Hence that I didn’t want this thread to trail down to an exegesis of Christian doctrine. I’m not saying the Bible can’t be interpreted as misogynistic or endorsing of slavery. My point was exactly this, it doesn’t matter. If slavery or misogyny happened before the Bible, and it did, it is not the source. If their only source of input was Biblical doctrine then it might be the foundation of their belief, but usually it’s a justification of poor beliefs.
My definition of property I already stated in my incoherent post as “ Property is something I can purchase and own and have full control and rights over. ” nothing in ten’s example or anyone else is aligned with my definition of slavery.
Religion and advertisements may very well be a justification for bad behavior, which strengthens the belief. But not the source. If u grew up and only knew the following statement about women “women are property” and you believed it that is a reason. It can be justified by many different places which bolster that belief. But the source of that belief is because said person believes x statement, not because religion/tv/papa justified my belief in x. As long as they want to believe x the only thing that can be done is to dismantle their justifications. Therefore, culpability is reduced to the individual and their desire to keep beliefs if their justifications can be shown flawed.
I think this thread is splintering. This is about rape apologetics, not misogyny, gender equality, marriage roles, scripture, etc. to bring it back to point, I believe drich demonstrated Hollywood was a culture that was toxic enough to allow and encourage rape. That may or may not be true. He went a step beyond and said it was deserving as were the victims then doubled down and that’s a good reason for a ban. And the discussion here has shown that discussion on the topic can be had without going into ban territory, so kudos to the admins and participants.
My definition of property I already stated in my incoherent post as “ Property is something I can purchase and own and have full control and rights over. ” nothing in ten’s example or anyone else is aligned with my definition of slavery.
Religion and advertisements may very well be a justification for bad behavior, which strengthens the belief. But not the source. If u grew up and only knew the following statement about women “women are property” and you believed it that is a reason. It can be justified by many different places which bolster that belief. But the source of that belief is because said person believes x statement, not because religion/tv/papa justified my belief in x. As long as they want to believe x the only thing that can be done is to dismantle their justifications. Therefore, culpability is reduced to the individual and their desire to keep beliefs if their justifications can be shown flawed.
I think this thread is splintering. This is about rape apologetics, not misogyny, gender equality, marriage roles, scripture, etc. to bring it back to point, I believe drich demonstrated Hollywood was a culture that was toxic enough to allow and encourage rape. That may or may not be true. He went a step beyond and said it was deserving as were the victims then doubled down and that’s a good reason for a ban. And the discussion here has shown that discussion on the topic can be had without going into ban territory, so kudos to the admins and participants.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
