|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 15, 2018 15:02:54 GMT -5
I know. Coming up with explanations for the "literary" that offends your morality. Don't beat off on the bush. Tell me Im less than intelligent, a lying apologist. I just think you're maybe a little bit weird, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 15, 2018 15:06:48 GMT -5
Interesting that you link a 'hussy' with wearing make up. Guess it's a 2x2 thing. My dad called me a w.h.o.r.e because I wore mascara. What about the women that are 'beautiful professing women' that wear make up? Are they hussies too? yes they would be...i know a few in the meetings i attend... Uh-hah.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 15, 2018 16:16:06 GMT -5
It's not that simple, whether were talking about male dominance or male leadership in the 2x2 or any where else. Someone has to lead in society, and if historically that's been men, people were only doing, IMO, what seemed natural. Leadership and domination are two different things. Many men haven't been good leaders, but pathological. A female led society? I think there've been several in history. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Maybe Jesus envisioned a heavenly kingdom where leaders hailed equally from each sex. matriarchal societies always fall to patriarchal ones...no thanks... Really? If so.
Why is that?
What happens?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 15, 2018 16:18:38 GMT -5
In other words you're a cherry picker. A thinker. A "thinker" that cherry picks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 16:30:00 GMT -5
matriarchal societies always fall to patriarchal ones...no thanks... Really? If so.
Why is that?
What happens?the drive to conquer is stronger in patriarchal societies...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 16, 2018 10:52:19 GMT -5
Really? If so.
Why is that?
What happens? the drive to conquer is stronger in patriarchal societies... And conquering is a good thing? What I think works a lot better for both societies is the ability to come to compromises that would benefit both societies instead of just obliterating everything about the one that loses. Just think of the good that can come when we combine the successes of two different countries instead of just conquering and obliterating. The 'drive to conquer' has caused a lot of grief in this world. Maybe it's time to try something with a little less testosterone mixed into it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2018 12:32:57 GMT -5
the drive to conquer is stronger in patriarchal societies... And conquering is a good thing? What I think works a lot better for both societies is the ability to come to compromises that would benefit both societies instead of just obliterating everything about the one that loses. Just think of the good that can come when we combine the successes of two different countries instead of just conquering and obliterating. The 'drive to conquer' has caused a lot of grief in this world. Maybe it's time to try something with a little less testosterone mixed into it? survival of the fittest as they say....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 16, 2018 12:42:45 GMT -5
And conquering is a good thing? What I think works a lot better for both societies is the ability to come to compromises that would benefit both societies instead of just obliterating everything about the one that loses. Just think of the good that can come when we combine the successes of two different countries instead of just conquering and obliterating. The 'drive to conquer' has caused a lot of grief in this world. Maybe it's time to try something with a little less testosterone mixed into it? survival of the fittest as they say.... It isn't just the fittest, though that is the bottom line. The road to being the 'fittest' was the ability for humans to cooperate and work together for the benefit of the tribe/clan. So it's the things we do to not get killed that makes the 'fittest' live to reproduce. That's all it's about.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 18, 2018 19:57:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 18, 2018 19:57:09 GMT -5
It's not that simple, whether were talking about male dominance or male leadership in the 2x2 or any where else. Someone has to lead in society, and if historically that's been men, people were only doing, IMO, what seemed natural. Leadership and domination are two different things. Many men haven't been good leaders, but pathological. A female led society? I think there've been several in history. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Maybe Jesus envisioned a heavenly kingdom where leaders hailed equally from each sex. Yes, it is simple.
Our whole Western Christian culture is permeated with male dominance. It is is every crack and cranny.
But because it does permeate our whole society, -many people do not even realize that it does and has always been so, -therefore it "seems normal."
One simple thing to show you, is that men were called "Mister" (Mr) -whether married or not. But women were divided into groups, Miss or MRS.
Why? Think about it for awhile & see if you can figure why that was done.What is sexism? Distinguishing between the sexes? If males came with more muscle, and we're occasionally endowed with a complementary brain, they would be uniquely adapted to the world. If the physical world must be manipulated for survival or improvement, and men were more adapted in accomplishing this, did they not evolve to be a leader in some sense of the species? Traditionally women have been recognized for their specialty, children, and complementary relationships with their husbands.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 18, 2018 20:01:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 18, 2018 20:01:36 GMT -5
I don't think the bible recommends rape like you're saying. Reading the wiki article, a categorical statement like youre making is controversial. I'm not a biblical literalist in the sense that if at points of scripture God seems to condone shameful behavior, that that's how we should be or that's indeed how God is. Really? Lee, You don't think the bible recommends rape?
Then what do you think was going to happen to all of those virgins that the Lord God told the Israelites to spare & not kill when they were to kill all of the other Amalekites -even male children?Arranged marriages? Back in the day, the defeated women and children would have all perished without their men.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2018 21:48:40 GMT -5
Yes, it is simple.
Our whole Western Christian culture is permeated with male dominance. It is is every crack and cranny.
But because it does permeate our whole society, -many people do not even realize that it does and has always been so, -therefore it "seems normal."
One simple thing to show you, is that men were called "Mister" (Mr) -whether married or not. But women were divided into groups, Miss or MRS.
Why? Think about it for awhile & see if you can figure why that was done. What is sexism? Distinguishing between the sexes? This is the height of economy. You ask the question and then go on to provide examples while answering it.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 19, 2018 2:18:07 GMT -5
Yes, it is simple.
Our whole Western Christian culture is permeated with male dominance. It is is every crack and cranny.
But because it does permeate our whole society, -many people do not even realize that it does and has always been so, -therefore it "seems normal."
One simple thing to show you, is that men were called "Mister" (Mr) -whether married or not. But women were divided into groups, Miss or MRS.
Why? Think about it for awhile & see if you can figure why that was done. What is sexism? Distinguishing between the sexes? If males came with more muscle, and we're occasionally endowed with a complementary brain, they would be uniquely adapted to the world. If the physical world must be manipulated for survival or improvement, and men were more adapted in accomplishing this, did they not evolve to be a leader in some sense of the species? Traditionally women have been recognized for their specialty, children, and complementary relationships with their husbands. Please don't tell me that you don't know the meaning of "sexism" Lee.
Oh, I guess you do, -what you just expressed is "sexism."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 19, 2018 2:40:12 GMT -5
Really? Lee, You don't think the bible recommends rape?
Then what do you think was going to happen to all of those virgins that the Lord God told the Israelites to spare & not kill when they were to kill all of the other Amalekites -even male children? Arranged marriages? Back in the day, the defeated women and children would have all perished without their men. Arranged marriages?
Oh, -come on, Lee!
We aren't talking about "defeated women and children!"
You just can't be THAT ignorant, Lee! No matter how hard you try! (that is, if you know what the bible actually says!)
The "defeated women and children" were KILLED, LEE! It was only the virgins that they kept alive "for themselves!"
Numbers 31:17 -18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2018 8:14:45 GMT -5
Really? Lee, You don't think the bible recommends rape?
Then what do you think was going to happen to all of those virgins that the Lord God told the Israelites to spare & not kill when they were to kill all of the other Amalekites -even male children? Arranged marriages? Back in the day, the defeated women and children would have all perished without their men. But remember, the issue from these women would not be jewish. They would have been slaves.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 19, 2018 8:21:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 19, 2018 8:21:08 GMT -5
So..it was practical?
They could have left the women to die. But they married them instead?
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 19, 2018 8:24:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 19, 2018 8:24:38 GMT -5
Arranged marriages? Back in the day, the defeated women and children would have all perished without their men. Arranged marriages?
Oh, -come on, Lee!
We aren't talking about "defeated women and children!"
You just can't be THAT ignorant, Lee! No matter how hard you try! (that is, if you know what the bible actually says!)
The "defeated women and children" were KILLED, LEE! It was only the virgins that they kept alive "for themselves!"
Numbers 31:17 -18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
You gotta whittle down the defeated to what you actually need. This is not a sexism issue. This is the brutal nature of war, when there's nothing bigger politically and ethically speaking, than warring parties themselves, to defer or reconcile their differences.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2018 8:37:07 GMT -5
So..it was practical? They could have left the women to die. But they married them instead? They didn't marry them. They enslaved them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2018 8:39:24 GMT -5
Arranged marriages?
Oh, -come on, Lee!
We aren't talking about "defeated women and children!"
You just can't be THAT ignorant, Lee! No matter how hard you try! (that is, if you know what the bible actually says!)
The "defeated women and children" were KILLED, LEE! It was only the virgins that they kept alive "for themselves!"
Numbers 31:17 -18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
You gotta whittle down the defeated to what you actually need. This is not a sexism issue. This is the brutal nature of war, when there's nothing bigger politically and ethically speaking, than warring parties themselves, to defer or reconcile their differences. Works with all species. Why should Homo sapiens even attempt to rise above that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 10:46:28 GMT -5
So..it was practical? They could have left the women to die. But they married them instead? They didn't marry them. They enslaved them. it doesn't exactly say what they did with them one has to make some ASSumptions first....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 19, 2018 14:17:13 GMT -5
Really? Lee, You don't think the bible recommends rape?
Then what do you think was going to happen to all of those virgins that the Lord God told the Israelites to spare & not kill when they were to kill all of the other Amalekites -even male children? Arranged marriages? Back in the day, the defeated women and children would have all perished without their men. Women were killed if they weren't virgins. Only one way to test that back then. Women were quite capable of hunting and gathering. The only thing they needed protection from was other men. They became property because men wanted to make sure the offspring was theirs. Women weren't allowed to have property of their own. If they were I'm quite confident they could have survived just fine without a man. I can't believe the archaic beliefs some men on here have about women. It wasn't the women that went around raping and pillaging or causing wars to be fought. In today's world the thing we still need the most protection from, if we need any at all, is from men themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 16:27:42 GMT -5
Arranged marriages? Back in the day, the defeated women and children would have all perished without their men. Women were killed if they weren't virgins. Only one way to test that back then. Women were quite capable of hunting and gathering. The only thing they needed protection from was other men. They became property because men wanted to make sure the offspring was theirs. Women weren't allowed to have property of their own. If they were I'm quite confident they could have survived just fine without a man. I can't believe the archaic beliefs some men on here have about women. It wasn't the women that went around raping and pillaging or causing wars to be fought. In today's world the thing we still need the most protection from, if we need any at all, is from men themselves. read proverbs 31 about a virtuous woman and what she can do.... its nothing like you describe....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2018 16:37:46 GMT -5
They didn't marry them. They enslaved them. it doesn't exactly say what they did with them one has to make some ASSumptions first.... No, it doesn't say. There are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the bible that the reader must assume. Does the bible ever mention whether Jesus urinated or not? Is it save to assume he did? Now back to the captured Midianites. According to Jewish law what do you think? Historically intermarriage was not considered to be valid. Intermarriage was viewed as a rejection of the religion and resulted in being cut off from the community. Remember that Jewishness if through the mother. The community would reject the idea of families with non-jewish children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2018 16:39:39 GMT -5
Women were killed if they weren't virgins. Only one way to test that back then. Women were quite capable of hunting and gathering. The only thing they needed protection from was other men. They became property because men wanted to make sure the offspring was theirs. Women weren't allowed to have property of their own. If they were I'm quite confident they could have survived just fine without a man. I can't believe the archaic beliefs some men on here have about women. It wasn't the women that went around raping and pillaging or causing wars to be fought. In today's world the thing we still need the most protection from, if we need any at all, is from men themselves. read proverbs 31 about a virtuous woman and what she can do.... its nothing like you describe.... And the non-jewish woman is nothing like proverbs 31.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 19, 2018 20:02:28 GMT -5
via mobile
emy likes this
Post by Lee on Oct 19, 2018 20:02:28 GMT -5
What is sexism? Distinguishing between the sexes? If males came with more muscle, and we're occasionally endowed with a complementary brain, they would be uniquely adapted to the world. If the physical world must be manipulated for survival or improvement, and men were more adapted in accomplishing this, did they not evolve to be a leader in some sense of the species? Traditionally women have been recognized for their specialty, children, and complementary relationships with their husbands. Please don't tell me that you don't know the meaning of "sexism" Lee.
Oh, I guess you do, -what you just expressed is "sexism." Recognizing organic and cultural differences between men and women isn't sexism. Sexism is justifying a behavior on the basis of ones sex that depreciates the value of the other sex, and our common ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 22:08:51 GMT -5
it doesn't exactly say what they did with them one has to make some ASSumptions first.... No, it doesn't say. There are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the bible that the reader must assume. Does the bible ever mention whether Jesus urinated or not? Is it save to assume he did? Now back to the captured Midianites. According to Jewish law what do you think? Historically intermarriage was not considered to be valid. Intermarriage was viewed as a rejection of the religion and resulted in being cut off from the community. Remember that Jewishness if through the mother. The community would reject the idea of families with non-jewish children. well if we are ASSuming i'd say anything won in battle was assimilated into the jewish community...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 22:09:57 GMT -5
read proverbs 31 about a virtuous woman and what she can do.... its nothing like you describe.... And the non-jewish woman is nothing like proverbs 31. a woman would do very well to be like the virtuous woman in proverbs 31 jewish or not....actually i don't think jewish is mentioned in the description its just talking about a virtuous woman....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 20, 2018 3:32:16 GMT -5
And the non-jewish woman is nothing like proverbs 31. a woman would do very well to be like the virtuous woman in proverbs 31 jewish or not....actually i don't think jewish is mentioned in the description its just talking about a virtuous woman.... Oh , yes!
That is so lovely This is my favorite verse: "Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land."SHE has been working HER fingers to the bone, while her HUSBAND sits on HIS butt!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 20, 2018 10:09:37 GMT -5
And the non-jewish woman is nothing like proverbs 31. a woman would do very well to be like the virtuous woman in proverbs 31 jewish or not....actually i don't think jewish is mentioned in the description its just talking about a virtuous woman.... Written by...? @wally, these people killed anyone who might be a member of the opposite team. The offspring of the captured women would never be Jewish and would aleays be considered a threat. What do you think was done with the women?
|
|