cwh@drutx.UUCP (Hoffmeyer) (01/10/85)
> Come to think of it, there are a lot of things in the Bible that seem to > suggest that women should be treated as property, subjected to the will > of men, etc. Including sexually... Right on! The bible thumpers have always been an inexhaustible source of amazement, never more so than now. The so-called "good book" is, in some parts, a barbaric document written in barbaric times by barbaric people. These guys come marching into "the fertile crescent" - they were an *invading army* that sacked cities, and slaughtered the inhabitants. I seem to recall a passage where some man crawls into his bed one night and has sex with the woman in the bed - turns out it's not his wife! WHAT!? Yup! Seems that the *man* didn't have to give a good d__n (*care* enough) to check the identity of the woman in the sack with whom (what?) he was having sex! "No, Reverend Fundament, I don't want to ban the Bible, I just want to be sure of what we're discussing - a quasi-historical, poetic, cultural mythology; a piece of literature written by a primitive and superstitious people living in a barbaric and singularly non-objective period of history." Is it great literature? Yes. By any measurable standard. It describes what is probably the greatest epic story around - the journey of a people, in time, space, and awareness from creation to godhead. Is it "good"? Parts of it, yes. Clive Staples Lewis called the story of Christ, the "best" story, because in it the god-man comes to earth, and by His total sacrifice, destroys mankind's greatest fears, death and despair. However, I no more wish to have the laws of my country based on the Bible than to have them based on the Kalevela or the Elder Eddas. "...no, no we don't do that - not enough trees to spare. We stone them here." - Carl drutx!cwh AT&TIS Denver
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/12/85)
>[Charlie Martin:] >Come to think of it, there are a lot of things in the Bible that seem to >suggest that women should be treated as property, subjected to the will >of men, etc. Including sexually, as where it is commanded that a man >whose brother dies childless should marry the brother's sister, in order >to make sure that someone carries on the brother's line... no suggestion >that the surviving brother should ASK first. Some women Bible scholars would disagree with you. I've been working on reviews of two books by such women on the subject of what the Bible says about women. I'm going to post them to net.religion.christian, but I'll post a pointer here too in case anyone is interested. Regarding the specific O.T. teaching that you mention, the best example is found in Genesis, chapter 38. Judah, one of the sons of Israel (Jacob) found a wife for his oldest son, Er. Her name was Tamar. Er died leaving her no children so Judah told his second eldest son, Onan, to fulfill the duty and take Tamar as his wife. Onan shunned this duty "letting his seed fall on the ground" because he knew the offspring would not be his. (They would be considered that of his dead brother.) Verse 9 of the chapter says God killed Onan for that act. Judah only had one son left and the irrational fear came upon him that if he gave this son, Shelah, to Tammar he would die also. So he told Tamar to remain a widow "until Shelah was old enough". I think that if all the sons die the duty would probably pass to Judah. Was Tammar glad to get off the hook? No. The rest of the chapter describes how she posed as a harlot in wait for Judah himself and concieved by him. (Harlots covered their faces.) When Judah found out he is quoted as saying, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her my son, Shelah." What explains Tamar's actions? If your prefer to judge this God ordained duty by today's standards it does seem repressive to women. But when you consider the actual setting in which it is given it teaches a different principle. For women in the ancient world, especially the Hebrews, to be barren was the highest disgrace. When her husband dies leaving no children (son's especially) she has no one to take care for her and no inheritance. The provision that a widow shall have children by her dead husband's brother not only insured heirs for the dead husband but upheld the dignity of the woman also. To judge this provision as unjust to the woman makes the tacit requirement that woman like Tamar should have the values of today's women. The fact was that they didn't. This is a case of projecting our values on to the women of ancient times. I doubt many Jews practice this provision today. I think the emphasis on preserving family lineage then came from wanting to preserve their inheritance in anticipation of receiving their Promised Land. [--] In response to Charlie's article Carl Hoffmeyer shares (among other things): >I seem to recall a passage where some man crawls into his bed one night >and has sex with the woman in the bed - turns out it's not his wife! >WHAT!? Yup! Seems that the *man* didn't have to give a good d__n (*care* >enough) to check the identity of the woman in the sack with whom (what?) >he was having sex! I wonder how many men who use porn care enough to check our the identy of the women with whom they are whetting their sexual appetite? Anyway, here again it helps to put the situation in context. The man Carl is talking about is Jacob (Judah's dad, see above) and the story is given in Genesis 29. Jacob worked for a man named Laban for seven years in order to earn the right to marry Laban's daughter, Rachel. When the seven years were up Laban decided he really needed to get his older, less beautiful daughter, Leah, married off instead. So he slips Leah in the wedding tent. Why didn't Jacob immediatly see the switch? 1) It was dark, no electric lights in those days. And I think brides wore a gown with a veil covering their face. 2) Jacob trusted Laban to keep his word. 3) Leah went along with it. If your going to fault somebody, how about the woman? Why didn't she say, "Hey look, my Dad's a jerk. I'm not the one you want to marry."? After that Jacob ends up working another seven years to marry Rachel. Jacob had a much more upright character than you give him credit for. If you are going to defame a Hebrew Patriarch (Jacob was later given the name Israel. The twelve tribes are named after his sons) you should at least know what you are talking about. I'll save someone the inevitible reply to this article and agree that it belongs in a net.religion newsgroup. I just wanted to respond in the same forum as the original posters. I hope that's fair. Any further discussion can be carried on elsewhere, but I don't think I'll have much more to say. Sorry if this bothers anyone. I'm not trying to preach to people who don't want to hear it. I'm just giving what I think is more accurate information. The Bible is my favorite book. You all have your favorites too I assume. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd