@RefathBari Generally, this room is for discussing the main site. You might get started on a debate in here, but if it get's running too long, we have a room specifically for that:
@fredsbend I think the practice is sexist, yes. Arguments that it's equal-opportunities sexist (as in, a woman wouldn't shake a man's hand either) tend to fall apart based on power differentials. But whatever about the practice itself, the question about that practice was legitimate.
YeZ's proposed solution also comes across as sexist. Even if his wife was happy with it, it just feels off, and it would certainly look sexist to outsiders.
@fredsbend Throw in the birth of Venus and the rape of Ganymede.
@TRiG Well, yes, there are some paintings from the same era that are quite vulgar.
@TRiG I would be confused if a husband grabbed my hand as I held it to his wife.
Rather than conclude that the wife has certain beliefs about touching other men, I would assume it was something the husband was actively preventing. Which, naturally, would make me think he's some kind of controlling prick.
I find it odd that the religious tradition attempts to curb sexual immorality by forbidding all opposite sex contact.
It makes more sense to me to forbid contact that is actually sexual, not everything else too.
I bet it has the opposite effect, making even a hand shake now, seemingly sexual.
@fredsbend Perhaps. But it's also not entirely fair or objective to judge other cultures by our cultural standards. I don't defend the treatment of women by some other cultures. There is a lot that's wrong and should be stamped out. But not all women in those cultures are opposed to the rules that prevent them from having contact with unrelated men. Yes, there are negative consequences. But there is also the greater sense of safety that some women appreciate and enjoy.
It's not my cup of tea. I prefer the way we do it in Western culture. But it's a little to easy to condemn other cultures for things that we in our culture find wrong and distasteful, which are not in themselves evil.
Physical and emotional abuse of women: that's evil. But having cultural rules against physical contact between unrelated men and women, while rather conservative by our standards, is not necessarily evil.
@LCIII Hmm. Just did a word search for "scantily clad" in the KJV. It's not in there. The word "scantily" also doesn't appear. The word "clad" appears twice. Apparently it's not King James at all.
@LCIII Why? What do you think my real last name is? :P
@Leuchte You could also go over to the "Polemics and Apologetics" chatroom. That's a place where folks can engage in free-ranging discussions about doctrine and doctrinal positions.
The central theme through each biblical item is God's love for us and his plan to save us and give us the greatest gift of all: a relationsihp through him
Jesus death and resurrection were a central step in achieving that. I wouldn't say the bible is about primarily either as an airplane is not primarily about one wing more than another.
I'm aware of the meaning of "scantily clad", the internet gives some good clues on that (Side question: Does it have erotic implications in itself?). However, what do the actual words mean ("clad" from "clothed"?), from which period is it, and why has it become a fixed expression?
@Leuchte In my opinion, his resurrection--simply because it's more final.
Paul talks about us being buried with Christ in his death, but it doesn't end there. Jesus is resurrected and we get to share in this life. This, to me, seems like the more ultimate point.
@Leuchte The Bible is about a lot of different things. It was written over 1600 year time span and Jesus wasn't even on the scene until the last 200.
The Gospels, I think, are mostly about Jesus' teachings and end with his death. John stands out as the one that really highlights the resurrection and divinity of Jesus.
Acts stands out as a bit of history how the Christian movement got started.
The epistles are mostly about righteous living and dogma regarding Christ.
Revelation is what it is. Take it with a grain of salt.
@LCIII Nope, that's not correct. Esther is certainly not about that. Exodus is about God's love for his chosen people, not all people. Leviticus is about all the little crap you need to do or not do to keep God from getting pissed at you. Numbers is early history, revolving around God's interactions with, again, his chosen people. Deuteronomy is Leviticus 2.0. After that we have much more that aren't really about God loving people and certainly not all people.
That idea doesn't show up until the NT.
Basically, the statement that "the central theme through each biblical item is God's love for us and his plan to save us and give us the greatest gift of all: a relationsihp through him" is an exercise in eisegesis.
Your putting NT themes into the OT that aren't really there except maybe a few places.
@LeeWoofenden If that were true then I wouldn't have to balance work, wife, kids, and my SE addiction.
I'm aware of the meaning of "scantily clad", the internet gives some good clues on that (Side question: Does it have erotic implications in itself?). However, what do the actual words mean ("clad" from "clothed"?), from which period is it, and why has it become a fixed expression?
The Upper Room
The Upper Room