Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 04:15 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
Today at 10:06 AM

Satanic verses
Yesterday at 09:10 PM

Painted pious ladies
Yesterday at 07:36 PM

Climate catastrophe, sinn...
Yesterday at 03:08 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 20, 2019, 09:30 PM

Kashmir endgame
September 19, 2019, 02:15 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
September 19, 2019, 12:57 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
September 18, 2019, 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
September 17, 2019, 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
September 17, 2019, 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
September 17, 2019, 06:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition

 (Read 11153 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     OP - May 16, 2016, 08:18 AM

    New essay series! This one is titled "Property & Women: The complex relationship of women having and being property in the Abrahamic tradition." At least until I find something catchier. That's a mouthful.

    So, my "Homosexuality & Gender Identity in the Abrahamic Tradition" series explored the evolution of how the views of gender and sexuality evolved over time, and the sociopolitical events that motivated those changes. This series is going to have a similar format but is going to discuss the relationship of women and property--I want to discuss concepts like women owning property and receiving inheritances or being traded as property.

    This first part is going to deal exclusively with the women in the Tanakh (or what Christians call the Old Testament), and is going to explore the stories of the women in those books to outline cultural trends. I'm going to be presenting them in the order that the books were actually written, as best as is known, and not the order in which the books are portrayed as being written. So for example, while Eve is the first woman mentioned in the first book as they're ordered now, and is portrayed as having been the first woman in existence, that story is not the first one in terms of when it was written. I'm not going to be going into too much detail about the Talmud; that deserves a separate paper, and the Talmud was not even begun until long after all the books of the Tanakh were finished, and is much closer in time of composition to the Christian New Testament (circa 70-150 CE), having been composed in the 2rd-5th centuries CE from the sayings and writings of older scholars. The third essay in the series will be the non-canonical books of the Bible, the fourth will be the New Testament, and the fifth will be Islam (which may be broken up into Quran and Hadith, depending on the length, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it).

    Proverbs is a compilation of ancient sayings and teachings, compiled over hundreds of years. One of the most interesting chapters seems to come from before Judaism as we know it was strictly monotheistic. In chapters 8 and 9 (and the end of chapter 1), both Wisdom and Folly are portrayed as goddesses from the second generation of deities, a daughter of Yhwh, one of those brought forth by the first gods but before the creation of the earth or humanity. Wisdom goes on at length about how she was a child when the earth was made, and enjoyed watching the newly-formed humans when she was young:
    "I, Wisdom, dwell with Prudence, and find out knowledge of devices..
    The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old.
    I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,(before) the earth was.
    When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
    Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;
    When He established the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep...
    Then I was by Him, as a nursling; and I was daily all delight, playing always before Him,
    Playing in His habitable earth, and my delights are with the sons of men."
    In chapter 9, she builds what is likely a temple, and sends people out to bring worshipers to her to learn her ways, and provides them with bread, wine, and meat while they hear her words. Her followers are blessed: "For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased."

    Folly also goes out in search of worshipers but instead of providing for them, encourages them to steal, saying that stolen water is sweet, and stolen bread eaten in private is pleasurable. But her worshipers do not fare as well: "But he knoweth not that the Shades are there; that her guests are in the depths of the nether-world."

    These passages seem to be from before the religion was strictly monotheistic, which would place them as some of the earliest passages of the Bible. Wisdom and Folly, as goddesses, provide a fairly healthy view of women--they can be good--providing nourishment and blessing, or evil--providing bad advice that will end in your demise. Both Wisdom and Folly are portrayed as quite powerful goddesses, although not the first generation of the gods.

    Next in line we have a story from the book of Judges of a woman named Deborah. Now, I'm putting this story next for several reasons. One is the way in which women are portrayed. The second is some research my friend is engaged in (but hasn't finished yet) about another story from Judges predating a similar story in Genesis. The third is that the time described in Judges is said to predate the time of the kings, and that is mentioned frequently as a negative thing. The authors seemed to feel that having a king promotes social stability and reduces the amount of invasions that will happen to you. However, the mentions of characters like Joshua and Moses, stories that were written quite a while after the times of the kings of Israel but written to seem as if they predated the kings, look like they were hamfistedly added to Judges while after the writing by editors who said "Hey, why isn't Moses in here, this should be right after him but before the kings. Better add those folks to the beginning."

    So on to Deborah. Deborah was a woman who was a temporary leader of Israel, and is described as a judge; however, her duties also included being a prophet. While other judges in the book take military matters into their own hands, Deborah calls for a man named Barak and tells him that God has ordered him to engage in battle with the invading Captain Sisera, who served a king called Jabin. However, Barak says that he doesn't feel he's up for the job and will only go if Deborah, as a prophetess, comes with him. Deborah says she will come but that since Barak refused to lead as he was told, the honor of killing Sisera will be given to a woman. Sisera flees the battle and goes to the tent of a woman named Jael who gives some milk and a place to sleep, then drives a tent peg through his brain and presents the dead Sisera to Barak.

    This idea of women as wise community leaders who could be involved in anything but military endeavors also shows up in Judges 9:52-54. In that story, Abimelech has decided to attack a town. The town has a fortified tower (think some kind of pre-city castle or fort) and they all run there and lock themselves inside, and Abimelech goes up to the tower to light the door on fire so he can enter. A woman throws a mill stone (a piece of equipment used to process dried grain) over the wall, and it breaks Abimelech's skull. Abimelech tells a young man who is with him to kill him so that it won't be said that a woman killed him, and the young man runs him through with a sword.

    Next we have the period of the kings, excluding Saul, David and Solomon. I'm excluding them from this section because the rest of the kings after them were historical figures and the descriptions of their deeds seems to line up fairly well with the records of other nations with which they interacted. However, Saul, David, and Solomon all seem to be mythologized kings or combinations of legends, not unlike King Arthur, so I'm going to put them after the other kings in the timeline, near the time of the prophets. This is unfortunate because those are the most famous of the kings.

    Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, was a daughter of a non-Jewish king and that seems to be the root of many of the reasons the Bible authors did not like her. She not only worshiped foreign gods, but seems to have been such a devoted follower that she pressured her husband into becoming their patron, and the Bible says that at one point she had 450 priests/prophets of the Baals for whom she provided daily provisions. Elijah was her rival in the religious sphere and encouraged the people to rebel against the king to serve Yhwh, even going so far as to anoint a rival king who overthrew and killed Ahab and Jezebel. Jezebel remains an important figure in popular culture.

    Athaliah is another queen mentioned in the family of Ahab. She is said to have killed all other rivals to the throne--her own family members, the rest of the dynasty of Omri. An infant was supposedly hidden from her, and he was made king in a military coup a few years later.

    These two portrayals of women are overwhelmingly negative, even though the women held great power. The only other woman of note in the books of 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles (excluding those from the stories of Saul, David, and Solomon, and those mentioned only in passing without any records of their actions, as mothers or consorts of the various kings), is Huldah, a prophetess. Her name means "weasel" or "mole". The king Josiah sends to her to ask about a book his workers have found while repairing the Temple, and she tells him that he will die in peace but the nation will be destroyed soon after.

    This story is interesting, and by that I mean anachronistic, for several reasons. First of all, Josiah is listed by it as the second to last king of Judah. Israel and Judah were two separate kingdoms; Israel had already been destroyed by this time, and Judah fell soon after due to instability caused by the warring of the much larger kingdoms of the Egyptians and Assyrians. The fall of the kings of Judah is mentioned by the official records of those other countries, and Pharoah Necho II, the man mentioned as having made the son of Josiah give him tribute is an actual historical character with much documentation to attest that. However, Josiah himself is never mentioned. The Temple that he was doing construction on, the "First Temple", said to have been built by Solomon, is also apparently not a historical place, although the Second Temple, built by Ezra and kept in repair by others, including Herod, did exist and was not destroyed until 70 AD. It seems that the entire story of Josiah's reign is an anachronistic story that was inserted to explain the absence of the first temple (it was in great disrepair and was therefore destroyed easily by the invading armies) and the overthrow of the kings of Judah (they were wicked and therefore God had promised to judge them). Huldah, then, was likely not a historical figure, and it is therefore interesting that the revisionist authors chose to include a prophetess of God in Kings and Chronicles, books that were otherwise so overwhelmingly negative towards women.

    This brings us neatly to David and Solomon, since the authors who composed the story of Josiah probably also had a hand in their stories. David and Solomon's relationships with women, while not overwhelmingly negative like the portrayals in the rest of Chronicles and Kings, are by no means stellar, or even nearly as good as those in Judges. Women can manage property, but are not free agents and do not own property of their own. Abigail, wife of a man named Nabal (meaning fool or failure), discovered that David was angry with her husband and sent him a huge amount of provisions to placate him. In return, he called her wise and asked her to marry him after the death of Nabal (she did).

    Bathsheba, wife of a soldier named Uriah, was performing a ritual bath after her menstrual cycle ended, when David spotted her from the roof and liked what he saw. He had her brought to his chamber and had sex with her (whether or not she had any say in the matter is not recorded). When she discovered she was pregnant, David had her husband return from the battle, but he did not sleep with her on his visit to the capital, so David sent word to his commander to have him die. The commander has the army approach a wall as if to siege it, then retreat, leaving Uriah to die. David then married Bathsheba. God sends a prophet to tell David that He's not pleased about the whole thing and that because of David's sin, the child will die. After the baby's death, David "comforted" Bathsheba--using his penis, apparently--and she conceives Solomon. David promises her that Solomon will be the next king.

    This portrayal of women isn't as positive as as that of Judges--that women can be wise and good rulers in their own right; but it isn't as negative as Kings and Chronicles--that giving women power will destroy your nation. Instead, it the message seems to be "women are ok, but shouldn't be in charge of anything major, and if they have any emotions, a good lovin' is the answer."
    ----

    I'm at my limit for today, been at this for several hours and it's 1:15 AM now plus this is getting too long. I'm going to need to go to bed and finish in the morning.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #1 - May 16, 2016, 10:59 AM

    I really like this breakdown gal_from_usa, very interesting to read  dance

    Do you send your articles to other atheist blogs like patheos/American Humanist Association? I think it deserves bigger audience  Afro
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #2 - May 16, 2016, 12:20 PM

    New essay series! This one is titled "Property & Women: ..........

    This first part is going to deal exclusively with the women in the Tanakh (or what Christians call the Old Testament), and is going to explore the stories of the women in those books to outline cultural trends. ....................

      you go gal.,,  These gals_from US of A   really  have that care free attitude ... I wonder where they get that from?  So gal_from_usa ., when you are trying to tell the stories from so-called religious books it is vital to give some links so what you write to educate the reader  is not far from what is there in those books .  As you know unlike Quran .. this  Tanakh  is filled with books..

    Any ways as this topic of your interest is  "Property & Women"  in Tanakh., I wonder whether you could give me some help with that Quran Surah  "WOMEN "?

    Quote
    004.011:  Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
     

    004.012  : In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.
     

    004.176  : They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.
     .


    Question is .,do you find any similar verses in one of those Tanakh books?  or these verses of Quran are independent of  OT &NT?

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #3 - May 17, 2016, 01:03 AM

    I really like this breakdown gal_from_usa, very interesting to read  dance

    Do you send your articles to other atheist blogs like patheos/American Humanist Association? I think it deserves bigger audience  Afro


    No, I'm kind of laying low right now, waiting for my marriage to be officially over (should be soon). Once that's done, tho, I'm considering looking into going bigger.

    Quote
    when you are trying to tell the stories from so-called religious books it is vital to give some links so what you write to educate the reader  is not far from what is there in those books

     

    I'm going to do a glossary essay at some point, it would be really helpful if someone could make a list (even an incomplete one) of things I should include, I kind of have a blind spot to it because I know the topic so well that I kind of just forget that other people don't.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #4 - May 17, 2016, 03:05 AM

    So last time I left off at a discussion of some of the women in the life of David. I'm going to touch on one more woman, then move on, and that woman is Michal. Saul was the king prior to David, but God was apparently not pleased with Saul and when he died, God chose David--a people's favorite from Saul's army--instead. Saul was always jealous of David's popularity and routinely tried to kill him. One of those attempts to get David killed involved an elaborate ruse. Saul offered to give David his daughter in marriage if he would go get 100 Philistine foreskins--the implication being that David would have to kill 100 Philistine men, because they would probably not bow to persuasive rhetoric and let David lop off part of their genitals. David comes back with 200 foreskins, and Saul grudgingly gives David his daughter Michal in marriage. Michal is special because it specifically says that she had the hots for David and wanted to marry him.

    Soon after, Saul gets jealous again and decides to just go kill David in his own home, but Michal hides him--but fearing her father will turn on her too, tells him that David threatened to kill her unless she helped him. Saul then gives Michal as wife to another man. After Saul's death, when David became king, he sent for Michal to be brought to him, probably to strengthen his claims to the throne--after all, she was the daughter of the previous king. Her new husband was not happy about it and followed her, crying, until the soldiers sent to get her told him to go home or else. Michal was apparently a bit angry about the whole ordeal and soon had a quarrel with David. David said he'd never sleep with her again and she died childless (although in another passage, it says she had five sons that David had killed to stop a famine).

    This seems to indicate that dying childless and not being allowed to have sex ever again was the worst punishment society could place on a woman of status. This theme is echoed in the story of Hannah, mother of Samuel, the prophet/priest who anointed both Saul and David as kings. Hannah had a husband who loved her dearly but she was childless, and this to her was the worst thing ever, so she promised God that if he would give her a son, she would devote him to the service of the Lord. God answers her prayer, and when Samuel is weaned, she brings him to the shrine of the Lord in Shiloh and leaves him there in the care of Eli for him to be trained as a priest.

    So for a Jewish woman, at this point, the message is clearly that women's role in life is to have kids, and if they don't, they will die unfulfilled, no matter how much else had happened in their lives. But what about non-Jewish women? Solomon, son of David, is often noted by skeptics for--according to the Bible--having had 700 wives and 300 concubines from the many nations that surrounded Israel (the number is obviously pulled out of thin air). According to the Bible, his wives turned his heart away from God in his old age, which led to the creation of the separate nations of Judah and Israel. He is also notable as having been the architect of the first Temple.

    It's important to remember that Judaism was not one fixed religion at this point in history and wasn't at all recognizable as the religion as it exists today. I mentioned last time that the book of Proverbs has passages from before the religion was monotheistic, so now that we've looked at some of the views of these anachronistic books, I want to talk about the school of thought that wrote them, the school of Ezra.

    Ezra was a priest from decades after the fall of the kingdom of Israel, and was a scribe and official for the Persian king. His school of thought became, after several centuries and some minor adjustments, the Pharisees, who eventually became the school of thought of Judaism today. "Pharisee" was likely a pejorative, a bastardization of "Parsi", indicating that the ideas of this school were more similar to Zoroastrianism than to the local religion. Ezra believed in maintaining ethnic purity--which wasn't quite as racist as it sounds, but was pretty close. Ezra's school of thought felt that women who worshiped other gods, or were even born to families that worshiped other gods, were impure and should not be allowed to intermarry with the pure Jews, and had the wives of men who had intermarried exiled. This is the origin of the policy that a child is only Jewish if they are born to a Jewish mother, and that convert women are impure--in terms of the legal parlance, fornicators--even if they are infants when their parents convert, and therefore cannot marry into more pure family lines like the Levites.

    This was not the only school of thought at the time, and a book written directly in opposition to this view, the book of Ruth, made it into the Bible. In that story, a Moabite woman--specifically prohibited as unclean until the 10th generation--marries a Jewish man who had left Israel in a time of famine and settled in Moab. Her husband dies in the next verse, but that's not important because we know from his name (Mahlon, lit. "Sickly") that he wasn't a real character, he's an idea, and so the story was not about real people, it was about the concern that the Pharisee view of foreigners was wrong. So the story goes that Ruth married Mahlon, Mahlon dies, his mother Naomi returns to Israel and her daughter in law goes with her. They live there for a few months living off of basically legally mandated charity, then Naomi tells Ruth to go seduce Boaz and get him to "take possession" of the family's land holdings. After a bit of legal stuff happens, he does, marries Ruth, and they have a child who becomes the legal heir of Mahlon and Mahlon's father, Elimelech. The child is named Obed, and a footnote says that he is the father of Jesse, father of David. So David and Solomon would, according to this story, be unclean. Basically this book was meant to serve as not only an opposition piece but as a "well if you're right about your fictional king being led astray by false gods being proof that all foreign women will just turn you to the wrong path, his fictional great great grandmother proves you wrong about that and also, he was already unclean, meaning the Temple was unclean, meaning the services to cleanse people were invalid, meaning no one's clean, so there!"

    So the hard line school of thought about foreign women wasn't the only one there, but it is the one that won out, meaning that most of their texts are now the ones in the Bible--they are also the author-compilers of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy--these books do contain elements older than them, from an earlier, often pantheistic tradition, but they heavily edited them and then added stuff to make the stories flow a bit more smoothly. I believe I've mentioned elsewhere their political motivation for doing this--they'd been promised positions of religious authority by the Persian king Cyrus if their religion adhered to some guidelines he had. (I have a pet theory that the book of Job was also a relic from a dissenting sect of Judaism, a Hellenist sect that believed that bad things happen because the gods get bored and like to place bets and fuck with us for their amusement, but that's a story for another day.) As a brief note for anyone wondering, the dissenters would not have been Sadducees, the Sadducee school of thought broke off from the Pharisee school long after the time we're discussing, so they're not important in this conversation.

    -----------


    Oh goodness ~1,300 words in, I still didn't make it to Genesis and the rest of the Torah, better put a break in here. Wow there's a lot more to write about than I thought there would be.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #5 - May 17, 2016, 03:18 AM

    I just wish you would get it into hard copy so I can buy it. Tell me you have something out already..

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #6 - May 17, 2016, 03:28 AM

    I just wish you would get it into hard copy so I can buy it. Tell me you have something out already..


    I do put them all into a google docs format, so you could print them out to read them if you want (I know screens can be a bit hard to read on sometimes). Here is the one for this thread (I will keep updating it as I update this thread, and I'll put page numbers on it too so you can know what pages you've got).
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cl9apuldE-IbvhHJOZcpbP9Y0rDN67c7a0M65lYZq5o/edit

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #7 - May 19, 2016, 04:57 PM

    Women have no rights in Islam.

    2 shares of wealth go to brother.
    Only 1 share of wealth goes to sister.

    2 female witnesses equal to 1 male witness.

    crazy crazy crazy....

    veil for women.
    nothing for men.

    but most of the muslim women love that oppression.

    I think you have some problem.
    Every thing I post, looks weird to you.


  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #8 - May 20, 2016, 01:00 AM

    I do put them all into a google docs format, so you could print them out to read them if you want (I know screens can be a bit hard to read on sometimes). Here is the one for this thread (I will keep updating it as I update this thread, and I'll put page numbers on it too so you can know what pages you've got).
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cl9apuldE-IbvhHJOZcpbP9Y0rDN67c7a0M65lYZq5o/edit


    Thank you, and when you publish, let me know.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #9 - May 22, 2016, 04:25 AM

    Even in 2016 women face discrimination in wages.
    Long way to go.

    Can science create only one sex for humanoids in future?


    I think you have some problem.
    Every thing I post, looks weird to you.


  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #10 - May 22, 2016, 04:53 AM

    Even in 2016 women face discrimination in wages.
    Long way to go.



    Honestly I don't think that's the biggest concern facing women today...I'll be getting into more issues--probably about women as slaves and how permitting men to have unregulated sex with slaves devalues the ability of all women to consent, especially when women also can't provide for themselves--when I feel good enough to write the next part. (I'm feeling really, really, really bad today and yesterday--I literally forgot where I lived and had to get someone I know to tell the cab where I live so the cab could take me home...not even drinking or anything, my brain's just being uncooperative).

    Can science create only one sex for humanoids in future?



    That's actually something that I would argue would be better for the species as a whole, I think we should replace sexuality with something else entirely (for example a type of electronically-assisted mind meld)--but I'm in the minority on that. I doubt we'd be able to get rid of gender entirely--see the star trek tng episode "The Outcast" for why--but I think removing it from as much of the population as possible would be highly beneficial.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #11 - May 22, 2016, 08:47 PM

    Don't get too deep into this stuff.
    you are living in free peaceful country , USA.
    Enjoy the freedom.

    You can also use Uber application. Uber is cheaper compared to Cabs.
    https://www.uber.com/

    Discrimination in wages is one of the problem women facing in modern countries like United States.
    Women in muslim countries and third world countries are treated like animals, sometimes worse than animals.

    so there are no women rights outside the free world.

    women are in fact considered as animals outside free world.

    we can only discuss about the problems of United states, because if you will think too much about the muslim world or third world you are inviting useless stress to your doorstep.

    Peace !

    I think you have some problem.
    Every thing I post, looks weird to you.


  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #12 - May 22, 2016, 10:45 PM

    Don't get too deep into this stuff.
    you are living in free peaceful country , USA.
    Enjoy the freedom.

    You can also use Uber application. Uber is cheaper compared to Cabs.
    https://www.uber.com/

    Discrimination in wages is one of the problem women facing in modern countries like United States.
    Women in muslim countries and third world countries are treated like animals, sometimes worse than animals.

    so there are no women rights outside the free world.

    women are in fact considered as animals outside free world.

    we can only discuss about the problems of United states, because if you will think too much about the muslim world or third world you are inviting useless stress to your doorstep.

    Peace !

    I get a subsidy to use cabs from the local government and Uber doesn't take the subsidy, so it's actually a lot less expensive for me to use a cab. (It's just cheaper to society to keep me from driving; I'm one of the youngest people in the program, it's mostly meant for pensioners.)

    I've never really been one to avoid the truth about the world (or, more accurately, what I perceive to be true) simply because I find it uncomfortable. Shitty stuff happens every day, and looking the other way won't stop it, if anything it will help the perpetrators get away with it and the victims feel like no one cares. Taking a stand is what helps, shining light on it is what helps.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #13 - May 23, 2016, 01:28 AM

    Yeah. That is true.
    But life is first.

    Interesting post on ISIS and women slavery.
    Warning graphic content.
    http://shoebat.com/2014/08/07/isis-invading-christian-villages-iraq-selling-women-sex-slaves-marketplace/

    I think you have some problem.
    Every thing I post, looks weird to you.


  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #14 - July 21, 2016, 11:51 AM

    So, last time we covered through the time when the stories of Saul, David, and Solomon were written, which is about when the books of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) would have been written. There are actually two Torahs in the Jewish tradition, the written and the oral, but just for the purpose of this discussion we're going to be talking about the written one; the oral one became the Talmud at a later date and that's something we'll get into when we get to the 3rd century CE, as I'm trying to do this series roughly chronologically. The Torah was compiled at around the time of Cyrus the Great, circa 500 BCE. As I had mentioned in our series on homosexuality and the Abrahamic tradition, Cyrus had offered some measure of autonomy to religious groups that could coexist with his own Zoroastrian faith, so there was great political pressure for the Jewish texts to be codified and assembled, and in some cases, invented, by the political/priestly elites. The priestly class did hold a lot of political power, and even today, the rabbi or the rabbinical council of any given area holds great authority over the lives of observant Jews in that area, but that's a subject for another time (probably we can go over it in one of our "about me" videos, because I have a lot of relevant stories about this topic). Just as a brief commentary about the great political power of the priestly class, the entire Maccabean revolt and kingdom was caused by what was essentially a religious dispute between two schools of thought, and one priestly clan killed and exiled another priestly clan over perceived heresy. So the various schools of Jewish thought were highly motivated to get together and create the Torah during the time of Cyrus, being almost goaded to it with the promise of political regional autonomy.

    Within this context of Cyrus' promise of political autonomy, the authors or compilers of the books we have today started compiling and editing the books we have today. There is very little evidence of any pieces of the Torah pre-existing this era, except those parts that are plagiarized from other local religions and a single amulet with a single generic benediction. It's therefore very unlikely that the Torah did exist in any form--oral or written--before this time. Within Cyrus' Zoroastrian faith, wives could be in several categories, the best of which was the "favored" wife, who was the one with whom the man had a marriage contract. This wife had many more rights than other consorts the man took. Zoroastrianism forbade sex with menstruating women, considering them "unclean", and condemned women who hid the fact that they were menstruating from their husbands, even saying that such women could be divorced without impunity because of the seriousness of the offense. Zoroastrianism also favored incest, with the Zoroastrian texts claiming that marrying one's mother, sisters, or daughters would "produce stronger men, more virtuous women...and protect the purity of the race..."1 I am going to provide a link to this information below. Women in Zoroastrianism could not, in general, inherit property; they could only safeguard it for their minor sons until the oldest son reached the age of 15. The political motives of the authors very clearly influenced the texts they wrote, which is why I spent so much time going over this, because I think it really does lend context to their views, as will become apparent as we go through these texts.

    I'm going to skip over the story of Adam and Eve because I think it deserves its own standalone series, separate from this one, and I don't think I can condense it neatly to fit in this episode. Instead, I want to talk about the Jewish matriarchs and in particular, their relationships with their husbands and slaves. The first of the Jewish matriarchs was Sarah, wife of Abraham. Sarah was the half-sister of Abraham by his father (Gen. 20:12). Sarah did not have a child early in her life, and so she gave her slave, Hagar, to Abraham. This was done according to the Code of Hammurabi (number 146) which allowed a woman to give her slave to her husband if she did not want to or could not become pregnant. This "outsourcing" of pregnancy was not uncommon among women of status, as childbirth was incredibly dangerous and maternal mortality rates were high.

    Hagar conceived and gave birth to Ishmael; the text does say that Hagar began to mock Sarah, or as the Code of Hammurabi says, she began to "assume equality with the wife". Sarah was cruel to her and Hagar ran away, but an angel appeared to her and told her to return to Sarah and comforted her with the promise that her son Ishmael would become the father of 12 princes. Ishmael was, at birth, the legal son of Sarah and would have been legally obligated to care for her after the death of Abraham, but then Sarah had a son of her own, Isaac, and disowned Ishmael. Note that this does not mean that Ishmael was disowned by Abraham--he was still the legal son of Abraham, and was required to be freed with his mother from their slavery and given an inheritance when Abraham died--but he was not the legal son of Sarah anymore. Sarah was a woman of status and a wife, and therefore had a lot of rights, but Hagar did not have these same rights, which is a theme we'll see a lot in these stories.

    The binding of Isaac happened, which again, should be its own video, and Sarah died, according to Rashi from grief over the binding of Isaac, and Abraham decided to marry Isaac off but did not want him to marry a Canaanite woman. Abraham sent his servant (Eliezer of Damascus, according to tradition) to find a wife for Isaac in Mesopotamia, where Abraham was born. The servant found, and Isaac married, Rebekah, who was Abraham's brother's granddaughter. Her marriage was arranged by Laban her brother and Abraham's servant (Eliezer of Damascus, according to tradition). Her mother asked for her to be given ten days to prepare for the marriage, but the servant said they should return immediately and Rebekah agreed.

    Gen. 24:59 And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse, and Abraham's servant, and his men. 60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her: 'Our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of ten thousands, and let thy seed possess the gate of those that hate them.' 61 And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man. And the servant took Rebekah, and went his way. 62 And Isaac came from the way of Beer-lahai-roi; for he dwelt in the land of the South. 63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide; and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, there were camels coming. 64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she alighted from the camel. 65 And she said unto the servant: 'What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us?' And the servant said: 'It is my master.' And she took her veil, and covered herself. 66 And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. 67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted for his mother.

    This is an interesting reversal of the theme we'd seen earlier of women being "comforted" with sexuality.

    In the next chapter, we read: (Gen 25)1 And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 And Jokshan begot Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. 4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. 5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country...8 And Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. 9 And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre; 10 the field which Abraham purchased of the children of Heth; there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.

    Keturah is identified by the Talmud as Hagar, and the reason given for the name change is that "her deeds had become as keturot (incense)". Either way, Keturah was a subordinate wife and her children would not have had inheritance rights or legal recognition as sons of Abraham, and he took steps to ensure that they did not take his inheritance from his legal heirs. However, what isn't clear is whether or not Ishmael received an inheritance, which he might have been legally entitled to in addition to his freedom. It's interesting that Ishmael is mentioned as being alongside Isaac at the burial of Abraham, especially considering his importance in Islam.

    Moving on, Isaac and Rebekah had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. Esau was a hairy man and a hunter and his name means "red"; Jacob means "supplanter". Jacob used trickery and deceit to steal his elder brother's inheritance and blessings. Jacob was Rebekah's favorite, and when Rebekah learned that Esau intended to kill Jacob for his treachery, she begged Isaac to send Jacob away on the pretense that she hated Esau's Canaanite wives and would kill herself if Jacob married a Canaanite. The demonization of the Canaanites in this story and the one previous probably reflect both the political tensions between the 5th centuries authors of these texts and the Canaanites and their desire to "suck up" to the Mesopotamian Cyrus. Isaac does send Jacob away, and he find Laban, the brother of Rebekah, and marries Laban's two daughters, Rachel and Leah. He prefers Rachel but Leah is sort of forced on him by Laban because she's older and has to get married first but is apparently unable to be married off due to her weak eyes and being a bit of a butterface compared to Rachel. God apparently sees that Jacob favors Rachel, so he gives Leah five sons in quick succession. In a bit of a battle of the wombs, Rachel says to Jacob "Give me sons or I'll die!" Jacob says "I'm not the one stopping you from having kids", so she gives him her slave Bilhah. Bilhah has two sons, but Leah, not to be outdone, gives him her slave Zilpah. Zilpah also has two sons. Leah's son Reuben goes out for a walk and finds some mandrakes, which he brings home, and Rachel asks Leah for them (apparently they were linked to fertility). Leah says "you stole my husband and now you want my mandrakes?" so Rachel says "Fine, he can sleep with you tonight if you give me the mandrakes." So Leah conceives and has a sixth son. Finally Rachel conceives and has Joseph (the one with the technicolor coat) and later Benjamin, but dies during childbirth with him.

    Within these stories, we definitely see an appeal to the Zoroastrian ideals, with incest being highly prioritized and an effort to ingratiate themselves with the Persian "race", as it were, and with the purity of the Jewish lineage in relation to the Persians. The authors also put in a story about menstruation being unclean, just for added measure. To give some context to the story, Jacob decided to return home because Laban was apparently losing money and blamed it on him. Rachel and Leah said "We might as well go with you, our dad has burned through the bride price so it's not like he's going to be able to support us if we leave you." On the way out, Rachel stole her dad's idols (teraphim) because she was like "Meh, I could use more gold." Laban catches up with Jacob to demand his gods back.

    Jacob responds: Gen. 31:32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he shall not live; before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.'--For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.-- 33 And Laban went into Jacob's tent, and into Leah's tent, and into the tent of the two maid-servants; but he found them not. And he went out of Leah's tent, and entered into Rachel's tent. 34 Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, and put them in the saddle of the camel, and sat upon them. And Laban felt about all the tent, but found them not. 35 And she said to her father: 'Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise up before thee; for the manner of women is upon me.' And he searched, but found not the teraphim.

    There are two last women in the book of Genesis I'd like to cover before we conclude, Tamar and Dinah. Dinah was the daughter of Leah and Jacob. She went "out on the town", as it were, with some Canaanite girls. A Canaanite city-state prince, Shechem, finds her and sleeps with her. Whether or not this is consensual is not very clear, although all the action verbs in the verses about it are his actions: He saw her, he took her, he lay with her, he loved her, he told his dad to get her as his wife. Her brothers Levi and Simeon are none to pleased about it. Shechem offers a dowry and whatever other demands they might place on him. Simeon and Levi say him and all the men of his city must be circumcised, then while the men are recovering, they go kill them all and take their wives and children as slaves. According to Gen. 34:28 "They took their flocks and their herds and their asses, and that which was in the city and that which was in the field; 29 and all their wealth, and all their little ones and their wives, took they captive and spoiled...30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: 'Ye have troubled me, to make me odious unto the inhabitants of the land, even unto the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and, I being few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and smite me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.' 31 And they said: 'Should one deal with our sister as with a harlot?'"

    So there is some implication here of at least some of these women of the town having been made sex slaves. The issue here doesn't seem to be the rape of women being a horrific crime, or even sex outside of marriage being a particularly vile crime; it seems to be a matter of who that woman is. It seems like it's fine to abuse Canaanite women (they're slags, after all), but not the holy, untouchable Jewish/Mesopotamian women. It seems to be a form of racism almost as bad as the American south post-emancipation, where "those unruly black men with their insatiable libidos are always raping our wimin" and deserve to be lynched, but pure white women "can't do no wrong" and need to be protected and avenged. It's hard not to look at this and see in it the origins of some of the modern Orthodox Jewish community's racism, like Freundel (whose 150 victims were almost all non-Jewish women or converts to Judaism and therefore "unclean") or Eyal Karim, current head rabbi of the IDF, who has in the past issued edicts permitting the rape of "comely gentile women" if it would improve soldier morale.

    Tamar is another great example of Biblical double standards. Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah. She was originally married to his oldest son, Er. Er died childless, so in accordance with Zoroastrian tradition, Tamar was given to Onan so that Onan could get her knocked up. Onan pulled out, not wanting to give his brother an heir. I hear a lot of people say that this verse is about pulling out or about a bad grasp on genetics, but I'd argue that neither of those is the case: Onan was chosen because his genetics were closest to Er, and the child would be the legal heir of Er. Onan did not want to give Tamar a son because that son would then inherit all of Judah's stuff; if Tamar died childless, Onan would inherit Judah's stuff. God got angry and killed Onan too. Judah said "well, Tamar's trouble, not giving her my last son", so he told her to go live as a widow in her father's house until his youngest was older. She saw that he wasn't going to give her to his youngest but didn't want to be childless, so she dressed as a shrine prostitute and got Judah to sleep with her in exchange for his signet ring and staff. Judah finds out after a few months that she's "played the whore" and gotten knocked up and thinks "Cool, finally I can get rid of her!" and orders her to be put to death, but she says "I think not!" and brings out his signet ring. He says "Well, I guess she's been more righteous than me, I was supposed to get her knocked up but I refused to give her my son, I guess we're square now."


    1 -- Nashat, Guity & Beck, Lois, eds. Women in Iran from the Rise of Islam to 1800. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2003. Print.

    it's 5 am and I need to go to sleep, someone remind me to write an "in closing" paragraph.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #15 - July 21, 2016, 01:34 PM

    About the account if Deborah in judges.  Her father was a judge so he taught her and she was a judge because all the men were afraid to be judges because of the political climate.  Even as she told the army commander what to do as the Lord said, he says he will not go to battle unless she comes with them.  Note her response.   

    This is presented that god wanted men to lead churches and governments but if they wimped out and refused to lead then of course god would send a woman to do the job.  Going with this is blaming men for running away from their responsibilities such as being good fathers and husbands. 

    Maybe this is terribly sexist but some churches do not allow women to lead or be ordained because of certain scriptures. 

    The unreligion, only one calorie
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #16 - July 22, 2016, 01:00 AM

    About the account if Deborah in judges.  Her father was a judge...


    Source? I double checked the Hebrew Bible, her father isn't named. I also checked the Jewish Encyclopedia, her father isn't named there either, even tho the Talmudic rabbis did have quite a lot of anti-woman rhetoric listed there about women knowing their place.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #17 - July 22, 2016, 03:59 AM

    So to summarize, women in the book of Genesis generally have rights that are equal to the rights they would have had in the political climate in which the book was written. They were expected to be married off by their fathers or brothers, and to a close family member if possible, maintaining the purity of the race was important, and only the favored wife or wives had true legal rights. Other women, including both slaves and non-Mesopotamian women in general, did not have bodily autonomy or reproductive rights. Although the women in Genesis are portrayed as having lived 1,000 years prior to the actual authorship of the book, there's no reason to believe that they did, and the book serves as a piece of political propaganda to ingratiate the authors with the then-current king. Using these people as a timeless example of morality is questionable at best because these stories were clearly written to push a particular political narrative in the time and place in which they were written. Whether the intention of the authors was self-defense or deliberate deception, the effect is promoting racism, double standards, removing the rights of some women to benefit others, linking women's value in life to their reproductive habits, encouraging marriages based on political or social expediency rather than love, and holding women to a far different standard of conduct than men.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #18 - July 22, 2016, 04:34 AM

    I really like your writing gal  Afro Always a fan!

    Would you write something similar about Islamic tradition?
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #19 - July 22, 2016, 04:38 AM

    Yeah, this'll include Islam eventually.....when I get there haha. I'm writing them in somewhat-chronological order to how they were actually written, or at least attempting to. Islam's a good 1200 years after the latest installment, so it might take a while to get there haha. I've still got a lot of bible and extra-biblical texts to get through before I get to the Quran and Hadith.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #20 - July 22, 2016, 09:03 AM

    Great read Gal.

  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #21 - July 22, 2016, 01:21 PM

    well I am glad to read that ............ read gal_from_usa.,     but these words are terrible ., they terrify me  
    New essay series! This one is titled "Property & Women: The complex relationship of women having and being property in the Abrahamic tradition."  ....

    .....I want to discuss concepts like women owning property and receiving inheritances or being traded as property.

     
    The LORD ......His way, ..... His works ....
    He established....... He set a circle ..............
    I was by Him..........playing always before Him,
    .......His habitable earth,..........

    being property??    being traded as property.??  and they are god's words and   this god is "he."..,ha! talk about males , male privileges.,faiths and filthy faith heads  ...........................fuck that heeeeeeee...him...his shit.........

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #22 - August 05, 2016, 01:43 AM

    Video for part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6rBfe0-bUM

    going to write part 3 in a new reply.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #23 - August 13, 2016, 01:39 AM

    I don't know why evolution made a stronger sex (men) and a weaker sex (women).
    stronger sex exploited the weaker sex, which has to be the case according to evolution and survival of fittest theory.
    evolution is brutal.
    but thanks to evolution, it has evolved our brains, now we can kill our evolutionary traits of exploitation.
    now we can build a human society in future that would have no exploitation and perfect justice system.

    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #24 - August 13, 2016, 02:57 AM

    I don't know why evolution made a stronger sex (men) and a weaker sex (women).



    In a sexually dimorphic species, one sex will always have at least one thing the other sex doesn't. For some, like these Canadian Geese, the differences are only in sex organs and you have to get really close to find out which sex one of them is.


    Mallards like these ones:



    have vastly different color schemes depending on their gender. Male lions have manes, while females do not.



    In humans, the differences in average upper body strength are caused by gender dimorphism. Given our very long child-rearing time and that men for the most part don't lactate, it made more sense for the man to go out and catch an animal for dinner or work the fields for 10 hours while the woman stayed in the hut and nursed the babies. If men could lactate equally reliably as women and pregnancy was shorter or less dangerous, it would probably have been 50/50 in terms of who went out and did the field work and hunting.



    stronger sex exploited the weaker sex, which has to be the case according to evolution and survival of fittest theory.
    evolution is brutal.



    That's not really what survival of the fittest means. Fittest means "best at surviving in the environment it finds itself in." We humans are really good at surviving in just about any environment. We can even survive in space, even tho that's the least survivable area we have access to. So it wasn't a natural consequence of evolution that men would exploit women, especially because we're the same species and men can't survive without women (I mean, an individual man can, but the species can't). Also, history wasn't quite as simple as "men bad, women good", that's kind of why I'm writing this; a lot of the time, it was women exploiting other women, like in the Sarah and Hagar example. It's a complex web of stuff that happened over a very long period of time, and the power dynamics shifted greatly over time. At some points in time men exploited women, at some points women exploited other women, and at some points at least some women exploited men. So "survival of the fittest" really has nothing to do with inter-human relationships.


    but thanks to evolution, it has evolved our brains, now we can kill our evolutionary traits of exploitation.
    now we can build a human society in future that would have no exploitation and perfect justice system.



    We are not biologically distinct from humans living 1,000-5,000 years ago. You'd have to go back a lot further than that to find ancestors of modern humans who had brains that were dissimilar enough to ours to be categorized as a separate species. Otherwise the Native American population would have been a different species than European Americans, the last common ancestors of those two groups split from each other well before 5,000 years ago and did not interbreed again until the last few hundred.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #25 - August 13, 2016, 12:47 PM

    we all are survival machines of our genes.
    so if women had worked hard despite their pregnancies, things would have been different. They would had same muscle power like men, in fact may be more, who knows?
    so women should be blamed for their weakness.

    use it or lose it, this is how evolution works.
    there is a switch, which calculates and pass on genes which are required for next generation.
    for example if you won't use your hands for heavy lifting, gradually your future generations would have weak muscles in their hands.

    but off course you will continue to use hands, so hands will stay in a more weaker shape.

    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #26 - August 13, 2016, 01:45 PM

    Earth formed 4.543 billion years ago.
    Earth was attacked by meteorites containing salt and water 3.9 billions years ago. some say (divine intervention)
    Earth surface covered by water completely 3.8 billions years ago
    Earth again attacked by meteorites 3.8 billions years ago containing amino acids and carbon.(divine intervention)
    Earth 1.5 billions years ago, day was 16 hours.
    Earth 1.5 billions years ago, crust got broken days became 18 hours.
    Earth 750 billions years ago volcano eruption and continents tore apart, acid rains and then Ice age.
    earth 540 millions years ago complex life formed from bacteria under water.
    earth 375 millions years ago first plants start to grow
    earth 360 millions years ago life from water came outside on dry land.
    earth 250 millions years ago giant reptiles evovled
    earth 250 million years ago lava came out again on surface of earth. life wiped out.95% life wiped out. water turns pink. only algae survived.
    earth 200 millions years ago, few reptile who survived evolved into dinosaurs.
    earth 190 million years ago, single continent tore apart
    Earth 65 millions years ago again under attack from meteorites (some say divine intervention) dinosaurs became extinct.
    Earth had human like apes walking around 1.5 millions years ago
    Hinduism was invented 5000 years ago.
    Judaism was invented 4000 years ago.
    Christianity invented 2000 years ago
    Islam invented 1400 years ago.


    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #27 - August 13, 2016, 01:48 PM

    we all are survival machines of our genes.
    so if women had worked hard despite their pregnancies, things would have been different. They would had same muscle power like men, in fact may be more, who knows?
    so women should be blamed for their weakness.


    use it or lose it, this is how evolution works.
    there is a switch, which calculates and pass on genes which are required for next generation.

    Quote
    for example if you won't use your hands for heavy lifting, gradually your future generations would have weak muscles in their hands.

    but off course you will continue to use hands, so hands will stay in a more weaker shape.

      great .. great examples from abidali.,  Is it really Abid Ali or  some biological chip in robotic brain??  Automaton ...robotic way of life ... sounds very rational in terms machines, machine language  and machine mechanics... but but Are we simply a biological machine  so if we don't use Muscles we loose.. we don't use brain couple  of generations down the road we will have brainless robots ..some what equivalent to word "Baboons" I use often

    well I must say, in his 15 posts  Abid Ali does have some valid points if not all   .,   So dear Abid Ali my greetings and good wishes to you and welcome to the den..

    with best wishes
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #28 - August 13, 2016, 01:51 PM

    Earth formed 4.543 billion years ago.
    Earth was attacked by meteorites containing salt and water 3.9 billions years ago. some say (divine intervention)
    Earth surface covered by water completely 3.8 billions years ago
    Earth again attacked by meteorites 3.8 billions years ago containing amino acids and carbon.(divine intervention)
    Earth 1.5 billions years ago, day was 16 hours.
    Earth 1.5 billions years ago, crust got broken days became 18 hours.
    Earth 750 billions years ago volcano eruption and continents tore apart, acid rains and then Ice age.
    earth 540 millions years ago complex life formed from bacteria under water.
    earth 375 millions years ago first plants start to grow
    earth 360 millions years ago life from water came outside on dry land.
    earth 250 millions years ago giant reptiles evovled
    earth 250 million years ago lava came out again on surface of earth. life wiped out.95% life wiped out. water turns pink. only algae survived.
    earth 200 millions years ago, few reptile who survived evolved into dinosaurs.
    earth 190 million years ago, single continent tore apart
    Earth 65 millions years ago again under attack from meteorites (some say divine intervention) dinosaurs became extinct.
    Earth had human like apes walking around 1.5 millions years ago
    Hinduism was invented 5000 years ago.
    Judaism was invented 4000 years ago.
    Christianity invented 2000 years ago
    Islam invented 1400 years ago.

    They are all facts or at least closer to facts but I am not sure about that highlighted one abidali2018240  .,  How about life evolution on earth from some   comets or  meteoroids ..

    So you don't believe in GOD.ALLAH..RAM..DAMN  RAMDAMN.,  are you??

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Property & Women in the Abrahamic Tradition
     Reply #29 - August 14, 2016, 02:55 AM

    No I am a positive atheist.
    I do believe in supernatural and paranormal phenomenons but not god.
    if we can't explain lot of things, doesn't means that there is a god.
    and if there is a god, he is a complete dick.
    evil god in fact.

    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »