The History of Romance?

[Coyote]

9 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Read Deuteronomy chapter 22, Quran 24:5–14 and 1 Corinthians 7:1–7.

 

Okay, I read them. What's step two? You've got a particular interpretation of these, right?

[Mark]

17 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Read Deuteronomy chapter 22, Quran 24:5–14 and 1 Corinthians 7:1–7.

Duteronomy 22: Quite a bit of this is about agriculture, with some textile and building regulations added in. (Very poor editing and composition.) Where it does mention issues of marriage this is primarily about deception (in connection of virginity) and rape.Nowhere does it say that marriage is a requirement.
Quran 24:5–14: This appears to be mostly about making false (and unsubstantiated) accusations. 

1 Corinthians 7:1–7: This is a response to a question about sexual abstinence.It seems to say that those in a hetero (and mono) marriage should have sex with each other.
Understanding what these actually mean requires a considerable degree of knowlege concerning Bronze Age culture, 6th century Arabian culture and Roman culture.

[DeltaAro]

7 hours ago, Mark said:

Duteronomy 22: Quite a bit of this is about agriculture, with some textile and building regulations added in. (Very poor editing and composition.) Where it does mention issues of marriage this is primarily about deception (in connection of virginity) and rape.Nowhere does it say that marriage is a requirement.

The problem is the punishment of stoning for the woman if she in fact turned out not to be a virgin (or rather “no proof” for her virginity can be found).

 

²⁰ If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, ²¹ she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

 

Stoning for “being promiscuous [?! just once is enough!] while still in her father’s house” is pretty heavy stuff.

7 hours ago, Mark said:

Quran 24:5–14: This appears to be mostly about making false (and unsubstantiated) accusations. 

Yeah, that’s true. I quoted it because if of the extremely odd rules for making the accusation. The punishment is described directly before.
 

Surah 24:2 – The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

 

I grant that here the Quran is a progress compared to the Old Testament. At least no one dies and they treat men and women the same way in this regard. Still 100 lashes just for that… oh well.

7 hours ago, Mark said:

1 Corinthians 7:1–7: This is a response to a question about sexual abstinence.It seems to say that those in a hetero (and mono) marriage should have sex with each other.

The point here is Paul’s statement:

 

⁶ I say this as a concession, not as a command. ⁷ I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

Basically, you’d better live celibate, but not everyone can – like I do.

[Coyote]

On 5/1/2019 at 12:23 PM, DeltaV said:

Basically, you’d better live celibate, but not everyone can – like I do.

 

Yes, Paul is the original aro ace elitist, as was mentioned in the Christianity thread here a couple years back. Yet that passage also says that married people are required to have sex with each other.

 

Anyway. Are you going to elaborate, or should I understand you to be saying that these three snippets are enough to support that claim you made earlier? How relevant do you consider how these religions are interpreted and practiced by their contemporary adherents?