Hold on a minute. Originally you implied that female subservience was not in any of the Abrahamic texts. You said: “local customs and traditions have nothing to do with the Quran or the Bible or the Hebrew Bible.” But now you’re saying the Hebrew Bible is based on local traditions and customs. Which is it?
Correct, and the New Testament holds up Sarah as a role model for female subservience in marriage: “for this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord” (1 Peter 3:5-6).
Obviously Christianity does not retain all of the Mosaic Law, since Christians believe Christ fulfilled and superseded the Law. But it very much retains the paradigm of male dominance and female subservience.
I already cited you a passage from the so-called “word of God” that says a woman must marry her rapist. If you ask me, that’s not a sane policy on rape. The bible is not really a “PUA” handbook, so naturally it doesn’t confirm everything Andrew Tate says. But it does contain a lot of ultra-machismo, and it puts women in a position of subservience. In a Venn diagram of the bible and Andrew Tate, there would be frequent overlap.
I was talking about texts that state a woman’s purpose in life is to pleasure a man. You mentioned the word subservience which is something different. You are misunderstanding what I have said.
You are googling for passages that you think prove your argument. The passages you come up with are consistently quoted by atheists who don’t understand the theology and historic social conditions around them.
So the one regarding rape isn’t the whole passage consideration. The reality in fact is dependent on the actual act and who was raped.
The Old Testament clearly states that if a man rapes a married woman then that man is to be put to death. Not really following your idea that men are dominant.
For an act where an unmarried woman is raped it isn’t as simple as you state where the woman is forced to marry the rapist.
What it actually says is that the man has to talk with the woman’s father and give money and be told to marry the woman and look after her “because he hath humbled her” Deuteronomy 22.
To understand that ancient text you have to look at the social situation at that time. When an unmarried woman was raped she was often considered not suitable for marriage any more by possible suitors and many victims because of that lived in extreme poverty and often had to turn to prostitution in order to survive.
So the idea behind the idea of a rapist marrying the victim is not that the woman is being forced to do so but to force the man to look after the woman for the rest of his life and the only legal way to do that at the time was through marriage.
An unmarried woman not a virgin was looked upon with shame and was unable to marry so ….well hopefully you get the idea.
You are talking about a time that was around 2,500 years ago and if you think the stigma in modern society over unmarried women who weren’t virgins was still a problem in modern days until relatively recently then hopefully you will see how that would have also been a problem 2500 years ago.
We all know the facts around babies being taken off unmarried women in the uk even as recently as the late 70s.
