#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do You Think Its Bad To Lust For A Man Or Woman?
Yes
Side Score: 35
|
No
Side Score: 66
|
|
I dont think that it is bad nessacarily. I think that you should resist such thoughts, but acting upon the urge is its falling into temptation, are you so weak minded that if you see a gurl thats bad beyond all that you can't keep your eesh in ya pants and just have a conversation with her? Side: yes
Somehow I'm not surprised you've never heard of an arranged marriage. And at least a woman in a relationship she had a choice in... has a choice. And if you've never felt lust for a woman, you are likely gay. And if you would marry one you did not have lust for, you are likely in for a long and positively dull life. Side: No
Ahh obviously I've never heard of an arranged marriage. Apart from the fact that everyone in my family has been in an arranged marriage apart from those in my generation. I'm not saying I'll personally have one, but atleast I know what it is. You base your 'knowledge' on it from the worst and badly reputed cases. A parrallel is saying all Americans are slave owners. Side: yes
No it isn't a parrallel, because we don't have slaves anymore. However, many people are still forced into marriage right now, today. A parrallel would be if an American said "slavery was wrong, that was fucked up."(which like 99.9% of us do) And then you being the scion of arranged marriage said "arranged marriage was wrong, that was fucked up" But you don't, because you think that women should be forced into marriage. That lust is wrong, and that a magic daddy in the sky is going to make you immortal. Why not own a woman? You're a dude it might be fun to own a woman right? Not like she can do anything about it. (that was sarcasm... this may be beyond you) You were also in denial about "untouchables" in India in another debate. You are kind of a backward moron and you seem to have both limited knowledge, and limited intelligence to gain more knowledge. Side: No
You proved my point. It is a parrallel because we don't really have forced marriages. So all arranged marriages are forced marriages. Well fucking done. I'm guessing all muslims are terrorists huh? All homosexuals are males huh? All divorced couples are Americans huh? I could go on forever. The fact is that forced marriages are extremely rare. The fact is that all the men and women in my family both got a say in who they wanted to marry. The fact is that they're all together and always will be unlike members of your family (I can safely assume that you're related to divorced couples unless you've got an extremely small family) The fact is that you actually don't know shit about arranged marriages and will only ever associate it with forced marriages, which is actually against the idea of an arranged marriage. So now that we've gone over the FACTS tell me what's really bothering you. Not that it matters to me. I bet you don't even know the process of an arranged marriage. Shiiiiiit. People like you who think they know it all but actually know fuck all. You're the athiests that give the actual intelligent ones a bad name. Side: yes
... no, but all arranged marriages are, tada! arranged ._. Why is this thinking thing so hard for you? If there happens to be an arranged marriage where everyone lives happily ever after, AWSOME! But people should have a choice who they spend the rest of their life with. You just have a knee-jerk reaction to defend anything of your culture past or present. You don't see me making similar knee-jerk reactions. Side: No
You don't see me making similar knee-jerk reactions. Woopdee fucking doo. But people should have a choice who they spend the rest of their life with. Well done darling. But being an American you should know that in marriage people choose who they spend the next couple of years with not the rest of their lives. Now let's get back to the facts - where in an arranged marriage does it say the 2 people getting arranged don't have a choice? Side: yes
You actually have fucking no idea what you're talking about do you. You actually know fuck all about arranged marriages... Fucking hell. I thought you might've had a misguided view. Like how all old white people are paedophiles. But it's not even that. You're literally saying that the earth is flat. JHHEEEZZZ what a fucking retard. Side: yes
Um, I know exactly what an arranged marriage is. It is a marriage arranged by someone besides the people being married. Usually the parents. Hence the couple has no choice in the matter often. Hence it is a terrible practice, you are restricting that couple's freedom. In some cultures those that defy these arranged marriages are even killed. It's called an honor killing in much of the Middle East. Once again with your limited understanding of the Earth, you are only talking about some traditional Indian marriages because you live in a mental bubble. You are talking about the process where the couple does have a limited choice along with the family. Still, it is stupid. It is a horrible practice and even this type of arranged marriage should be stopped. The choice should always be 100% the couple's. I'm just sad I missed this yet another tid bit of how shitty Indian society is in that debate about whether India could lead the world - you know, the one where I kicked your ass again. Side: No
Owww.... poor old david. An arranged marriage is one where two people decide to marry each other after a couple of meetings which their relatives attend. Sometimes it's only one meeting. It's one where family give advice on whether or not you should marry. The parents have a say. The brothers and sisters have a say. Aunts and uncles have a say. But the couiple have the choice. In some cultures people choose to ignore the difference between arranged and forced marriages. They also choose to ignore the differences between certain cultures and how these arranged marriages take place. It's called ignorance in much of the West. Once again with your limited understanding of the earth, you are only talking about some traditional Middle Eastern marriages because you live in a mental bubble. You are talking about the process where the couple doesn't have a limited choice because of the family. Still you're stupid. People who are in love for one minute and the next shouldn't be married. The choice should always be wise, not foolish. I'm just happy you now see the light. Again. Side: yes
... because you don't have a point. You've redefined arranged marriage to fit your own personal experience or belief. Yet there is story upon story all over the Internet, news, libraries, youtube, etc. of a woman or a man being forced into marriage (arranged) then killed or maimed for not complying. You choose to only look at the warm and fuzzy side of arranged marriage, like a child reading a nursery rhyme. It is pathetic. Which is why I've decided to instead make fun of you. 1. It's easy to make fun of you because I'm a lot smarter than you and you don't even realize it half the time. 2. If one were to look back at every lame argument you've tried to make against me, they would find myself with a mass of upvotes despite the obvious recent right/religious lean on CD - compared to your floundering 1, 2, and negative votes for example on the India debate, I win. There is no alternate universe where you have "won" a debate against me. The idea is silly. I could be wrong (in this case I'm not) and I would still out debate you because you're moronic. That is because I try my very very very best to base my opinions on logic, facts, and studies into whatever subject. Meanwhile with no thought you whip out the silliest and most recent ridiculousness your paranoid psychotic imagination has unleashed upon the world. Truly, you're akin to a disease, and if it were not for the transparency of your silly arguments - if you were just a bit brighter and could form your opinions without sounding so contradictory, I'd be worried for humanity. As it is, you are kind of a joke. All that is said to say this. 1. You are incredibly fun to make fun of so don't stop. 2. You have absolutely no clue what arranged marriage is or entails just like you know nothing of India (via our past debate where I spanked you like the little school girl you are) And please point me to a single debate where you made even a little bit of sense. Not only have you never "won" a debate against me, I doubt you've won one against anyone at all. Side: No
Lol sand in your vagina darling? Yet there is story upon story all over the Internet, news, libraries, youtube, etc. of a woman or a man being forced into marriage (arranged) then killed or maimed for not complying. Ahh you see there. You've just proved my point. You've taken the most drastic and least reputative examples on the internet (probably posted by racists or liberals) and used them as your definition of the whole. It's the same as calling all muslims terrorists. The exact same. You've also taken the worst examples from different parts of the worlds and cultures. I'm not sitting here saying americans like to eat frog's legs, because it's the french who like it. But you're sitting there mixing arabic and muslim tradition with indian and hindu traditions. You also don't understand the fundamental difference between arranged and forced marriages. Infact your idea of an arranged marriage is a forced marriage. So what happened to all the billions of arranged marriages that aren't forced? So for you to gain your first win against me you have to do this: 1) Prove that arranged marriages are forced marriages 2) Leading to proving that nobody has a choice in an arranged marriage 3) Prove that all cultures (that partake in arranged marriages) are the exact same when it comes to arranged marriages 4) Prove that all examples you give me are the majority not the minority. 5) And finally prove that a spoilt white retarded suburbian has more knowledge about arranged marriages than an urban indian. - That's just for my amusement you don't actually have to. You can sit there with your thumb up your ass as long as you want but let's look at the facts. There are more people like you on this website than there are like me. Even with huge numbers of religious folk, they're not likely to agree with me due to them being christian. So the reason why you get more upvotes on certain debates (if you do, I don't know) - because more people agree with you beforehand and would upvote you regardless of how stupidly you write anything. I'm probably the smallest minority on this website (after the Quasi guy) and so should naturally have the least upvotes. But I don't. I also take the piss out of everyone. So using logic - which I see you don't have much of - how much of the votes on this website (on anyone) is based on their arguments and how much has to do with personal favouritism or opinions. You don't have to answer that. Not because you're a retarded faggot. Not because you still don't have a clue on what you're talking about. But because you probably already know this - you just don't know you know it. Side: yes
why are you always lol-ing? it makes you sound like a crazy person... Anyway, I was giving you simple examples. I had 4 credits in the Anthropology of Men and Women as part of my minor in anthropology. I know by empirical, actual, and logical evidence that the mass majority of arranged marriages are an evil institution for the woman involved... unless one has a small penis, this means it is bad for the man as well. One is always happier with a happy woman. (I mention small penis not as an actual description of the size of the member, but an overall lack of manhood) And I don't have to prove any of my points. They prove themselves. You are arguing for a man and woman not having a choice, I am arguing for a choice. I fundamentally believe everyone deserves a choice in everything. I'm an American and that is what we believe... even the dumb ones. Now, you can sit there and argue that "oh but sometimes you shouldn't have a choice" until you turn blue. But the fact of the matter is that, if one or the other, or neither in the relationship has a choice, it encourages weekness. It is meek and pathetic. One should demand they have, take, and get full responsibility with no outside influence on who they do or do not spend their life with. End of story. Cowtowing to other's ideas based on some silly tradition is for pathetic losers - fundamentally it is. Your arguments sound pathetic. An arranged marriage is one that is "arranged" that means someone else has a say, that means one is shrugging their own responsibility, that means they are pathetic. Grow some nuts. Arranged marriage is wrong and you know that. This is likely why you argue so vehemently for india in that sad debate. You have no sense of self. No responsibility, no will, no desire for a greater good. Just follow what others did before and see where that leads, my guess is the same place. Side: No
Good. So you can't prove anything. You're just making stupid statements and hoping that all your other idiot friends join in. Even with all those youtube videos, internet articles and libraries you can't prove shit. So we can put this aside once and for all. I hope one day you raise yourself above your ignorance and truly learn about arranged marriages. If you don't - it doesn't matter to me, but for someone like you who likes to think he bases his thoughts and ideals on facts and logic and coldly heartlessly without emotion etc. it would do you some good to learn about this. This next question might hurt a bit (due to your tiny brain and all) but do you actually believe that any America (or person in the world really) makes a choice without outside influence? I'll give you time to think about your answer, because knowing you it's probably wrong and retarded. Take your time and then come back to me because it's the only way you will be able to debate on my level. Side: yes
0
points
2
points
2
points
Yes it's wrong. Ofcourse it's wrong. Why? I do it all the time. Unrequited I imagine. It's like drinking alcohol or smoking or something. Are you implying that it is somehow bad for one's health? We all know it's bad for us and the world would be a better place without it If by "better" you mean devoid of humans then you are correct. but fuck it ehh? There is nothing to "fuck it ehh?" about. One should not apologise for following a biological imperative. Side: No
|
No, it is not bad to lust for a man or woman because, simply put, it is human nature. It is perfectly normal for an individual to be attracted to someone physically and express them in a passionate manner. That physical attraction without emotional attachment is what makes this lust and not love. However, I feel it's only acceptable if the individual isn't committed to someone else, because that would make it cheating, which is a whole different story. Side: No
3
points
I think the debate creator is talking about lusting for another person in the biblical sense, whereby you don't actually do anything, you just look at somebody and think to yourself...oh yeah (and that of course is the same thing as adultery in the Bible, so after you do that, you can look forward to the fiery lake and torture forever, etc). Side: No
i like how you distort things from the bible. the lusting talking about in the bible is like looking at pornography or having sexual fantasies over some one you saw. like you want the girl you saw to do sexual things for you. things like that. there's nothing wrong with being attracted to some one and admitting their pretty. Side: yes
3
points
there's nothing wrong with being attracted to some one and admitting their pretty according to which christianity? I have 18 credits in it and I don't recall this at all... wait, are you one of those who make up their religion as they go? That hardly seems to be what the will of one who "knows all" would be does it? That he'd change his mind depending on your personal preference? Side: No
first of all. how do you expect some one to marry an other person if their not attracted to them, or wait, or you one of those old christians who still practice arraigned marriages? and where was this in the bible? obviously in the gospels when Jesus preached to the disciples, where else? and no i did not change my mind and make up stuff about god. Jesus spoke of sexual and sinful lusting of a women or person, not honest attraction. and again, there is nothing wrong with saying some one is beautiful, or do we need to have women wear burkas like in the middle east not to sin? Side: yes
first of all. how do you expect some one to marry an other person if their not attracted to them, or wait, or you one of those old christians who still practice arraigned marriages? Bible marriages aren't about love or mutual respect, it's about women as property. And I'm not any type of Christian at all, it's a ridiculous fairytale and not even that entertaining. and where was this in the bible? obviously in the gospels when Jesus preached to the disciples, where else? No it it isn't. Find it. There's nothing even close to this in either testament. It clearly says any type of lust - more any type of yearning of earthly things, is quite sinful. Christians re-interpret this to keep the pews full, but the actual Bible is quite clear. and no i did not change my mind and make up stuff about god. Jesus spoke of sexual and sinful lusting of a women or person, not honest attraction. and again, there is nothing wrong with saying some one is beautiful, or do we need to have women wear burkas like in the middle east not to sin? Completely false. Jesus did not speak at all of appreciating a woman's beauty for what it is. Again, find it. You only know what other's have told you I believe. I don't think you've actually read that silly thing... not that anyone should, but you're arguing from a position of ignorance here. Side: No
first of all the bible is not about owning women as property. if women were so degraded in the bible why would the first person to see Jesus after his resuerection be a women if it was made up? you said your self that women are dirt, so why would a women be exalted with being shown first that Jesus was alive? is it because women are property? also why are women like ester in the old testament have books about their bravery and competence in god if they are just property? Ester leaded the Jews out of persecution. and obviously you do not know because Paul in Romans talks of the importance of marriage and to treat a women with respect and honor because she is the center point of the family and if she falls, so does the family. is this honor and love for women just a show? or does the bible teach us to respect women. as for Jesus preaching lust to the disciples. yes it was in the bible, Matthew and the other three books that describe Jesus' life. as for lust of earthly things you are right, we are not to lust over earthly things like physical property. but in the bible, quoted form Proverbs a man is to leave the family and find a wife. we are to treat women or wife's with respect and not in earthly matters such as prostitution, but in a godly manner of respect and love. and there is nothing in the bible that condemns a man for saying a women is beautiful. in fact there are poems in the songs of songs that talk of a womens physical body in a honest loving manner that a man and women are to share together when married. so are women just property? Side: yes
first of all the bible is not about owning women as property. if women were so degraded in the bible why would the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection be a women if it was made up? wtf does who saw who when have to do with anything? It is very much about ownership... how come there wasn't a woman disciple? Why was Magdalena a disciple? because biblically she was property not a person. you said your self that women are dirt, so why would a women be exalted with being shown first that Jesus was alive? is it because women are property? what's exalting about a seeing a zombie you ridiculous bastard? also why are women like ester in the old testament have books about their bravery and competence in god if they are just property? Ester leaded the Jews out of persecution. 1. what does "leaded" mean? nvm 2. Esther was still the king's bitch... read the actual story. 3. Great, one chick does something besides be a whore in like 1000 pages. How long did it take you to find that gem? and obviously you do not know because Paul in Romans talks of the importance of marriage and to treat a women with respect and honor because she is the center point of the family and if she falls, so does the family. is this honor and love for women just a show? or does the bible teach us to respect women. wow, cute. how about this (yeah, all this) Genesis 1:27 to 3:24: In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders. But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses. A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives. Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command. Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. More details on Genesis 19. Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1. In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live. Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband: Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property. Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement, Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever. Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD." Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests. Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy. In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor. Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of one month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them." Females were not considered worthy of being included. Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman. In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. "...If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family...." Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married. Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married. If she has had sexual relations while single in her father's house, then she would be stoned to death. There were no similar virginity requirements for men. "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...." Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a "levirate" marriage. Their first-born son will later be considered to be the son of the deceased husband. The man could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a choice in the matter. " If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand..." Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value. 2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple. Ugh, now I'm tired. What other silly shit are you babbling about... but in the bible, quoted form Proverbs a man is to leave the family and find a wife. we are to treat women or wife's with respect and not in earthly matters such as prostitution, but in a godly manner of respect and love. Awsome... 1. I want exact quotes from the Bible, not what you say it said. You have the internet I'm assuming. 2. Nowhere there does it say morning wood is a-okay. and there is nothing in the bible that condemns a man for saying a women is beautiful. in fact there are poems in the songs of songs that talk of a womens physical body in a honest loving manner that a man and women are to share together when married. so are women just property? 1. Again, give me the quotes... I'll bet they're beautiful the same way a new car is beautiful. 2. Yes, according to the Bible, women are property. You've said nothing to say otherwise and quite a bit to prove my point. Side: No
yes you are right about those quotes, but they are all form the old testament and back then when men had a unfair social superiority over women.... Women in ancient Israel: Women's status and freedoms were severely limited by Jewish law and custom in ancient Israel, as they were in essentially all other cultures at the time. Generally speaking: most were restricted to roles of little or no authority, they were largely confined to their father's or husband's home, they were considered to be inferior to men, and under the authority of men -- either their father before marriage, or their husband afterwords. From the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. "They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves." 1 Their position in society was defined in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the interpretation of those scriptures but then god changed that with the coming of Jesus. remember it was custom and tradition from worldly things from which men integrated women inequality, not the actual religion and rules of god him self... Christ overthrew many centuries of Jewish law and custom. He consistently treated women and men as equals. He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which specified gender inequality. He refused to follow the behavioral rules established by the three main Jewish religious groups of the day: the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducee's. "The actions of Jesus of Nazareth towards women were therefore revolutionary." 1 Some examples are: He ignored ritual impurity laws: Mark 5:25-34 describes Jesus' cure of a woman who suffered from menstrual bleeding for 12 years. In Judean society of the day, it was a major transgression for a man to talk to a woman other than his wife or children.
He talked to foreign women: John 4:7 to 5:30 describes Jesus' conversation with a woman of Samaria. She was doubly ritually unclean since she was both a foreigner and a woman. Men were not allowed to talk to women, except within their own families. Jesus also helped a Canaanite woman, another foreigner, in Matthew 15:22-28. Although he described non-Jews as "dogs", he was willing to talk to her, and is recorded as having cured her daughter of demon-possession.
He taught women students: Jewish tradition at the time was to not allow women to be taught. Rabbi Eliezer wrote in the 1st century CE: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman...Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity." 5 Jesus overthrew centuries of tradition. In Luke 10:38-42, he taught Mary, sister of Martha.
He used terminology which treated women as equal to men: Luke 13:16 describes how he cured a woman from an indwelling Satanic spirit. He called her a daughter of Abraham, thus implying that she had equal status with sons of Abraham. "The expression 'son of Abraham' was commonly used to respectfully refer to a Jew, but 'daughter of Abraham', was an unknown parallel phrase...It occurs nowhere else in the Bible." 4 It seems to be a designation created by Jesus.
Luke 7:35 to 8:50 describes how Jesus' forgave a woman's sins. He refers to women and men (i.e. "all" people) as children of wisdom.
He accepted women in his inner circle: Luke 8:1-3 describes the inner circle of Jesus' followers: 12 male disciples and an unspecified number female supporters (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna and "many others.") It would appear that about half of his closest followers were women.
He appeared first to one or more women after his resurrection: Matthew 28:9-10 describes how Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" were the first followers of Jesus to meet him after his resurrection.
Mostly women were present at Jesus' execution: Matthew 27:55-56 and Mark 15:40-41 describe many women who followed Jesus from Galilee and were present at his crucifixion. The men had fled from the scene. besides some other scriptures that say john was present also
He told parallel male/female stories: The author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts shows many parallel episodes: one relating to a woman, the other to a man. For example: Simeon and Hannah in Luke 2:25-38 Widow of Sarepta and Naaman in Luke 4:25-38 Healing of a man possessed by a demon and the healing of the mother of Peter's wife, starting in Luke 4:31 The woman who had lived a sinful life and Simon, starting in Luke 7:36 A man and woman sleeping together in Luke 17:34 Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11 Dionysius and Damaris in Acts 17:34 Lydia and the jailer's conversion in Acts 16:14-34 The book "Women in the Earliest Churches" lists 9 additional parallels. 3 Author Ben Witherington III quotes H. Flender: "Luke expresses by this arrangement that man and woman stand together and side by side before God. They are equal in honor and grace; they are endowed with the same gifts and have the same responsibilities." Some theologians have speculated that the author of the Gospel of Luke might well have been a woman.
He expressed concern for widows: Jesus repeated the importance of supporting widows throughout his ministry. The Gospel of Luke alone contains 6 references to widows: (Luke 2:36, 4:26, 7:11, 18:1, 20:47 and 21:1)
Divorce: In Jesus' time, a man could divorce his wife, but the wife had no right to divorce her husband. This practice is supported by seven references in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in which a husband can unilaterally give his wife a bill of divorce. There were no references to a woman giving her husband such a bill. In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus overthrows this tradition and states that neither spouse can divorce the other; he treats the wife and husband equally. and the famous quote by Paul... Galatians 3: 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. what happened here is that religion and rules and things that god did not originally intended got in the way of worship and god's actual command to teat all equal. religion is man made rules and ceremonies by man to get to god, but god explains clearly through Jesus that the things the parhisses did were wrong and ungodly. we must stop religion form getting in the way of worshiping god. what god wanted was a relationship with him, not a religious code of where we forget to love and have faith in god. and through Jesus he reminded us. Side: yes
Lust (in homo-sapiens at any rate) is the driving force behind reproduction, without such a strong ingrained need to lust after the opposite sex (or the same sex, as it may be, although that doesn't really aid reproduction) we most likely wouldn't be here today - we are all, nearly every one of us the product of lust. So, in my opinion, the question is a little absurd. I think the only things that can really be classed as 'bad' are those that harm, take advantage of or deprive others - greed, hate, irresponsibility, selfishness - can, I think, all be classed as 'bad' (although bad, good, evil etc. are all such implicitly subjective terms I much prefer to refer to such things as undesirable). So short answer: no, it is perfectly natural to lust over others and we, as a species, wouldn't be around today if it weren't for such urges. Side: No
2
points
1
point
2
points
1
point
No,I don't think it's bad to lust for a man/woman. It's natural,as humans,we are going to do it. Even if it's a person you eventually end up marrying,you still lusted for them at one time or another. Chances are,you're physically attracted to that person,and that is considered lust,believe it or not. So go on and lust away,just try to avoid doing it too much,then it becomes not so good Side: No
2
points
Are you seriously asking whether it is wrong for humans to act like humans? I think anybody who would suggest that sexual attraction (and the inevitable fantasies) is wrong is a self-repressed, religious freak. Why do people place such limits on themselves? I think that a human who feels no form of attraction to other humans is wrong. Side: No
1
point
I think lust is very important for any kind of sexual relationship. if there isnt any lust then you guys aren't going to want to get it on with each other. and if you are one of those "hit it and quit it" types then being lustful can lead to very hot, kinky, sweaty, amazing sex Side: No
|