Dogma, Christianity, and womens' rights

[CaptainChewbacca]

<Split from http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=139623 - DW>

Pardon my ignorance, but who is James?

From the good book...

Matthew 13:55-56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"

Catholics will tell you that James, Joesph, Simon, Judas, and the girls were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, because they venerate Mary as the 'perpetual virgin' and somehow a married woman bearing her husband children is offensive to them. James is also mentioned in Galations 1:19 and is clearly stated to NOT be James the apostle.

Serendipity was a muse who DID take sides, Bartleby didn't take sides.

And I believe, though I'm not positive, that most of the time when the bible degrades or denigrates women it is the opinions of men (generally Paul) and not God. The only time Jesus talks about husband/wife relations is when he instructs both husbands AND wives to be subject to one another in love and sevice.

[Darth Hoth]

a Black Apostle.

So? There were black people in israel back then, its right next to africa. Hell, there were black roman emperors.

Jesus, however, was not Roman, he was a Jew, and chose all his apostles from among the Jewish people. As I read it he picked the Twelve for symbolism (=Twelve Tribes of Israel, so he would parallel Moses), and a Nubian among them would wreck that.

Yaweh trapped (not really omnipotent).
Also, "He" is a woman.
Not christian by my standarts.

Nothing wrong with God manifesting in a female body. Remember, men and women were BOTH created in His image.

It would, however, be completely unsupported by the Holy Bible (not counting apocrypha/pseudepigrapha); when Lord Jehovah manifests in any way (through the Angel of YHWH, or to Joshua before the siege of Jericho, or to Abraham in Mamre, or anywhere else), when choosing a human form He always takes the form of a man. Even the lesser angels are (if I recall correctly) always male, but never female.

Regarding creation, most Jews and Christians have traditionally understood that it was Adam that was created in Jehovah's image, not "Man and Woman". Paul says as much in his letters, e.g. in 1st Timothy. Eve, then, was created in Adam's image; the first account was generally ignored or interpreted figuratively (as in, Eve was created in God's image by proxy, since Adam was so directly). Although some Jews resolved the contradiction by making Adam some sort of androgynous creature that God then split in two

[Darth Hoth]

Ghetto edit: Looking up the film in question on Wikipedia, I seriously doubt that most majority Christians would consider it Christian, any more than they would The Da Vinci Code, or Stuart's resident fiction for that matter. Maybe the Church of Sweden, which put up images of Jesus in drag in the Uppsala Cathedral, but not most self-identified Christians in America.

[Gil Hamilton]

Jesus, however, was not Roman, he was a Jew, and chose all his apostles from among the Jewish people. As I read it he picked the Twelve for symbolism (=Twelve Tribes of Israel, so he would parallel Moses), and a Nubian among them would wreck that.

[Rufus]Shee-it, that's nothing but Catholic propaganda, to avoid Jesus hanging out with the brothers[/Rufus]

It would, however, be completely unsupported by the Holy Bible (not counting apocrypha/pseudepigrapha); when Lord Jehovah manifests in any way (through the Angel of YHWH, or to Joshua before the siege of Jericho, or to Abraham in Mamre, or anywhere else), when choosing a human form He always takes the form of a man. Even the lesser angels are (if I recall correctly) always male, but never female.[/quote[
Angels are officially genderless. The only time God has appeared as a man was as Jesus himself, where he decided to go the "All You Zombies" route by being his own son. Funnily enough, this was a point in Dogma.

Regarding creation, most Jews and Christians have traditionally understood that it was Adam that was created in Jehovah's image, not "Man and Woman". Paul says as much in his letters, e.g. in 1st Timothy. Eve, then, was created in Adam's image; the first account was generally ignored or interpreted figuratively (as in, Eve was created in God's image by proxy, since Adam was so directly). Although some Jews resolved the contradiction by making Adam some sort of androgynous creature that God then split in two

The answer is that Paul thought girls were icky.

Besides, there is no reason for God to not appear as Alanis Morissette. It really doesn't contradict anything for God to have that ability, particularly since that is part of the interplay of the story; IE that God appears to you in your own conception. Not that as a comatose person, God was male. Rufus also insisted he was a man to Bethany. That's their conception of God. However, that was Bethany's big moment, so God took that form. After all, Bartleby, Serendipity, and Rufus have no need; no angel or dominion or dude that hangs out with God alot could fail to recognize (though, of course, Jay did, which prompted the Chris Rock "KNEEL, STUPID!" line). That's one of the underlying themes of the movie, God is whereever you find it.

[The Dark]

a Black Apostle.

So? There were black people in israel back then, its right next to africa. Hell, there were black roman emperors.

Jesus, however, was not Roman, he was a Jew, and chose all his apostles from among the Jewish people. As I read it he picked the Twelve for symbolism (=Twelve Tribes of Israel, so he would parallel Moses), and a Nubian among them would wreck that.

Beta Israel, depending on which origin story you believe, may fit.

Yaweh trapped (not really omnipotent).
Also, "He" is a woman.
Not christian by my standarts.

Nothing wrong with God manifesting in a female body. Remember, men and women were BOTH created in His image.

It would, however, be completely unsupported by the Holy Bible (not counting apocrypha/pseudepigrapha); when Lord Jehovah manifests in any way (through the Angel of YHWH, or to Joshua before the siege of Jericho, or to Abraham in Mamre, or anywhere else), when choosing a human form He always takes the form of a man. Even the lesser angels are (if I recall correctly) always male, but never female.

Regarding creation, most Jews and Christians have traditionally understood that it was Adam that was created in Jehovah's image, not "Man and Woman". Paul says as much in his letters, e.g. in 1st Timothy. Eve, then, was created in Adam's image; the first account was generally ignored or interpreted figuratively (as in, Eve was created in God's image by proxy, since Adam was so directly). Although some Jews resolved the contradiction by making Adam some sort of androgynous creature that God then split in two

Literalists believe God is male. Moderate and liberal theologians are familiar the the fact that similar to many Romance languages, the masculine gender in both Hebrew and Greek is used with unknown/unknowable gender, in addition to known male gender.

"We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." - "Pater per Filium revelatus," Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae (official English translation).

"The God worshiped by the biblical authors and worshiped in the Church today cannot be regarded as having gender, race, or color." - Introduction, Lectionary, National Council of Churches.

This even dates back to Jewish tradition: "As one rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word." (from here)

[Darth Hoth]

Angels are officially genderless.

As defined by whom?

The answer is that Paul thought girls were icky.

Paul was actually a real feminist progressive for his time (what with thinking that marital fidelity should be required of both wife and husband, and so forth), in both a Graeco-Roman and a Jewish context. However, this only accentuates the fact that even his views are generally considered mysogynistic by the present-day Western secular establishment.

Besides, there is no reason for God to not appear as Alanis Morissette. It really doesn't contradict anything for God to have that ability, particularly since that is part of the interplay of the story; IE that God appears to you in your own conception. Not that as a comatose person, God was male. Rufus also insisted he was a man to Bethany. That's their conception of God. However, that was Bethany's big moment, so God took that form. After all, Bartleby, Serendipity, and Rufus have no need; no angel or dominion or dude that hangs out with God alot could fail to recognize (though, of course, Jay did, which prompted the Chris Rock "KNEEL, STUPID!" line). That's one of the underlying themes of the movie, God is whereever you find it.

As mentioned, I never saw the film, but was merely commenting on the Christianity of the themes (as described by posters here, and in a wiki article).

Beta Israel, depending on which origin story you believe, may fit.

Possibly; I do not know the traditions there well enough to say.

Literalists believe God is male. Moderate and liberal theologians are familiar the the fact that similar to many Romance languages, the masculine gender in both Hebrew and Greek is used with unknown/unknowable gender, in addition to known male gender.

Yes, which is why I said "most" and "traditionally". The favoured modern liberal interpretation is naturally that of an inclusive, genderless deity that everyone can relate to as much as possible. However, such a view has not been widely acknowledged in the past. The original God of the Old and New Testament of the Bible is consistently portrayed with masculine, as opposed to feminine, attributes - many of them, scholars claim today, borrowed directly from Canaanite gods such as El or Ba'al. In Christian and most Jewish* tradition, Jehovah has been very much God The Father, the Lord of Hosts.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word." (from here)

Yes, I know. And similarly in the Hebrew wisdom traditions God's Wisdom was described with female personifications (which concept later, in Hellenistic Jewish and Christian thought, mutated into what is nowadays called the Holy Ghost). Yet these are personifications or attributes of the Lord's powers, not manifestations of the "person" God Himself. He is always described as male in mainstream historical Judaism and Christianity (except, arguably, if one argues, as some Gnostics and early Christians did, that the Holy Ghost, which is part of the Trinity, is female). The notion that God is genderless is, as I understand it, a comparatively recent phenomenon.



*That I am aware of, at least, as based on the Tanakh. I know that in the Kabbalah there are a lot of . . . odd . . . ideas, and not just about the nature of the Divine itself.

[The Dark]

Yes, which is why I said "most" and "traditionally". The favoured modern liberal interpretation is naturally that of an inclusive, genderless deity that everyone can relate to as much as possible. However, such a view has not been widely acknowledged in the past. The original God of the Old and New Testament of the Bible is consistently portrayed with masculine, as opposed to feminine, attributes - many of them, scholars claim today, borrowed directly from Canaanite gods such as El or Ba'al. In Christian and most Jewish* tradition, Jehovah has been very much God The Father, the Lord of Hosts.

[snip]

*That I am aware of, at least, as based on the Tanakh. I know that in the Kabbalah there are a lot of . . . odd . . . ideas, and not just about the nature of the Divine itself.

The genderlessness of G-d in Judaism dates back to at least 1404, when Maimonides wrote the Yigdal hymn (which still uses "he" since that's the neutral Hebrew pronoun, but states that G-d has no physical body, which precludes the idea of gender within the pragmatic Judaism of the time). If one wishes to stick solely to Biblical passages, Jeremiah 31:20 references God's womb, as does Isaiah 46:3-4. Psalm 121 calls God a mother, as do Isaiah 66 and Hosea 11. Genesis 3 compares God to a seamstress, and God is compared to a woman in labor in Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 42, and John 3.

And yes, I would prefer to avoid Kabbalah as well, since I don't have any background in it .

Angels are officially genderless.

As defined by whom?

In the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, every reference to an angel except one (and I can't remember which off the top of my head) uses a neuter pronoun. The one exception is masculine.

[Surlethe]

Catholics will tell you that James, Joesph, Simon, Judas, and the girls were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, because they venerate Mary as the 'perpetual virgin' and somehow a married woman bearing her husband children is offensive to them. James is also mentioned in Galations 1:19 and is clearly stated to NOT be James the apostle.

The Catholic apologetic argument is actually that the Greek word used is actually a vaguer term that includes cousins and other more distant relatives. Catholic tradition also holds that Mary was a temple virgin, and Joseph married her in order to protect her, so they never had sex. As far as I know, that's a consistent interpretation.

And I believe, though I'm not positive, that most of the time when the bible degrades or denigrates women it is the opinions of men (generally Paul) and not God. The only time Jesus talks about husband/wife relations is when he instructs both husbands AND wives to be subject to one another in love and sevice.

Try OT law, where God implicitly declares women to be the property of men? For example, a father could sell his daughter into slavery, IIRC. If you want, I can dig up the verses.

[Terralthra]

Besides, there is no reason for God to not appear as Alanis Morissette. It really doesn't contradict anything for God to have that ability, particularly since that is part of the interplay of the story; IE that God appears to you in your own conception. Not that as a comatose person, God was male. Rufus also insisted he was a man to Bethany. That's their conception of God. However, that was Bethany's big moment, so God took that form. After all, Bartleby, Serendipity, and Rufus have no need; no angel or dominion or dude that hangs out with God alot could fail to recognize (though, of course, Jay did, which prompted the Chris Rock "KNEEL, STUPID!" line). That's one of the underlying themes of the movie, God is whereever you find it.

Notwithstanding the obvious gag of Alanis Morissette being God, as having a voice that could explode human heads?

[Gil Hamilton]

As defined by whom?

As defined by the Church and Jewish scholars. Gender is very much a human thing in this mythology.

Paul was actually a real feminist progressive for his time (what with thinking that marital fidelity should be required of both wife and husband, and so forth), in both a Graeco-Roman and a Jewish context. However, this only accentuates the fact that even his views are generally considered mysogynistic by the present-day Western secular establishment.

Hah, Paul is a feminist in the same way badgers are pleasant animals to pet. He's the one that literally blamed women for everything and suggested celibacy rather than men polluting themselves with them.

As mentioned, I never saw the film, but was merely commenting on the Christianity of the themes (as described by posters here, and in a wiki article).

The big message of Dogma are two things (1) God is what you make of it and (2) let the petty shit go (which is a theme of most Kevin Smith movies). There is no reason God can't appear as Alanis Morissette, if so choosing.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Catholics will tell you that James, Joesph, Simon, Judas, and the girls were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, because they venerate Mary as the 'perpetual virgin' and somehow a married woman bearing her husband children is offensive to them. James is also mentioned in Galations 1:19 and is clearly stated to NOT be James the apostle.

The Catholic apologetic argument is actually that the Greek word used is actually a vaguer term that includes cousins and other more distant relatives. Catholic tradition also holds that Mary was a temple virgin, and Joseph married her in order to protect her, so they never had sex. As far as I know, that's a consistent interpretation.

The problem is, there IS a greek word for 'cousin' which was used several times in the New Testament, and that's not the word which was used in the cases of Jesus' siblings.

[Darth Hoth]

The genderlessness of G-d in Judaism dates back to at least 1404, when Maimonides wrote the Yigdal hymn (which still uses "he" since that's the neutral Hebrew pronoun, but states that G-d has no physical body, which precludes the idea of gender within the pragmatic Judaism of the time). If one wishes to stick solely to Biblical passages, Jeremiah 31:20 references God's womb, as does Isaiah 46:3-4. Psalm 121 calls God a mother, as do Isaiah 66 and Hosea 11. Genesis 3 compares God to a seamstress, and God is compared to a woman in labor in Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 42, and John 3.

And yes, I would prefer to avoid Kabbalah as well, since I don't have any background in it .

I will check those and be back, then.

In the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, every reference to an angel except one (and I can't remember which off the top of my head) uses a neuter pronoun. The one exception is masculine.

No offence to Orthodox Christian believers, but the Septuagint is a badly mangled translation of the original Hebrew source texts, and quite often the translators also had their own agendas when they interpreted the text. I would treat it very carefully as evidence of any original intent of the original writers/redactors of the Old Testament. Anyway, in Genesis 6 angels interbreed with human women and produce a race of giants, so clearly at least some of them are supposed to have male sexual characteristics.

As defined by the Church and Jewish scholars. Gender is very much a human thing in this mythology.

Given Genesis 6, it would seem that those scholars were either mistaken or did not mean to speak of all angels.

Hah, Paul is a feminist in the same way badgers are pleasant animals to pet. He's the one that literally blamed women for everything and suggested celibacy rather than men polluting themselves with them.

Actually, Paul was very much a feminist for his time, in that he was much less hostile to women than other major philosophers/religions at the time. Generally early Christianity was liked by women for that reason (which probably goes to show just how misogynistic general Graeco-Roman society was). Such things as making men and women equal in terms of marital fidelity and the right to divorce were frankly radical at the time, much more so than, say, something like homosexual marriage is today. In contemporary Judaism, for example, only men could initiate divorce (and could do it for any arbitrary reason), while in Christianity neither husband nor wife could (except in case of porneia, the meaning of which is somewhat uncertain but usually translated as "fornication"). Also, Paul advocated celibacy for both women and men; since early Christianity was essentially what we would call a doomsday cult and thought that Jesus would show up and start all the Revelation-style Divine Judgement stuff soon, he thought it best that people should not raise new children in "the last days" (although he modified that sentiment somewhat over time as Jesus failed to return, as expressed in 1st Timothy).

As for Original Sin, Paul blames Eve for it in some letters (e.g., aforementioned 1st Timothy), but in others (e.g., Romans, 1st Corinthians) he puts the blame on Adam.

[Darth Hoth]

Try OT law, where God implicitly declares women to be the property of men? For example, a father could sell his daughter into slavery, IIRC. If you want, I can dig up the verses.

All children were the property of their parents in that time; a father could sell either his son(s) or his daughter(s) into slavery if he wished. So that one is a poor example. Although the Mosaic Laws are clearly misogynistic by modern standards (if generally, hard as it is to believe, socially progressive in the Bronze Age when they were written). For example:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

(In case some would find the King James-era English unclear, what is said in the above is that a rapist who is found out must pay the victim's father a fine and then marry her without the usual right to divorce. While in the Bronze Age Near East cultures this was actually the least bad realistic option for such a woman*, to modern sensibilities this stinks of Taleban and tribal culture.)



*Her other option being that because of honour ideals and fixation on virginity no man whatever would ever marry her and that she would be expelled from the tribe as a whore, which was often a death sentence. Throughout most of history, being a woman has not been very nice anywhere.

[Gil Hamilton]

All children were the property of their parents in that time; a father could sell either his son(s) or his daughter(s) into slavery if he wished. So that one is a poor example. Although the Mosaic Laws are clearly misogynistic by modern standards (if generally, hard as it is to believe, socially progressive in the Bronze Age when they were written). For example:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

(In case some would find the King James-era English unclear, what is said in the above is that a rapist who is found out must pay the victim's father a fine and then marry her without the usual right to divorce. While in the Bronze Age Near East cultures this was actually the least bad realistic option for such a woman*, to modern sensibilities this stinks of Taleban and tribal culture.)

That is a really shitty thing and you are dressing it up as progressive! "Sorry he raped you, now you are his wife." I also noticed you very selectively chose from Deuteronomy 22, as opposed to mention the part just before where if a man doesn't like his wive, he can claim that she wasn't a virgin when they married and unless her dad can produce proof that she was, they stone the girl to death, while if the dad can produce proof, they merely fine the husband. Or the part where they execute the rape victim is they didn't think she yelled loud enough on being attacked.

How about instead of all that they treat the woman as a victim and only punish the rapist? Oh wait! The ancient Israelites were disgusting savages, never mind, and certainly not progressive as compared to anything.

[Darth Hoth]

I selected at random a good quote for Surlethe, if he wanted to demonstrate Biblical misogynism, all the better because it endorses exactly the kind of Islamist-style honour culture douchebaggery that even most Christian fundies today despise. If you feel another one illustrates his point better, fine, but I thought that one did the job.

Um - I note the point sailed right over your head that this law, which is horribly misogynistic by our standards, actually WAS progressive by those of the Bronze Age. In primitive societies life tends to be rather awful overall, but it can still have degrees of bad or worse. I thought I was quite clear in making that distinction. Look at the Code of Hammurabi, or the Hettite law codes, or those of Ugarit, which were roughly contemporaneous with the Mosaic Laws - in comparison, Moses was indeed a liberal. Which indeed, as I wrote, goes to show that women have not had it very nice at all in history.

That Biblical laws were better than the average in their own time does not make them great by modern, secular standards, obviously. Ask Sheppard how long he thinks the best twin-engine fighter of the Second World War would stand against a Su-27 and you will have a decent analogy. I believe it has been said before on this board that Moses and Jesus did present great improvements on the ethics of their respective times, thousands of years ago - the problem is merely that nowadays, when he have progressed that much further still, some people still see those laws as the logical endpoint of our societal evolution, when they were really just a stepping stone towards modern-day enlightened morality.

[ray245]

That Biblical laws were better than the average in their own time does not make them great by modern, secular standards, obviously.

So you are saying that biblical laws are better than Roman law?

[Simon_Jester]

That Biblical laws were better than the average in their own time does not make them great by modern, secular standards, obviously.

So you are saying that biblical laws are better than Roman law?

By the time of the Romans, Biblical law was already anywhere from a few centuries to a millenium old, depending on just which bit of it you're talking about. Comparing Roman law to Biblical law is a bit unfair if we're interested in real contemporaries. Of course, in that case, it's similarly unfair to compare Biblical law to the Code of Hammurabi, I suppose.

[Gil Hamilton]

Um - I note the point sailed right over your head that this law, which is horribly misogynistic by our standards, actually WAS progressive by those of the Bronze Age. In primitive societies life tends to be rather awful overall, but it can still have degrees of bad or worse. I thought I was quite clear in making that distinction. Look at the Code of Hammurabi, or the Hettite law codes, or those of Ugarit, which were roughly contemporaneous with the Mosaic Laws - in comparison, Moses was indeed a liberal. Which indeed, as I wrote, goes to show that women have not had it very nice at all in history.

That Biblical laws were better than the average in their own time does not make them great by modern, secular standards, obviously. Ask Sheppard how long he thinks the best twin-engine fighter of the Second World War would stand against a Su-27 and you will have a decent analogy. I believe it has been said before on this board that Moses and Jesus did present great improvements on the ethics of their respective times, thousands of years ago - the problem is merely that nowadays, when he have progressed that much further still, some people still see those laws as the logical endpoint of our societal evolution, when they were really just a stepping stone towards modern-day enlightened morality.

Except this isn't true. The Mosaic Laws were PART of that Bronze Age culture and you haven't demonstrated they are any better other than asserting that they are. I've seen no evidence here or otherwise that they were any less ignorant hateful savages than any other group in the area. This is your own bias, where you can somehow spin "Forcing a girl to marry her rapist so he can continue to rape her over and over for the rest of her life" is somehow the BEST option, solely because you want to defend that particular group.

[Darth Hoth]

So you are saying that biblical laws are better than Roman law?

Which "Biblical Law" and which "Roman Law"? Unless we accept the fundie standpoint that all the laws in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were dictated to Moses by God at that time, both varied rather considerably over the centuries, so a "Yes" or "No" answer to such an open question is impossible to give. Although as I understand it (I am not all that well versed in either), even the very most primitive collections of laws in Exodus exceed the Romans in humanity in at least some respects (e.g., limiting how badly one could treat one's slaves in Ex 21:20-21, 26-27, the Romans knowing no such limit until maybe the third or fourth century AD). (And again, since some people seem nigh illiterate about this, I will add the disclaimer that no, this does not make them great in any objective way, but only goes to demonstrate just how awful life is in primitive cultures.)

Except this isn't true. The Mosaic Laws were PART of that Bronze Age culture and you haven't demonstrated they are any better other than asserting that they are. I've seen no evidence here or otherwise that they were any less ignorant hateful savages than any other group in the area. This is your own bias, where you can somehow spin "Forcing a girl to marry her rapist so he can continue to rape her over and over for the rest of her life" is somehow the BEST option, solely because you want to defend that particular group.

Eh? I have no interest in defending the Mosaic Code because I think it is great. Remember that I cited the verse as an example of Biblical misogynism? This is a simple matter of historical circumstances. In my previous posts I have shown that her other options were even worse (ostracism and likely death). Life sucked in the Bronze Age, period. Other contemporary law codes did not treat women/rape victims even this relatively humanely, hence the Mosaic Law was superior to them. If you have evidence that there were other, more humane laws at the time in other places, please present your evidence. Else, you are asking me to prove a negative by demanding that I show that there were none.

[Terralthra]

No, he's asking you to show evidence that these other contemporary law codes treated women/rape victims worse.

[Gil Hamilton]

Eh? I have no interest in defending the Mosaic Code because I think it is great. Remember that I cited the verse as an example of Biblical misogynism? This is a simple matter of historical circumstances. In my previous posts I have shown that her other options were even worse (ostracism and likely death). Life sucked in the Bronze Age, period. Other contemporary law codes did not treat women/rape victims even this relatively humanely, hence the Mosaic Law was superior to them. If you have evidence that there were other, more humane laws at the time in other places, please present your evidence. Else, you are asking me to prove a negative by demanding that I show that there were none.

Ah, no I asked you to demonstrate that they were superior. You refuse to do this. Hell, you refuse to show that Mosaic law even treats women relatively humanely compared to anyone else. Forcing a woman to spend the rest of her life being brutalized by her rapist is NOT a better option. It's merely applying a "You break it, you buy it" clause to women, in that specific case, where the woman spends the rest of her life at the mercy of her attacker, as opposed to the other cases you didn't mention where they execute the woman. You aren't going to worm your way out of this by shifting the burden of evidence around; you are the one asserting that it is better, so you must show they are superior to other known cultures at the time or you must concede the debate.

[Darth Hoth]

Ah, no I asked you to demonstrate that they were superior. You refuse to do this. Hell, you refuse to show that Mosaic law even treats women relatively humanely compared to anyone else. Forcing a woman to spend the rest of her life being brutalized by her rapist is NOT a better option. It's merely applying a "You break it, you buy it" clause to women, in that specific case, where the woman spends the rest of her life at the mercy of her attacker, as opposed to the other cases you didn't mention where they execute the woman. You aren't going to worm your way out of this by shifting the burden of evidence around; you are the one asserting that it is better, so you must show they are superior to other known cultures at the time or you must concede the debate.

Why do you keep assuming that I somehow have some ulterior motive or apologist agenda here because I did not quote other paragraphs of the book? I have no vested interest in making Moses or any other Bronze Age figure look agreeable to modern morality. I just thought that I would give an example to Surlethe, this entire discussion was a sidetrack. I mentioned the fact that it was progressive for its time precisely to show how far away from the morality of those days that we have progressed.

As to the laws of the time, proving that they treated unmarried rape victims worse is difficult because they in most cases do not mention such a crime at all. In most of these cultures rape was evidently only considered a crime when it was done against a married woman (because she was the property of her husband) – ravishing a "damsel", as King James’ translators put it, was not viewed as something the royal law should at all consider itself with. Consider, for example, the Code of Assura (c. 1100 BC); it does not mention the crime, but unlike others it has a section that sheds light on it nevertheless:

I.14. If a man have intercourse with the wife of a man either in an inn or on the highway, knowing that she is a man's wife, according as the man, whose wife she is, orders to be done, they shall do to the adulterer. If not knowing that she is a man's wife he rapes her, the adulterer goes free. The man shall prosecute his wife, doing to her as he likes.

Or, in plain English, if you rape someone but think she is not married, you acted in good faith and committed no crime, because unmarried women have no rights at all. Compared to such legislation, the Mosaic Law is an improvement, because it guarantees some kind of living for the victim (if a shitty such); in other cases, as mentioned, she would be ostracised and completely deprived of any protection or rights whatsoever. I hope I have thereby stated my case clearly. I have no wish to keep up a discussion where I am perceived as standing in apology to a law I do not myself embrace; if this is insufficient evidence, consider the point conceded.

Oh, and my apologies to Darth Wong for the bit of the "hijacking" for which I was responsible. I am presently doing some study on Judaeo-Christian mythology and theology, hence I like discussing it when it comes up.

[Simon_Jester]

OK. Just to make sure I've got what Darth Hoth is saying:

Under Mosaic law, an unmarried woman who is raped is effectively guaranteed a shitty life. Under Assyrian law of roughly the same time period, she is guaranteed nothing whatsoever, and no kind of life at all. She is specifically excluded from the laws under which men can be punished for committing rape; as far as I can tell a rapist could in fact defend himself before an Assyrian judge by proving that he thought the victim wasn't married, and be clear of all charges.

Mosaic law does not seem to be much of an improvement, but Assyrian law doesn't either. I think Darth Hoth has at least given evidence that, by the standards of the primitive, misogynistic, hideously unjust legal codes of the late Bronze Age, Mosaic law was not exceptionally horrible to women compared to other law codes that existed at the same time in the same part of the world. It was merely usually horrible to women.

Some other charming passages from Assyrian law:

I.7. If a woman bring her hand against a man, they shall prosecute her; 30 manas of lead shall she pay, 20 blows shall they inflict on her.

I.16. If a man have relations with the wife of a man at her wish, there is no penalty for that man. The man shall lay upon the woman, his wife, the penalty he wishes.
(this one appears to contradict some of the other passages that do specify penalties for men who "have relations with the wife of a man at her wish;" I may be missing a detail).

I.32. If a woman be dwelling in the house of father, but has been given to her husband, whether she has been taken to the house of her husband or not, all debts, misdemeanors, and crimes of her husband shall she bear as if she too committed them. Likewise if she be dwelling with her husband, all crimes of his shall she bear as well.

I.37. If a man divorce his wife, if he wish, he may give her something; if he does not wish, he need not give her anything. Empty shall she go out.

I.40. If the wives of a man, or the daughters of a man go out into the street, their heads are to be veiled. The prostitute is not to be veiled. Maidservants are not to veil themselves. Veiled harlots and maidservants shall have their garments seized and 50 blows inflicted on them and bitumen poured on their heads.

I.52. If a woman of her own accord drop that which is in her, they shall prosecute her, they shall convict her, they shall crucify her, they shall not bury her. If she die from dropping that which is in her, they shall crucify her, they shall not bury her.
(I can't figure out whether this applies to abortions, miscarriages, both, or something else).

I.58. Unless it is forbidden in the tablets, a man may strike his wife, pull her hair, her ear he may bruise or pierce. He commits no misdeed thereby.

And it's worth remembering that this was NOT the code of a bunch of random hick shepherds like the Israelites; the Assyrians were one of the bigger empires in the region at the time. They were what passed for civilized back then, though with a bit of a reputation for a brutal streak.

[Imperial Overlord]

Assyrian Law was notoriously brutal and unpleasant for its time period and it predates Mosaic Law. Being more generous than Assyrian Law is really damning with faint praise.

[Spoonist]

Why are you people deliberately misinterpreting what Darth Hoth is saying?

He has repeatedly pointed out that to modern people the biblical law is an abomination. But that doesn't mean that we can compare them to other laws and with our prejudiced/subjective view compare them in different fields.
Compared to eastern traditions where females were a subset of property/livestock it was definately "better" but compared to celtic/gallic traditions (as construed by gravesites & mythology) it was "worse".
Just like when Islam comes along its a great benefit to females compared to roman/christian laws at the same time (7th-8th century).


To construe that as some sort of defense of the biblical laws is ridicilous.