not the same as what they were supposed to do. If Christianity is the justification for hateful acts, then Christianity must take a large amount of the blame. This is especially so when ideas such as killing abortion doctors, hating homosexuals and treating women with inferiority can be immediately derived from interpreting the Bible in a particular way. We say communism and fascism are flawed based on the people who lived by the rules of those political setups. We don't say "fascism is ok, but it's been used by too many evil guys doing evil things in it's name". They did more than say "fascism made me do it", they read the ideology, agreed with it, and acted on it. In the same way a Christian will read the Bible and interpret it in a way that brings about hatred and violence. You don't need to go far in a history book to see how total-Christianity shapes society into an amalgam of fear, hate, prejudice and violence. Only with the reduction of Christian influence has humanity entered into this modern age of tolerance and technology. Ail:That verse comes immediately after the one where wives are told to respect their husbands. Obviously the statement is grossly taken out of context when used by people like SeVeR.. I'm sure it does say that. TJ:Christian women don't wear jewelry or braid their hair? That's news to me. I guess i should have expected you'd take this out of context. It's obvious not all Christian women follow the Bible to the word, just like it was fairly obvious i didn't mean all Christian women don't wear jewellery. The point was that some/many choose not to wear jewellery, revealing clothes, or elaborate hair-styles. It's a choice in the same way most Muslim women visitting my university will choose to wear head-scarves even though they don't have to. In some cases they will file law-suits to make sure they can!
ThunderJam Posted November 9, 2007 Author Report Posted November 9, 2007 This is especially so when ideas such as killing abortion doctors, hating homosexuals and treating women with inferiority can be immediately derived from interpreting the Bible in a particular way.You just can't get away from saying that we "Hate" homosexuals can you? It's just engraved in your mind and no matter what every Christian on here tells you, you still think you know our feeling better then we do. TJ:Christian women don't wear jewelry or braid their hair? That's news to me. I guess i should have expected you'd take this out of context. It's obvious not all Christian women follow the Bible to the word, just like it was fairly obvious i didn't mean all Christian women don't wear jewellery. The point was that some/many choose not to wear jewellery, revealing clothes, or elaborate hair-styles. It's a choice in the same way most Muslim women visitting my university will choose to wear head-scarves even though they don't have to. In some cases they will file law-suits to make sure they can!Dressing modestly aint just a christian value though, wanted to point that out. That's a typical thing, how many parents raise their daughters telling them to wear as low cut shirts as they can, show as much stomach as then can, only wear shorts that come half way down your thighs. I donno about you, but I don't know many people that would raise their daughters that way. And wat i was trying to point out about the jewelry is, christian women don't not wear jewelry because of that verse. That verses context doesnt have the no-jewelry meaning for today. Rather if Christian women are choosing not to wear jewelry, it is just to be humble. Meh its too late at night, i feel like im talking and unable to formulate my thoughts correctly, this is probably all nonsense.
SeVeR Posted November 9, 2007 Report Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) This is especially so when ideas such as killing abortion doctors, hating homosexuals and treating women with inferiority can be immediately derived from interpreting the Bible in a particular way.You just can't get away from saying that we "Hate" homosexuals can you? It's just engraved in your mind and no matter what every Christian on here tells you, you still think you know our feeling better then we do. Do you think i believe all Christians want to kill abortion doctors too? Can you see how you've taken my comment out of context, again? Dressing modestly aint just a christian value though, wanted to point that out. That's a typical thing, how many parents raise their daughters telling them to wear as low cut shirts as they can, show as much stomach as then can, only wear shorts that come half way down your thighs. I donno about you, but I don't know many people that would raise their daughters that way. Well i'm not criticising dressing modestly. I'm merely saying that both Christianity and Islam have holy books that tell women how to dress. I'm saying this because Aileron was trying to criticise Islam for telling women to cover up. Islamic society follows their holy book much more than our Western society follows the Bible, but both holy books essentially have the same opinion on women as inferior, tempters of men. You cannot criticise one without criticising the other. Rather if Christian women are choosing not to wear jewelry, it is just to be humble. I think you'll find there's a reason why more Christian women are humble than non-Christians, and it stems from the Biblical idea that women are the tempters of men. Not wearing jewellery is simply a bi-product of that underlying trend in the Bible. I mean, for heavens sake, do i really have to tell you about the trends in the Bible? I'm the non-believer here! Edited November 9, 2007 by SeVeR
WongKonPow Posted November 9, 2007 Report Posted November 9, 2007 ALSO, what christians used to do, is not the same as what they were supposed to do. If Christianity is the justification for hateful acts, then Christianity must take a large amount of the blame. This is especially so when ideas such as killing abortion doctors, hating homosexuals and treating women with inferiority can be immediately derived from interpreting the Bible in a particular way. We say communism and fascism are flawed based on the people who lived by the rules of those political setups. We don't say "fascism is ok, but it's been used by too many evil guys doing evil things in it's name". They did more than say "fascism made me do it", they read the ideology, agreed with it, and acted on it. In the same way a Christian will read the Bible and interpret it in a way that brings about hatred and violence. What I am saying is that those weren't true christians, they just called themselves that. Calling yourself black doesn't make your skin darker, if you're white, or asian. The same way, calling yourself a christian doesn't make you one. You can't just talk the talk, the walking has to be there as well.
JDS Posted November 10, 2007 Report Posted November 10, 2007 Saw in the paper 'little women address big issue of afgans' .. and there they were on the front page all wearing there Shals and blankets.. trying to prove a point for america!! leave these people alone, The 'America' way isnt the right way. Its just a way.
WongKonPow Posted November 10, 2007 Report Posted November 10, 2007 JDS, no one is bashing women who wear shawls, that's not the topic of this thread.
SeVeR Posted November 10, 2007 Report Posted November 10, 2007 I think what JDS is trying to say is: These women choose to wear their islamic dress even when they don't have to. Yet some people on this thread would have us believe they are forced at gun-point to do something they don't want to do, because Islam is so evil etc etc. Thus, you should leave this culture alone.
WongKonPow Posted November 10, 2007 Report Posted November 10, 2007 I see nothing wrong with the shawls, I have a problem with the possibility of it being a religious custom for muslim men to beat their wives, we really should try and see if it's true. I only have a problem when a culture is crossing the lines of right and wrong. Beating women=wrong.
Aceflyer Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 I only have a problem when a culture is crossing the lines of right and wrong. But as the great Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi once remarked, "...a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Who are we to impose our standards of "right and wrong" on other people, who may have different standards of "right and wrong?" Who are we to say that our standards, our laws, our values are better, period? Note that I'm not trying to condone or defend anyone here. I personally find violent acts like wife-beating abhorrent. I am simply pointing out that it is arrogant to presume that our standards (of "right and wrong") are inherently superior to the standards of those other people.
ThunderJam Posted November 11, 2007 Author Report Posted November 11, 2007 I wasn't very literate when i was saying the thing about jewelry. Yes i know the trend is frmo the bible, what i meant was that christian women don't define certain articles of clothing off or on limits based on specific garment references (like jewelry and braided hair). It's just the idea of dressing modestly as a whole that they are trying to follow. Know wat I mean? Also all the times that sever has said women are shown as tempters of men, there are also TONS of verses in the bibles sayign that a loyal wife is worth more to a man than things like gold. So its not entirely putting them down, it shows how valuable a woman is to a man and it emphasizes the duality of two aspects of life. Male and female were supposed to be designed to reflect God in different ways. The bible says humans were made in the image of god, and the full image can only be seen through both men and women together.
Recommended Posts