The actor is clearly consenting to simulating forced sex. Nor does something that depicts rape mean it's glorifying or encouraging it.

(July 24, 2021 at 1:20 am)tackattack Wrote: I don’t believe that people CAN be property due to my definition of property.

You are free to define any god into existence, as you are free to define (biblical) slavery out of existence.
I am free to call BS for both attempts to do so. You clearly have nothing left if you have to resort to such last ditch attempts of word games on such an issue.

(July 24, 2021 at 1:20 am)tackattack Wrote: This isn’t about whether biblical exegesis promotes slavery or misogyny, which I’m certain many people here believe.

The universe does not care what you believe about it. Likewise the facts of biblical misogyny and promotion of slavery do not care if "some" believe". The fact that someone like you is free to disbelieve (= ignore) those well established facts does not make them go away, nor does it make slavery or misogyny an issue under dispute. It only shows your inability or unwillingness to distance yourself from a book full of immoralities. Attempts of redefining slavery and ignoring misogyny are to avoid cognitive dissonance. You are much better than your holy book, but you cant let go, so you have to rationalize.

(July 24, 2021 at 1:20 am)tackattack Wrote: Let’s say I do believe in slavery for the sake of argument. I don’t believe slaves could be considered property. Less than, second class, a whipping post, bad people sure… but not property because they have their own will.

How much "free will" does a slave actually have when the slave owner is legally allowed to cancel any idea the slave likes to act upon by any countermeasure? Considering slaves not to be property because you cant control their thoughts, thats is a real desperate way to redefine slavery with respect to the property issue.
Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that what the bible promoted was not "owning another human being as property", its still immoral what the bible promoted, and you are still trying to downplay all of this.
It doesnt matter if the most batshit crazy baptist considered women being property or not. If he follows the written word of the bible, then he is following misogynist ideas.

Downplaying horrible ideas of the bible does not make them good ideas, it just makes them (somewhat) less horrible.

If only Counting On hadn't been canceled due to Josh turning out to be a bigger nonce than anyone was ever aware of, then I could tell you to turn on TBS and we could show you what we're talking about. The Duggars might not be your particular type of Christianity, but the more you look into it and the more you look at what they expect of women, you get to know exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, look into why Anna's not divorcing Josh's ass or even why the woman whose husband put up his bond wouldn't give a straight answer as to whether or not she even agreed to the plan and you start to figure out what I mean.

https://gen.medium.com/women-and-childre...27db16d521

I'm dubious on the debate about whether a religion actually promotes patriarchal ideals and "women as property/second class citizens" based only on whether the members say it does or not. 

When I was a true believing Mormon, I would have zealously defended the "just different roles NOT slaves" idea. I was convinced back then that women held a place of honor and respect in the church and that they had power that was different from a man's but just as important. I would have come in here spouting off the blessings and power of childbirth, the special gift of motherhood, once upon a time.

In actuality... 

• In Mormonism, they believe that after this life and the judgement and yadda yadda, those who are worthy in the Celestial kingdom get to basically do this whole thing again except each individual gets to play the role of God for their own planet, raising up spirit children on that planet. So, exactly like this, except we all get to be Gods of our own planet with our own progeny to torment an give rules to. Women do not get to make their own planet or rule over that planet as a God. Women get the "blessing" to join a worthy male God in his harem of wives. Those spirit children gotta come from somewhere with all the hundreds of billions of people who have ever lived and will ever live. They come from good ole fashioned baby making with god parents. If you are a worthy woman here on earth and you die unmarried/your husband is not worthy, you get to join the harem of a worthy man in the eternities. And just like here, how Mormons never talk about and never teach the concept of heavenly Mother, hen you become a God Mother of your husband's planet, your children will never talk about you, they will be shushed to never ask about, think about, or pray to you. You get no credit, no acknowledgment for your role in creating these new humans and you get no say in raising them, in rules, in judgement, anythin. The reward for Mormon women in the eternities is to become a god making factory, a brood mare, one of several, in a long and endless process. 

• In the temple, when a woman is sealed to her husband for time and eternity, she is directly promising to obey the authority of her husband. And her husband makes promises to God. She doesn't get to make promises to God. Only to her husband, whom she must obey. In practice, it might look like a regular marriage with the husband cooking and doing dishes and the wife with a job. But these covenants n the temple are like signing a heavenly contract and the "documentation" in the eternal book says the husband talks to God directly as a representative for the family unit and the wife follows his lead.

• In church, women have their own organization called the Relief Society with a president and counsellors appointed to her. She has no actual authority in running the local church. She runs the sunday school classes for the women and runs activities during the week. She doesn't collect tithing, she doesn't gives blessings, she doesn't meet privately with her flock to hear their sins and help them through repentance. All o that is still passed upwards to the bishop or stake president of the local ward. And every decision she makes must be approved and overseen by the bishop. If she has an activity in the middle of the week with the women using the church to make crafts or do something for charity, a priesthood holder, usually the bishop or one of his counselors, has to be present. It's not a church sanctioined activity without a worthy priesthood representative (and only men have the power of the priesthood). There are no women and never have been in any of the highest positions of authority in the church. The highest a woman can get is the Relief Society President for the whole church. She gets to have some input in the yearly themes for Relief Society and helps organize the lessons all the lower level RS presidents at the local levels get to teach to their classes. It all needs final approval from the male authority in the church before it ever gets printed and handed out to the rest of the church.

• If you are a single mother in Mormonism, a widow, or your husband is not worthy/absent for a temporary time, you cannot give blessings to your children when they are sick. You do not have the authority or power to pray over your sick child and ask for God to make them well. Not in the official sense. You need to call the local ward and they will send over a worthy priesthood holder to do it for you. Men get the priesthood starting at 12 years old. If you are a mother with a 12 year old son, he has more power through God than you do and could perform healing miracles on your children.


I could go on but you get the point. As a Mormon, I would have defended women as equal yet different with just as much power as men. Yet the actual doctrines and practice of gospel speaks of subservience, less authority, less power, and less privilege. So, a religious person can say all they like "women aren't second class! Women just have different roles!" but it's just more of the same cognitive dissonance where your standards of "equality" do not match up with the rest of reality.

(July 23, 2021 at 6:53 pm)tackattack Wrote: The mischaracterizations that “the religious are in favor of rape” or that “ women are men’s” property  are factually incorrect as a us centric religious tenant , and an exaggerated straw man to vilify the religious.

I agree that some men see women as their property, and that drich seemed to indicate acceptance of rape. Neither of those views stem from a religious doctrine. They may be a part of culture that needs to be addressed , but lumping that with xx religion/ religious people you have beef with is a fallacious way to start an argument and easily disproven as anti-religious bias. You’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how shitty, just like the religious on this Forum.

Exaggerated strawman? Shitty opinion? Way to attempt to discredit me. You are stating your opinions, these are not facts. You might argue that what I profess are opinions and I'd have to agree with you. 

I believe the patriarchal structure absolutely does stem from religious doctrine. If I can't access birth control or get an abortion because of someone else's religion then yes, it's absolutely fucking related to religious doctrine. I am not attempting to lump anyone together, you are inserting your own defensiveness into what I said. It's NOT about YOU or any other individuals. Step back a bit and listen. 

Contrary to what you apparently think, I do not have any beef with religious people and I have no agenda to vilify anything. My beef is with cultural issues that affect the lives of others that don't share those beliefs.

---

(July 24, 2021 at 8:36 am)Ten Wrote: I'm dubious on the debate about whether a religion actually promotes patriarchal ideals and "women as property/second class citizens" 


• In the temple, when a woman is sealed to her husband for time and eternity, she is directly promising to obey the authority of her husband. And her husband makes promises to God. She doesn't get to make promises to God. Only to her husband, whom she must obey. In practice, it might look like a regular marriage with the husband cooking and doing dishes and the wife with a job. But these covenants n the temple are like signing a heavenly contract and the "documentation" in the eternal book says the husband talks to God directly as a representative for the family unit and the wife follows his lead.

Curious as to how you are dubious about patriarchy and religion given this information?

(July 24, 2021 at 9:00 am)Mermaid Wrote: Curious as to how you are dubious about patriarchy and religion given this information?

The rest of my statement was "based only on whether the members say it does or not." That's what I don't believe. I'm sure religious people are genuine and feel like they are being truthful. I do not trust their judgement because of the ability for the standards to be slanted, as I said.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I like my run-on sentences and it causes my meaning to get lost.

Ah, sorry, I snipped your words so they didn't fit your context. Thanks for explaining.

(July 24, 2021 at 1:20 am)tackattack Wrote:

(July 23, 2021 at 11:55 pm)Angrboda Wrote: That was rather incoherent.  It doesn't mean that it's the source of the belief, but that also doesn't mean that it isn't.  Your post is nothing but a ramble of nonsequiturs.

I apologize it was incoherent this’ll be my last attempt to clarify before some sleep.

I don’t believe that people CAN be property due to my definition of property. This isn’t about whether biblical exegesis promotes slavery or misogyny, which I’m certain many people here believe.

Let’s say I do believe in slavery for the sake of argument. I don’t believe slaves could be considered property. Less than, second class, a whipping post, bad people sure… but not property because they have their own will.

Back to the post, under this scenario, if I were an advocate for slavery I could use many Historical references and even a scripture to justify that belief. That justification isn’t the source of my belief, but it does bolster the belief from my perspective. The source of the belief isn’t the same as the justification and the justification has little to do with the source. I hope that makes more sense.night

How do you define property? My understanding of property is "something which a person has the legal right to control the disquisition of." Slaves seem to fit.

Are the sources of beliefs external to a person or internal? If they are external, is it not possible that, regardless of its other uses, scripture/religion is one source?

(July 23, 2021 at 11:56 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(July 23, 2021 at 9:09 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Drich victim-blamed Judy when she opened up about her rape. This doesn't surprise me at all. It's a shame more action wasn't taken then, when an actual member of ours was being attacked that way.

Nice to see you, Thump! I hope you stick around. ❤️

Thanks, LC. Hope all's with with you.

---

Also, just wanted to say the idea that the Christian bible doesn't support slavery or misogyny is laughable. There's some industrial scale cherry-picking going on behind those two claims.

To wit:

Timothy, in Chpt 2, vs 11-14 Wrote:11 A woman [a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; [b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women [c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

https://www.sermoncentral.com/bible/new-...+Timothy+2

Paul, in 1 Corinthians, wrote Wrote:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.

https://www.sermoncentral.com/bible/new-...nthians+11

Peter, in 2:18, wrote Wrote:Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

https://www.sermoncentral.com/bible/new-...=1+Peter+2

It is a fact that the Bible was historically used to justify chattel slavery in America. The Bible was also used by abolitionists for their cause as well.

The Bible was also historically a well-spring for American misogyny, used to justify second-class status.

I know that most Christians do not nowadays accept slavery as moral. I also know that plenty of Christians consider women equal. And beyond that, I konw that th Bible is not the only holy book preaching slavery and/or misogyny.

But the idea that the Bible didn't have passages instructing men on the second-class nature of women, or didn't condone chattel slavery, is tripe. Rubbish.

(July 23, 2021 at 10:51 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: The Old Testament sucks on the issue once again. New Testament doesn't fix it.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on this article.

Here's a quote from the early days of my denomination back in the 1800's; I believe it echoes a similar passage from biblical commentator Matthew Henry in the late 1600's: "Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him."