418
Gen Z males twice as likely as baby boomers to believe wives should obey husbands (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://archive.is/XyQc9

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 98 points 7 months ago (30 children)

People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.

As a Malaysian, i'll let you guess the reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 57 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It’s a country full of manosphere fans. Also religion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 55 points 7 months ago

    We Asian are generally patriarchy and misogyny is rather common, but religion supercharge it to extreme level. You can tune in to popular malay radio station and they will bring on woman preacher that basically say woman should obey husband and do their role, and the woman host will agree to them. Self oppression is really common because they were taught that since as a kid. We're that deep.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Informal, but in brazil we made a poll among our class mates and 10 in 40 students thought "women should be submissive tp their husbands" and "disagreed with homosexuality".

    And its precisely the most religious people in the classroom... The new wave of for profit protestant churches in brazil and america is crazy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Many of the patterns in the US are imitated elsewhere. Probably something to do with all of those "mission trips" churches take to "help the disadvantaged" (well, I assume that they actually help, but I'd be amazed if they weren't trying to spread their religious beliefs everywhere they go". Or, perhaps, they see the Billy Grahams and the Kenneth Copelands making a fuck ton of money, and they also want a fuck ton of money. Probably all of the above.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Or, perhaps, the US isn't the center of the world and other countries aren't "imitating patterns", this is just also happening there for mostly the same reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    It isn't the center of the world, I agree. However, pentecostalism and televangelism, especially televangelism, originate in America, and are mostly American practices. Evangelical churches like sending missions to "help poor people" in "third world countries", which involves quite a bit of preaching. It isn't a stretch to assume that the televangelists in Brazil were strongly influenced by the religious movements of the US. In fact, the Brazilian user I was replying to SPECIFICALLY mentioned the US. The United States is not the center of the world, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 7 months ago (23 children)

    Allah and his only prophet Mohammed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (21 children)

    You know Jesus is a prophet to Muslims right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    The confusion is language.

    In the Quran, he's called Isa and is mentioned over 30 times.

    Same way Allah refers to the same God Judaism calls Yahweh and Christians aren't supposed to say aloud because they treat God like Voldemort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    I think it's Jews who can't say Yahweh. Christians certainly can.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    ...

    Judaism = Yahweh

    Islam = Allah

    Christianity = "Do not say my name, just say God"

    That's literally the whole "do not say God's name on vain" thing.

    Idiots that couldn't read the Bible centuries later just thought "God" was what you shouldn't say, be cause they scrubbed God's name in the original language from the Bible and Christianity to make it more believable he was the only God and not one of many

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    I'm a Christian, and I assure you that this is nonsense. I distinctly remember the name Yahweh being used in sermons. Maybe there are branches of Christianity where that's a thing, but it's definitely not universal.

    "Using God's name in vain" is generally taken to be about blasphemous cursing, not about using God's name at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    What's the evidence of the name being scrubbed? Is it just that the Jews still use Yahweh and Christians don't usually? I'm curious and would like to have backing if I repeat that at some point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yahweh is used to describe God like 7,000 times in the Old testament (written before Christianity by Jews) and used 0 times in the New Testament written by Christians.

    Depending bible, all the Yahweh's may be replaced by the all caps "LORD" because they literally went back and scrubbed the name out to obey "don't use my name in vain".

    Not sure how good of a source this is but I mean you can literally compare the Old Testament to the Torah and see that it changed:

    In actuality, God’s personal name is in your Bible . . . sort of. The editors have chosen not to transliterate God’s name, like they do every other proper name in the Bible, and have instead chosen to replace God’s name, Yahweh, with the upper-case LORD or GOD. That’s right, all 6,828 times God’s personal name Yahweh is written in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament have been replaced with the English LORD or GOD in your English Bible. Let’s look at Psalm 117 as an example.

    “Praise the LORD, all nations! Extol him, all peoples! For great is his steadfast love toward us, and the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever. Praise the LORD!”

    PSALM 117

    The word “LORD” in all upper-case letters is God’s personal name, Yahweh. God’s personal name is used three times in Psalm 117. So, in a way, God’s personal name is in all modern English Bibles; the translators and editors have simply chosen not to transliterate it, but to use the word LORD or GOD instead. Most Bibles explicitly state what they are doing in the preface, but let’s be honest, most people do not read the preface to their Bible.

    https://biblicalculture.com/why-is-gods-name-not-in-the-bible/

    To be clear I don't believe any of this stuff, it's just always bugged me that the biggest modern religious conflict is three groups all praying to the same God they all swear is peaceful, and just constantly killing Innocents over minor details without even realizing it.

    So I've looked into how they different they really are. And most of the conflict is semantics that no one fighting over actually understands.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I keep meaning to give you a proper reply, but find myself to not have much worth saying. I wanted to make sure to say thanks though. This gave me great content to think about and I appreciate you taking the time to line it all out. I've been gathering things like this in my head and evaluating the asks done by some religions against them. Religions, culturally, often become unreasonable once you apply reason, logic, and the original text against their odd demands.

    Similar to this one is when they get worked up about cussing. They say it's because of the whole "name of god in vain" bit, but saying shit damn fuck cunt, doesn't involve god at all. So they are getting their puritanical panties in a bunch over nothing. Par for the course I guess.

    Anyways, just want to thank you again for your reply. I appreciate your efforts to give me a thorough answer. 🙂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    The god's name in vain thing has nothing to do with not saying God's name. It also doesn't really mean saying things like "god damn it." It's meant to be about not using God as a justification or excuse to do something you want. Throughout history it's probably the least followed commandment, except for maybe throw shalt not kill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    The Shahada explicitly mentions that Mohammed is the 'final' messenger of God. Also called "Khatam an-Nabiyyin,” usually translated as “Seal of the Prophets.” That phrase comes from the Quran (33:40.) Muslims interpret it to mean he is the last prophet in a long line of prophets.

    Muslims often consider what Mohammed said to be the end of the conversation, contrary to numerous prophets that came before him.

    So if there's 'one' prophet to 'go to', under Islam, Mohammed is the alpha prophet.

    Some Muslims don't even believe Jesus was crucified. Some think there was a substitution.

    The abrahamic religions are so dynamic yet the ego(d)centricity remains. You move from a dumb God that gets fooled by Satan chapter after chapter. Getting God to torture his most devout worshippers. Fun.

    Then you get Jesus! Praise Jesus! Love each other. The hippy socialist. Flipping tables and feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting prisoners, and he even raised the dead occasionally. Truly God in the flesh.

    Then you get Allah. A transcendental god. A thing that's best described not by what it is, but by what it is not.

    Then how they go from no after life, aka sheol. To heaven and hell (many mansions, weeping gnashing of teeth). Then you get paradise with 72 virgins, so kind of like Mormonism. Oh wait? You don't get your own planet and godhood itself? SMH. noob.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    Serious.

    How exactly does that work? I'm pretty ignorant of most religions.

    I know the Koran came after the Bible and that Moses and Jesus are considered holy. Is Muhammed the ultimate prophet? Can other prophets come later and add to the Koran?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    And the (Christian) Bible came after the Talmud, which came after the Tamakh, which came after the Torah, and so on and so on...

    Most religions borrow heavily from the ones that came before. Noah's flood echoes the story of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Islam actually takes an interesting approach to other religious figures. They don't necessarily deny them, they more absorb them. If someone was truly holy, the must have been a prophet. In the Quran, many figures from the Jewish and Christian bibles are called out as prophets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    It's more of an academic point than anything that has actual effect on day to day religious activity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Not true at all. I mean sure Muslims don’t pray to Jesus, but they don’t pray to Muhammad either. And when reading the Quran, Jesus is mentioned more than Muhammad’s by name. Mary mother of Jesus is mentioned even more.

    Fun fact, Muslims unlike Evangelicals believe Mary was indeed a virgin.

    But to understand how important Jesus is to Muslims, just know that when the apocalypse happens in the Quran, it’s Jesus that returns not Muhammad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    None of that changes what I said. He's not really part of the core of the religion. It's just like with Judaism and Christianity. The Torah is a big part of the Christian Bible, but the focus and context are vastly different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Not a good example at all.

    The Old Testament is vital to Christianity first of all.

    And to Muslims, Muhammad was clarifying the message of Jesus because it had been obscured by centuries of changes done by “men” and “the church”. The teachings of Muhammad to them are the same as the teachings of Jesus. And of Moses, and Abraham.

    They don’t see Mohammad as inherently more worthy than Jesus, or Moses or Abraham. They are all equally prophets. I mean they even see Jesus as more special than Mohammad in many ways cause like I said they believe in the virgin birth. They believe God literally made Jesus in Mary’s womb.

    And there are PLENTY of Jesus quotes in the Quran. Like full on teachings of Jesus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The Christian Jesus is literally god. The Quran changed that to just a prophet, that's a significant change. That's pretty similar to how the Christian Bible treats the old testament, it's part of it, but the new testament recontextualizes it to be something different than the Jewish Torah.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Muslims would say that the view that Jesus is literally God is one of the distortions in the Bible. That idea is actually pretty late, becoming orthodoxy only centuries after Jesus.

    And the Old Testament is not recontextualized. It’s just the Torah. The idea that Jesus’ message was fundamentally different from Judaism is also a pretty late development. Something Muslims also say is a distortion of the Bible from the original message of Jesus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    And the Old Testament is not recontextualized. It’s just the Torah

    Technically they removed every "Yahweh" in most English versions of the Bible when they turned the Torah into the Old Testament. They just replaced it with "LORD" or "GOD".

    It's the one major change, because Christians weren't supposed to use God's name. Spelled Yahweh in the Torah and Allah in the Quran.

    And as a result a shit ton of people who consider themselves experts in their own religion, don't understand it's all the same God all the Abrahmic religions pray to.

    Similar with Jesus, who is called Isa in the Quran.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent