There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.
Well, first, there had to be specific grounds or it could not happen
There are always going to be 'specific grounds' before anyone
willingly takes upon themselves the
commitment to marriage. They would mutually be aware of what the grounds are.
Your reading comprehension failure is evident: no, the issue is that in many historical and biblical contexts, the **grounds for divorce were not mutually agreed upon, but legally and patriarchally dictated**, and they were often far more restrictive for the wife. As shown in a prior post by someone else, these grounds might very well be restricted to **adultery** within much of Christian history—the thing under discussion—even if the list of specific things were slightly larger for the husband in the O.T. (e.g., in Deuteronomy 24:1-4):
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and ehe writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then fher former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance
and second, how is it not a contradiction to go have to obey someone else or live with nothing? That's not freedom.
The point in the biblical context of marriage as I mention above..
.. is the 'mutual' agreement to be commited to the husband and wife union, knowing quite well what the 'specific grounds' are. This is far from the false slavery illustration that atheist often like to portray.
This is a continuation of your reading comprehension failure and it has nothing to do with a false portrayal by atheism, but instead how Christian denominations have been pointing to biblical texts saying these things for centuries. It wasn't atheists in the 1970's US telling everyone to stigmatize divorce, it was the majority religion of the US: i.e., Christianity. Nor did things happen in very strange manners with King Henry VIII's marriages due to atheism, that had more to do with patriarchy and Christianity than much else. This isn't rocket science. You can blame atheism for this history.
This is a continuation of your reading comprehension failure and it has nothing to do with a false portrayal by atheism. The issue is instead how traditional Christian denominations have been pointing to biblical texts and societal custom to severely restrict the freedom and economic independence of women for centuries. It wasn't atheists in the 1970s U.S. telling everyone to stigmatize divorce or deny wives property rights, it was the majority religion of the U.S.: i.e.,
Christianity and its resulting societal norms.
To provide a clear historical example: under the doctrine of
coverture in English common law (which heavily influenced early U.S. law and was deeply entwined with Christian patriarchy), a married woman's legal existence was largely "covered" by her husband. She could not generally own property, sign contracts, or keep wages in her own name. This system, which persisted well into the 19th century, is a perfect illustration of how marriage legally created a state of economic dependence and restricted freedom.
Nor did things happen in very strange manners with King Henry VIII's marriages due to atheism; that had everything to do with **patriarchy and Christianity's rigid view of marriage as an unbreakable covenant**, which left him with no legal mechanism for annulment or divorce outside of papal approval.
Now, of course, I must concede that biblical texts are inherently complex and often contradictory, allowing individuals to find what they want to believe within them. Ultimately, people can and do reinterpret these texts to align with more progressive values. This modern, kinder reinterpretation is often catalyzed and reinforced by
secular pressure within societies. In this sense, religion can be seen as neutral, like a hammer—its impact depends entirely on the wielder's intent, whether it be for power, benefit, or compassion.
BUT reinterpreting historical facts is not an option. The documented history of patriarchy and legal subjugation enacted in the name of these religious traditions remains a demonstrable fact.
