Mohammed was born 1447 years ago; Christ, look at the date.
Like here?
2 things, well 3
-
Just for the record, Slave has a different biblical meaning than modern.
For one, a biblical slave is a person, a modern slave is a non person.
Not in every biblical era society, but then only one society was being addressed -
You leave out half of the equation, maybe Paul does too, but then he isnt speaking his own words.
Wife submits to husband as head of their family, Husband submits to God as his head.
How wife submits to husband God accepts as submission to him, because thats what he asked her to do.
Husband is to treat wife like God would treat her, not how husband feels like, how God would. Husband is directly answerable to God, how husband treats wife is how God is going to treat husband, he treats wife like shit, he is screwed.
So wife is not actually a lesser being, see how that works?
Wife submits to husband, because she will do this willingly husband will place her above even himself.
Husband submits to God, and because he does so willingly, He gives him everything in creation and wife too because she did it how God asked her to.
And in the end, both are equal.
Paul didn’t invent that, read the torrah, it was written before he was ever born.
Which is point 3, Paul is just rehashing, and apparently not doing a complete job of it, what was written long before he ever existed.
Yes, like there. If you said “I have not come to abolish this contract but to fulfill it,” would anyone dispute its meaning? Ending the law because it has served its purpose still ends the law.
Somehow the Bible gets to be nuanced and interpreted in the most positive light possible, but when peaceful Muslims do this for the Quran, somehow they’re not legitimately following the true Quran; they aren’t the real Muslims.
iiandyiiii: Did you see post 70?
Yep. It seems we agree.
Turkey’s government is strictly secular. They have astonishing problems with gender inequality.
I know it’s true for many people the only interaction you have with Muslims is what you find on the internet. The problem with that of course is it is you, with your perception, doing the searching. Try looking for something other than Quranic quotes or what the news feeds you if you want a more nuanced view of Islam.
You can’t separate Islam from Muslims or Christianity from Christians. Where the people are strong believers in norms that promote gender inequality then Islam is sexist. Where the people are strong believers in gender equality then Islam is egalitarian.
The hypothetical followers of the faith in each society, or distinct cultures in a society, or even among distinct individuals in a family will all be able to point to Quranic verses that support their view. I don’t know why this isn’t obvious to some people.
Meaning of the last part was lost in a cut and paste but the point is that the US just gave these rights to women a short time ago, complaining that some poorer, less stable country that primarily has islamic citizens is due to some morally superior trait of the christian side is just plain ignorant.
It probably has more to do with mechanization, economic prosperity and/or stability than it has to do with anything religious.
Christianity has not valid claim to a superior model of morality for very very recent changes in secular society.
(and Jesus was not born 2016 years ago)
And some Nazis are great dudes. But they get demonised.
We still have a long way to go, sadly.
Which Nazis are “great dudes”?
All the peace loving, liberal, Guardian reading, gay friendly ones.
Are we all aware of the recent survey asking people in European countries whether they wanted a ban on Muslim immigration? 55% said they do, 20% said they didn’t, and the rest didn’t say.
Schindler (of Schindler’s List) was a Nazi party member.
Where do these mythic figures exist? Do you have any names?
To be fair, Muslim immigration in Europe is more like if Mexico decided to send half its population North. Fear of terrorism/Islam may be a component for many Europeans, but for many it might just be opposition to having a sudden, mass population swell of foreigners.
I had trouble following this. If wives aren’t lesser beings, why would God ask them to submit to their husbands? Why not an equal partnership? Or why doesn’t God sometimes ask the husband submit to the wife? Moreover, in this God/man, husband/wife analogy, how is mankind not lesser to God? God doesn’t submit to man. God judges and punishes man for their transgressions.
I think there is a legitimate difference between a country where the majority of the population is Muslim, and one where the laws and government and law enforcement are based strongly on Muslim religious writings (which I understand includes more than just the Quran, if that matters).
So it is the latter case that I would look at to test whether the religion’s writings, as embodied in the laws and government and law enforcement, has a negative effect on the rights of women (for example, since that’s what we seem to be talking about most). In the first case, women may still suffer from various bad conditions at least partially as a result of the influence of Islam, it is just harder to be sure what the cause is without being on the ground.
I am not so much interested in what should be called a Muslim country. The larger question is whether Islam tends to oppress women. My original question about Muslim countries or regions was just a way to try to break down this question into manageable pieces. I never wanted to get lost in the weeds about what is or is not a “Muslim country.” So by all means lets talk about the larger question instead.
While I would question how much research went behind this statement, let’s accept it as true.
Is any form of slavery still considered to be moral, even the one that you state is the intent of the Bible? No.
Perhaps we could make an argument that God was going with what was politically feasible at the time? Well, again, no. The stoic, Seneca, was preaching an end to slavery at about the same time as Jesus, and likely this position preceded him among the stoics. Alcidamas, 400 years earlier, wrote, “God has left all men free; nature has made no man a slave”.
If some random Greek philosopher can make the argument, one would think that a Son of God, the guy who achieved divine revelation of everything that the Son of God had to offer, or God himself could have as well. If you can split the sea and bring down a storm of locusts, one would think that you could enforce your political view on how humans are meant to treat one another.