I think you’re on the right lines but I’ve got to disagree with you here because I think you’ve skipped a step. Control is secondary, not primary. Most social systems - including both patriarchy and matriarchy - are about wanting peace, prosperity, and stability. And one of the consequences is some control. The people agree to abide by the rules - thus ceding some control - in return for (hopefully) peace, prosperity, and stability.
*Shatnez (or shaatnez, [ʃaʕatˈneːz]; Biblical Hebrew Šaʿatnez About this soundשַׁעַטְנֵז (help·info)) is cloth containing both wool and linen (linsey-woolsey), which Jewish law, derived from the Torah, prohibits wearing. The relevant Biblical verses (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit an individual from wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the interbreeding of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds (collectively known as kilayim).*Rabbinic Judaism maintains that shatnez was permitted in the case of the avnet (Kohen’s girdle), in which fine white linen was interwoven with purple, blue, and scarlet material. According to the rabbis, the purple, blue, and scarlet were made from wool and interwoven with the fine linen.
The Bible says a lot of things.
Many of those things are completely ignored by church leadership because those things are inconvenient, incompatible with today’s world, or contrary to the worldview they wish to promote.
The things a particular religion chooses to focus on, particularly when imposing those rules on people NOT of their religion, says more about the personal worldview of the leadership than it does about the word of God.
I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, that there aren’t two sides to the abortion debate, but at least six: Pro-life, anti-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion.
Pro-lifers (and they do exist) oppose abortion, but also hold a lot of other views that they consider part of the same issue: They’re also, for instance, anti-war and anti-death penalty.
Anti-lifers also exist, but thankfully seem to be quite rare. Members of doomsday cults, who want death just for the sake of death, fall into this category. They are likely to support abortion as a means to an end of human extinction.
The pro- and anti-abortion factions view abortion in isolation from other issues, and regard it as a positive or a negative. China’s one-child policy might fairly be described as pro-abortion, for instance.
The pro-choice faction generally views abortion as either morally neutral, or having a relatively low moral weight, and therefore concludes that a pregnant woman should be allowed to choose either possibility for herself.
The anti-choice position believes that a pregnant woman should have the decision made for her, in either direction. Consider, for example, the Biblical edict that a woman suspected of adultery should be given abortifacient drugs (together with a prayer that they not work if she’s innocent): That’s anti-choice, despite being in favor of (some) abortions.
To sum up: The pro-life, anti-abortion, and anti-choice factions might sometimes find themselves to be political allies, but they do not actually agree on some very fundamental points. Likewise for the pro-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-life factions.
Well, they WERE made up by men, whether religious people believe it or not.
And my theory is sex. It always comes down to sex. And I believe these “rules from God” were originally written down by the 2000BC equivalent of “beta cucks, soy boys, and MRAs”. They couldn’t even get laid in a primitive society, so they figured they were going to create a world where they had the power. If they set up the rules where women were subservient to their husbands, then by god (heh heh) no alpha male was going to steal their wimmin away. That is, once they got one. And by creating a society where women would be considered undesirable without a husband, just by statistics they stood a good chance of getting one of their own.
Trouble is, all these guys are long dead, and we’re STILL living in the world they created.
One possibility is that religion is brainwashing pro-lifers. Religion objects to abortion, birth control, and same-sex unions because that will mean fewer minds to brainwash in 20 years or so.
Name something important in the NT* that are completely ignored by church leadership.
*
But again, it’s not Christians who are against Abortion. 75% of America are Christians, only 25% want to dump Roe. Indeed, Islam also has the same issues.
Dont confuse the Religious Right with Christianity.
**All **major religions oppose Adultery.
It’s not Christians who are against Abortion. 75% of America are Christians, only 25% want to dump Roe. Dont confuse the Religious Right with Christianity.
“Important”.
That would be cherry picking that’s already happening, folks. It’s axiomatically true that they’re not ignoring anything they consider important, but that doesn’t mean they’re not ignoring things.
There are very good societal reasons to oppose adultery - it pisses people off and causes strife.
A ban on adultery has no bearing whatsoever on mutually extramarital sex, and no bearing at all on abortions (of course).
begbert2 beat me to it, but really, man, you’re telling me that there are parts of the bible that are unimportant and the whole first half of the book can be ignored?
This is how religion works.
Jesus was the new Covenant. Thus, the OT is guidelines, and interesting stuff, no longer laws or rules, which is why Christians dont keep Kosher, Linen & wool is Ok, and so forth.
Ok, so we just ignore the stuff you think isn’t important, then.
So the whole “don’t judge” thing is still on the table, right?
So I don’t have to honor my mother and father?
On a serious note, isn’t the OT where all the supposed anti-contraceptive stuff is? So that shouldn’t apply either, right?
Not to take this hijack too far, but that suggests that a special exemption from the law was made for this garment, not that the existence of the garment was the purpose of the law.
Actually it’s was a common belief and came from the early church fathers. There are no specific NT verses and one argued OT verse. OTOH, not all Christian churches are against contraception. Anglicanism ,Presbyterianism, Methodism etc all are Ok with contraception.
[quote=“Quartz, post:61, topic:834330”]
[quote=AHunter3]
If patriarchy in its entirety can be said to “want” something, that something is control.
It isn’t typically necessary to specify that (for example) the purpose of Printed Circuit 29417 is to carry electricity along a pathway. Because it’s the purpose of all the circuits and therefore it isn’t specific to this one.
But OK… social systems in general have the purpose of creating a dependable, predictable structure that formalizes how people interact. And yes, they arise because they bring us the benefits of (more) peace and prosperity (by increasing our efficiency) and in particular they bring us stability.
If we put aside the emotional aspect of it, isn’t every law about control?
Further, wouldn’t abortion bans curb men’s sexuality as well? Now, if I am in a casual sexual relationship, I can talk to the woman before or after pregnancy and get a decent idea of whether she might abort.
After the ban, my sexual escapade might cause me to have a child with someone that I barely know and also cause 18 years old child support payments.
So, the control seems to be one born of: 1) respect for life, and 2) the control of sexual morality, which frowned upon in the last 30 to 40 years or so, has nonetheless been a part of Western society for hundreds of years.
IOW, I don’t see how the sky is falling here, or how that this is one huge step beyond any other law.