• Burninator05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    If a human can choose how to interpret holy text however they want and there isn’t an immediate response from a diety for interpreting them wrong, the texts must not really matter.

    • yetiftw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago
      1. maybe there is no “wrong” way to interpret the text
      2. maybe your view of the response as only immediate is too limiting
      3. just playing devil’s advocate here since you made some pretty big assumptions
      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        maybe there is no “wrong” way to interpret the text

        If the intended interpretation of a text is “respect women” and you instead interpret the text as “you can own women”, then you have interpreted the text incorrectly.

        • yetiftw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          but there is no way to know what the “intended” interpretation is. and often interpretations beyond the original creator’s intent are still valuable and valid

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I agree. There is definitely cases where it is impossible to know, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t wrong ways to interpret something.

            You can be wrong without it being possible to know.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Just because it isn’t possible to know doesn’t mean there isn’t a definite correct answer.

                A destination can exist without a pathway to it.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This man deserves every ounce of respect that he gets, all of it earned.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    Religious people, and women in particular, seem to really love participating in their own oppression. Hell, look at the amount of shit Catholics have to ignore in order to keep attending services and paying money to those bastards every Sunday in good conscience.

  • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I have a Tshirt that says *“Religion - weirdos in robes making shit up” and it has 5 men dressed in the robes of the major religions.

    Found it

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve heard of literally one religion that’s nice to women, and that’s Wicca. The super cringe crazy people religion is the only one that’s like “Women are people and also when you want something, get in the right mindset and go after it”.

    If I believed in believing in things, that’s the one I would pick. Also because my desk with a computer on it pretty well fulfill all the requirements of an altar.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m not wicca but I am otherwise pagan, and yeah a lot of modern paganism comes from pursuit of the divine feminine. For atheists I imagine (and understand, I was one for years) that it seems like weird nonsense, but one of the things I respect about wicca is that it’s basically “the divine masculine gets enough worship so we’re gonna focus entirely on the divine feminine”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, but I just can’t agree here. There is no way to read the Bible and not see the out-and-out misogyny in both testaments.

    Women are clearly considered property. Paul says he does not permit women to speak in church.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We was surprised that Hezbollah used pagers, a thing so outdated that only some select professions still use it, but we choose to navigate our lives following a 2k years old scripture.

    • constantturtleaction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s not accurate to call pagers outdated. There’s a reason those professions still use them and it’s not just because old habits die hard or something.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    I love JC, but words mean definitive things

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent

    There are no alternative interpretations, only self delusions to protect yourself from bigger questions

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Religious texts are a choose your own adventure book, even for the fundamentalists that endorse the parts like that. All believers intentionally leave room for whatever they like.

    • sfbing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      But that wasn’t Jesus; it was Paul. Paul wrote a lot of stuff that is exactly opposite of the quotes attributed to Jesus.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is actually a lie perpetuated by the Wiccan Cultists (the Rape cult yes). They demonize men in order to get stupid women on their side, since anyone capable of earning a bachelors degree would only join them for power grabs, they simply applied to the lowest common denominator. If what this statement was saying is true, then domestic abuse rates would be higher under religion. It’s not, it’s about average for society, so religion has very little bearing on how stupid women are treated, it’s actually all about them just being too stupid to change a tire, but somehow still allowed to vote. They think they’re entitled to their brain dead actions, and I despise every last one of you(Wiccan rape cult and supporters). I look forward to dragging you in front of everyone for your trials.

    • maniclucky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Congrats you’ve fallen into a common stats trap!

      You can’t know what the average is for the hypothetical society to which you are comparing despite that being the optimal way to compare. If you were to actually attempt this comparison, you would take two comparable societies that differ only in religious adherence, controlling for non religious cultural things (hint: you can’t separate those easily if at all). And even if you did manage that, you’ve only shown correlation, not causation. Proving the latter is much harder.

      If it sounds like I’m agreeing with you, I’m not! I’m saying you cannot know one way or another. But your inane, tautological statement of “the average domestic abuse rates for society are about average” drove me to inform others of how terrible this argument is. You’re clearly a lost cause.

      If you want to prove your point, don’t try stats, you’re bad at it. Go for a logical argument, though I suspect you’re bad at that too.