Bible Literalist Question

[qayak]

Reading an article on how great the bible is today, I was struck by something the author said. Basically that the bible is to be taken literally and that all answers are found int he bible.

So, I got to thinking. If all answers are found in the bible, can I get some examples? For instance, can the bible explain ring species? Can it explain sun spots? Can it explain how the planets orbit the sun? Can it explain animal husbandry? Can it explain good agriculture practices?

Can the bible answer any question arising after the time in which it was written? Can it answer questions arising outside the culture it was written in? For that matter, can the bible answer the questions from the very society that spawned it? Hell, can it tell me how to herd goats?!?!

Honestly, can anyone think of a specific question that the bible actually gives the definitive answer to?

[MelBrooksfan]

VIA those bible codes, believers can BS anything they want out of that book.

[qayak]

VIA those bible codes, believers can BS anything they want out of that book.

Yeah, that's my view too which is why I am asking for even one specific question from more recent times that the bible is able to answer.

[ReligionStudent]

VIA those bible codes, believers can BS anything they want out of that book.

Bible Code really isn't taking the bible literarly though, is it.

[MelBrooksfan]

Bible Code really isn't taking the bible literarly though, is it.

I see no conflict. One could write a non-fiction book in such a manner that, with it, is coded a treatise of another non-fiction matter. Both are literally true. It's just that you would need an awful lot of time to do it and it would be a tremendous waste of energy.

[ReligionStudent]

But biblical literalism is the idea that the bible as written is true without interpretation. The bible code requires interpretation and changing the text (dirrection and letter order) as well as choosing which words to read. For instance, when you look at the famous bible code that has "dalas" "to die" and "president kenedy" none-of the words are found in the text, or are even read in the proper dirrection. Additionally, you have to ignore the word "he lived" which appears in proper dirrection and made of three adjacent letter dirrectly bellow the word "dallas".

[MelBrooksfan]

But biblical literalism is the idea that the bible as written is true without interpretation.

And all in the unedited bible could still be literally true and the codes treated as a sort of bonus feature (given as they are being taken in the sense of future prophecy which, given that revelation business, doesn't much work in a literal uninterpretive fashion). Wait, why the hell am I defending this? I think the bible and any purported codes are bunk! :confused:

[ChristineR]

The bible doesn't even address abortion, and it gets it wrong on slavery, polygamy, racism, and genocide.

The people who claim the Bible has all the answers pick and choose unrelated verses and tack them together until they get the answer they wanted in the first place. Check out What Would Journey Do (http://www.nogators.com/wwjd.html).

[ReligionStudent]

And all in the unedited bible could still be literally true and the codes treated as a sort of bonus feature (given as they are being taken in the sense of future prophecy which, given that revelation business, doesn't much work in a literal uninterpretive fashion). Wait, why the hell am I defending this? I think the bible and any purported codes are bunk! :confused:

Of course its all bunk, but a definition of biblical literalism is actually a useful thing to have.

[CapelDodger]

Do Bible literalists turn to the Bible when they can't find their car-keys? Presumably they think the answer's in there somewhere ...

"Seek and ye shall find" doesn't really cut it.

[jesus_freak]

The bible doesn't even address abortion, and it gets it wrong on slavery, polygamy, racism, and genocide.

Congratulations you are wrong on all accounts...keep up with the strawmen!!!!!

[ReligionStudent]

Congratulations you are wrong on all accounts...keep up with the strawmen!!!!!

Well, turning to many interpretations of the bible, by theologians, the bible does address abortion, concerning the death of a child in utero during a fight. However, many see this as an issue of property rights (I agree strongly with this interpretation) and it should be noted that one of the most liberal religions concerning abortion is Judaism (some practitioners) who believe abortion is acceptable up until the point of the first breath (ruach being both the word for wind and thus breath AND the life spirit).

Many theologians would agree with this not being about just abortion.

Additionally, if you believe that the bible does not get slavery, polygamy, racism, and genocide wrong, you are just a horrible person.

[gorillapaws]

I've never understood the motivations behind a literalist interpretation of the Bible. In another post jesus_freak quoted a biblical literalist's explanation of how Noah got all those animals into his arc. The guy went to all measures to try to make it possible within the context of the Bible. I don't see why they choose to take an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible, especially when this results in speculating on things like how Noah may have pneumatically sealed off a chamber within the arc so he could have a moon pool from which to fish. What a bizarre waste of mental energy. Why not take the stance that the bible was written to help us be good people? As such, it doesn't need to explain natural history (nor would a B.C.E. uneducated Israelite have understood the formative processes involved in the creation of the universe and the evolution of the vast multitude of species on the Earth). If I were a divine being trying to communicate these very complicated processes/ideas to simple people with a very rudimentary understanding of the universe, I would likely have simplified the explanation to analogies they would be able to relate to and understand. Furthermore, I would have focused on moral issues and things that are truly important to living a life as a good person, as opposed to nit-picking the tiniest details of why the universe is the way that it is. It is my belief that the Bible does do these things, and that if you appreciate it from that perspective you can gain more from it than if you insist that it is flawless.

[quixotecoyote]

Why not take the stance that the bible was written to help us be good people? ... If I were a divine being trying to communicate these very complicated processes/ideas to simple people with a very rudimentary understanding of the universe, I would likely have simplified the explanation to analogies they would be able to relate to and understand. .

The problem with this is that many of the moral lessons are truly questionable and in many cases there's nothing the erroneous descriptions of the physical world lend themselves well to as analogies.

[ceo_esq]

Additionally, if you believe that the bible does not get slavery, polygamy, racism, and genocide wrong, you are just a horrible person.

I'm somewhat curious to know exactly how you and ChristineR think the Bible "gets" those things (What was the question posed? What was the answer?), and how you determined that it "got" them wrong.

[ReligionStudent]

Well, lets see, the bible allows for slavery (generally recognized as a terrible and inhuman institution), polygamy (not really horrible, but I copied and pasted the list), racism (its horrible and wrong), and genocide (racism and murder all in one). God specifically orders genocide at points, lays out laws for slavery, and is said to have positioned specific races below others all in the bible.

[ceo_esq]

Honestly, can anyone think of a specific question that the bible actually gives the definitive answer to?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "giving a definitive answer".

How about the question "Is there a God?" I don't know if the Bible correctly answers that question, but it certainly answers it.

[ReligionStudent]

Well that also depends on if you count a possible polytheistic answer as answering is ther a god

[ChristineR]

What religion student said, both about abortion and about the other things.

As far as polygamy, I consider it wrong because it is done in the context of women as property. In theory there is nothing wrong with three or more people committing to each other in a relationship, but in the real world, marriage gives a man power over a woman. It's no coincidence that polygamous societies also make it easy for a man to divorce, hard for a woman to divorce, and give divorced women minimal resources.

jesus_freak, if you believe I'm wrong go ahead and cite chapter and verse. The closest thing to anti-abortion was cited by religion_student. There are also some psalms that talk about predestination and racism, essentially saying that God likes the Israelites so much that he plans for them when they are still fetuses.

Polygamy and slavery and genocide are non-starters. The Bible favors all three. You can't cite the anti-passages because they don't exist.

[slingblade]

Congratulations you are wrong on all accounts...keep up with the strawmen!!!!!

Uh.....what strawman argument?

[David Swidler]

The bible doesn't exactly "favor" slavery. Regulates, yes, perhaps even concedes a necessity for in the ancient Israelite context, but to say the bible favors slavery is to say that the US government favors alcohol because it hasn't banned it.

Actually, it occurs to me that alcohol is a good example of why slavery - and other practices such as capital punishment - would be regulated rather than banned. The US tried to ban alcohol, and look where it got them. The society wasn't ready for it (and I don't think anyone could seriously claim it's any more ready today than in 1921).

The biblical literalist indeed faces a problem, because (s)he sees the biblical text as the end-all and be-all of divine wisdom, when in fact even the ancient Israelites and their ancient (and modern) Jewish descendants viewed the text as a starting point, an anchor for disciplined exegesis, not an all-encompassing prescription for a healthy society. The breadth of the Talmud attests to that. You'd be hard-pressed to find even a single passage that was taken completely at face value.

It's one thing to reject a literal reading of the bible as intellectually indefensible; it's disingenuous, however, to claim that since the literal reading doesn't make sense, no reading makes sense.

[ReligionStudent]

The bible doesn't exactly "favor" slavery. Regulates, yes, perhaps even concedes a necessity for in the ancient Israelite context, but to say the bible favors slavery is to say that the US government favors alcohol because it hasn't banned it.

Actually, it occurs to me that alcohol is a good example of why slavery - and other practices such as capital punishment - would be regulated rather than banned. The US tried to ban alcohol, and look where it got them. The society wasn't ready for it (and I don't think anyone could seriously claim it's any more ready today than in 1921).

The biblical literalist indeed faces a problem, because (s)he sees the biblical text as the end-all and be-all of divine wisdom, when in fact even the ancient Israelites and their ancient (and modern) Jewish descendants viewed the text as a starting point, an anchor for disciplined exegesis, not an all-encompassing prescription for a healthy society. The breadth of the Talmud attests to that. You'd be hard-pressed to find even a single passage that was taken completely at face value.

It's one thing to reject a literal reading of the bible as intellectually indefensible; it's disingenuous, however, to claim that since the literal reading doesn't make sense, no reading makes sense.


In various places the biblical text states that certain ethnic groups are bellow others and deserve to be ruled by them and be subservient to others. Additionally, as has been posted above, the effective position of women in the bible is that of slave to their husbands/fathers. Clearly the bible allows for, and dirrectly gives evidence for reasons that it is alright for, the ownership of one person by another.

[joobz]

The bible doesn't exactly "favor" slavery. Regulates, yes, perhaps even concedes a necessity for in the ancient Israelite context, but to say the bible favors slavery is to say that the US government favors alcohol because it hasn't banned it.
Concedes isn't correct either. THere is no text stating the horrible nature of one human owning another. THe bible condones slavery is probably most accurate. It speaks of the proper behavior that slaves should possess. So it not only condones slavery, but also speaks of putting slaves in their place.
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Alcohol is a good example because our society condones alcohol consumption. Our country does not see it as a morally abohrent act. Much the same way as the bible doesn't see Slavery as a morally abohrent act.

[David Swidler]

In various places the biblical text states that certain ethnic groups are bellow others and deserve to be ruled by them and be subservient to others.

A question of behavior, not of ethnicity. The fact that the cultures of, say, Canaan, had collectively earned banishment or elimination had nothing to do with their genetics. In the biblical model, there was no group inherently unworthy of freedom.

Additionally, as has been posted above, the effective position of women in the bible is that of slave to their husbands/fathers.

I fear you're imposing an understanding onto the text that isn't necessarily there.

Take our modern word "husband." It its original sense it smacks of sexism, yet we use it all the time without that connotation. The same applies to countless biblical passages phrased in terms of ancient Near Eastern societal structure. Taking the moral principles expressed in the passages does not require that we construct the same society. Indeed, as I mentioned above, ancient Jewish practice as documented in the Talmud evinced a much more "liberal" view of marriage, and of servitude - which are treated as discrete subjects, incidentally.

Clearly the bible allows for, and dirrectly gives evidence for reasons that it is alright for, the ownership of one person by another.

Then let me rephrase what I was trying to make clear earlier: the fact that the bible allows slavery does not mean that it considers slavery ideal or proper, merely that at the time it was written, it was impractical to outlaw it entirely. I can come up with a billion reasons not to ban production of tobacco products, but that doesn't mean I approve of them. The OT provides a blueprint for an evolving moral and legal system, not a static one. And, as Judaism amply demonstrates, it evolved quite nicely.

A literal reading doesn't allow for evolution. No, not that kind, either. More's the pity.

[ReligionStudent]

A question of behavior, not of ethnicity. The fact that the cultures of, say, Canaan, had collectively earned banishment or elimination had nothing to do with their genetics. In the biblical model, there was no group inherently unworthy of freedom. Have you ever read Genesis, I don't have a bible in front of me, but there are various passages where certain peoples' descendents are ruled as being worthy of servitude, sounds like genetics to me. Even if you say the cultures of Canaan, that is ethnicity.



I fear you're imposing an understanding onto the text that isn't necessarily there.

Take our modern word "husband." It its original sense it smacks of sexism, yet we use it all the time without that connotation. The same applies to countless biblical passages phrased in terms of ancient Near Eastern societal structure. Taking the moral principles expressed in the passages does not require that we construct the same society. Indeed, as I mentioned above, ancient Jewish practice as documented in the Talmud evinced a much more "liberal" view of marriage, and of servitude - which are treated as discrete subjects, incidentally.
Are you missing the point of a topic concerning biblical literalism? yes the talmud etc does say contrary points, but the bible clearly does put women in a subservient and property based position, which many modern Christians seek to emulate and use the bible as justification of


Then let me rephrase what I was trying to make clear earlier: the fact that the bible allows slavery does not mean that it considers slavery ideal or proper, merely that at the time it was written, it was impractical to outlaw it entirely. I can come up with a billion reasons not to ban production of tobacco products, but that doesn't mean I approve of them. The OT provides a blueprint for an evolving moral and legal system, not a static one. And, as Judaism amply demonstrates, it evolved quite nicely.

A literal reading doesn't allow for evolution. No, not that kind, either. More's the pity.

It clearly posses passages of women being subservient and property as ideal. It clearly allows for slavery, sets some, such as Ham's descendents, as servants, and regulates slavery. Until the 20th century, the bible was used to legitimate slavery.

While you may say their is no rule enforcing it in the bible, the most literal reading of the bible definatly is in support of slavery, both based on ethnicity and gender.

[Hokulele]

So far the discussion has mostly focused on the Old Testament and Talmud. If you would like a fascinating look at the opinion of many Evangelical Christians on the role of women, read the letters by Paul in the New Testament. I will cite a passage to get this started.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - I Cor. 14:34-35 KJV

Please tell me how having it be a "shame for women to speak in church" is not getting gender relations wrong.

As an aside, I know that some scholars argue that passages like this were not in the original letters by Paul, but added after the fact by certain transcribers, but the point is that they are included in the bible.

[ReligionStudent]

Even if they are not the origional letters, similar thoughts can be found in other early church writtings.

[David Swidler]

Have you ever read Genesis, I don't have a bible in front of me, but there are various passages where certain peoples' descendents are ruled as being worthy of servitude, sounds like genetics to me. Even if you say the cultures of Canaan, that is ethnicity.

Again, I agree that a literal reading of it sounds that way. I'm arguing that even a literal reading wasn't even intended by the author(s). Let's take the Ham thing - yeah, so some guy whose descendants couldn't even be traced 2500 years ago has his progeny condemned to servitude. What's that supposed to teach, anyway? That's the kind of inquiry that the text is supposed to prompt.

Are you missing the point of a topic concerning biblical literalism? yes the talmud etc does say contrary points, but the bible clearly does put women in a subservient and property based position, which many modern Christians seek to emulate and use the bible as justification of.

Are you referring to both the OT and NT in saying "the bible"? I'll not argue with you on the NT, having little knowledge of it and even less interest; but regarding the OT, there's a big difference between "subservient" and "property". And in a larger cultural context wherein the women were invariably more vulnerable, that's natural. It's not merely a question of how the laws were established, but how their interpretation as rooted in the text itself departs dramatically from an ostensibly literal reading.

One of the medieval Jewish commentators, Abraham Ibn Ezra (12th c. Spain), took great pains to demonstrate how the Talmudic interpretations of the text
are inherent in the grammatical and syntactical structure of the verses. I'm not nearly qualified to critique his work - in fact he had an agenda, trying to defend Rabbinic law in the face of Karaite interpretations - but this is hardly a new approach.

It clearly posses passages of women being subservient and property as ideal. It clearly allows for slavery, sets some, such as Ham's descendents, as servants, and regulates slavery. Until the 20th century, the bible was used to legitimate slavery.
What's clear to you was not so clear to ancients, whose society better approximated the milieu that saw the bible develop than does our own. Again, I share your distaste for the literal reading, as well as for those who would use it to justify the ultimately unjustifiable.

While you may say their is no rule enforcing it in the bible, the most literal reading of the bible definatly is in support of slavery, both based on ethnicity and gender.

And the most literal reading of Shakespeare's sonnet "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" barely resembles what the poet is really saying.

[joobz]

And the most literal reading of Shakespeare's sonnet "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" barely resembles what the poet is really saying.
But then we don't assume that shakespeare is speaking for god, nor do we wish to impose sets of morality based upon his writings.

I have no problem people gleaning a sense of higher purpose from that bible, if their ethics are in line with a sense of human rights and civil liberties. I can see people taking the stance that the bible reflects more of the morals of the authors than of god. However, biblical literalists (which is what this thread is about) can not claim a literal moral superiority from the bible when it outright condones slavery.

[The Atheist]

I love custom titles.

Jesus Freak is right in the zone. Please don't post too much, JF, the "critical thinker" up at the moment just fits you so perfectly.

[triadboy]

Why not take the stance that the bible was written to help us be good people?

This is the cause of a lot of problems. The OT was not written to help us be good people. It is a mixture of tribal poems, borrowed myths, VERY biased history, miracles, tales, vengence and venom crammed into one book.

The NT purports to be 'goodly'. But there are no new ideas within it.
For some reason, the dying god-man story holds a special place in man's heart.

The only thing that helps us be good people are good people. (sounds humanist)

[triadboy]

How about the question "Is there a God?" I don't know if the Bible correctly answers that question, but it certainly answers it.

The answer is: There are 3!

[qayak]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "giving a definitive answer".

How about the question "Is there a God?" I don't know if the Bible correctly answers that question, but it certainly answers it.

This is a very good point. I suppose we need a method of deciding if we would rely on the answer provided.

The other question is: Can we make reliable predictions using the information in the bible?

[ReligionStudent]

Again, I agree that a literal reading of it sounds that way. I'm arguing that even a literal reading wasn't even intended by the author(s). Let's take the Ham thing - yeah, so some guy whose descendants couldn't even be traced 2500 years ago has his progeny condemned to servitude. What's that supposed to teach, anyway? That's the kind of inquiry that the text is supposed to prompt. There is general concensus that the the authors had a specific group of people in mind when writing of Ham's descendents. And even a non-literal reading dirrectly places these people bellow the Israelites



Are you referring to both the OT and NT in saying "the bible"? I'll not argue with you on the NT, having little knowledge of it and even less interest; but regarding the OT, there's a big difference between "subservient" and "property". And in a larger cultural context wherein the women were invariably more vulnerable, that's natural. It's not merely a question of how the laws were established, but how their interpretation as rooted in the text itself departs dramatically from an ostensibly literal reading. So, women not being able to divorce, when men can? that isn't property? Women being bought, isn't property? Clearly in context of the ancient Yahwists, women were the property of their husbands/fathers/brothers. The laws and stories of the text, portray women as property.

One of the medieval Jewish commentators, Abraham Ibn Ezra (12th c. Spain), took great pains to demonstrate how the Talmudic interpretations of the text
are inherent in the grammatical and syntactical structure of the verses. I'm not nearly qualified to critique his work - in fact he had an agenda, trying to defend Rabbinic law in the face of Karaite interpretations - but this is hardly a new approach. While this is too modern for me to really comment on, what I have studied of the bible is that grammer, syntax, and verse are all debated, and anything that one sees as inherint because of it is completely debatable because of this.


What's clear to you was not so clear to ancients, whose society better approximated the milieu that saw the bible develop than does our own. Again, I share your distaste for the literal reading, as well as for those who would use it to justify the ultimately unjustifiable.

archaeological and textual evidence points to the treatment of women as property and legal protection of slavery. Both are written about and supported in the bible, why should we assume that some unknown aspect of the context changes the agency of the texts author?

[qayak]

So far the discussion has mostly focused on the Old Testament and Talmud. If you would like a fascinating look at the opinion of many Evangelical Christians on the role of women, read the letters by Paul in the New Testament. I will cite a passage to get this started.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - I Cor. 14:34-35 KJV"

Okay, if he had just said women couldn't speak at home, I might have agreed with him! :runaway

[Hokulele]

Okay, if he had just said women couldn't speak at home, I might have agreed with him! :runaway


I just can't understand why he'd think we'd learn anything by asking our husbands. :duck:

[qayak]

A question of behavior, not of ethnicity. The fact that the cultures of, say, Canaan, had collectively earned banishment or elimination had nothing to do with their genetics. In the biblical model, there was no group inherently unworthy of freedom.



I fear you're imposing an understanding onto the text that isn't necessarily there.

Take our modern word "husband." It its original sense it smacks of sexism, yet we use it all the time without that connotation. The same applies to countless biblical passages phrased in terms of ancient Near Eastern societal structure. Taking the moral principles expressed in the passages does not require that we construct the same society. Indeed, as I mentioned above, ancient Jewish practice as documented in the Talmud evinced a much more "liberal" view of marriage, and of servitude - which are treated as discrete subjects, incidentally.



Then let me rephrase what I was trying to make clear earlier: the fact that the bible allows slavery does not mean that it considers slavery ideal or proper, merely that at the time it was written, it was impractical to outlaw it entirely. I can come up with a billion reasons not to ban production of tobacco products, but that doesn't mean I approve of them. The OT provides a blueprint for an evolving moral and legal system, not a static one. And, as Judaism amply demonstrates, it evolved quite nicely.

A literal reading doesn't allow for evolution. No, not that kind, either. More's the pity.

If what you say here is true, the bible is absolutely worthless. It doesn't tell us a damn thing about anything. We can just make up anything we want and the bible will just come around later and justify why we did it. Apparently that's what it did in regard to slavery.

To be a moral guide, it has to inform you of what is right and wrong. The bible seems to do that with a literal reading. It does give answers but they are so screwed up that no sane person would dare follow them.

[skeptifem]

Congratulations you are wrong on all accounts...keep up with the strawmen!!!!!


you dont know what a strawman is. you should probably learn about it before using the term.

[triadboy]

you dont know what a strawman is. you should probably learn about it before using the term.

He's the one with no heart, right?

[ChristineR]

He's the one with no heart, right?

Actually, he's the one with no brain.

But you knew that right? That was just a clever setup? Right? Right? :rolleyes:

[qayak]

I just can't understand why he'd think we'd learn anything by asking our husbands. :duck:

Maybe he figured you couldn't be taught anyway. :what:

[Hokulele]

Maybe he figured you couldn't be taught anyway. :what:


Or maybe he was tired of being shown-up by all the sharp women around . . .;)

[triadboy]

Actually, he's the one with no brain.

But you knew that right? That was just a clever setup? Right? Right? :rolleyes:


I like doing jokes within jokes.

Instead of

1st person: "Hey, have you got a match?"
2nd person: "Yeah my ass and your face."

I do

1st person: "Hey, have you got a light?"
2nd person: "Yeah my face and your ass."

It's double funny on three levels.

Likewise, when I said "He's the one with no heart, right?". It's funny on two levels.

[CapelDodger]

I love custom titles.

Jesus Freak is right in the zone. Please don't post too much, JF, the "critical thinker" up at the moment just fits you so perfectly.

It's a simplistic system (and a cross I must bear). In a more sophisticated system, feedback should justify a "Criticised Thinker" title.

[The Atheist]

It's a simplistic system (and a cross I must bear). In a more sophisticated system, feedback should justify a "Criticised Thinker" title.

You could always get yours changed to "anti-philosopher".

[David Swidler]

But then we don't assume that shakespeare is speaking for god, nor do we wish to impose sets of morality based upon his writings.

The point was merely to demonstrate how meaning does not necessarily follow literal reading in a given text. It's just that with Shakespeare, it's much easier to show how intentional it was (partially cuz we all speaka da English). Divinity is beside the point.

I have no problem people gleaning a sense of higher purpose from that bible, if their ethics are in line with a sense of human rights and civil liberties. I can see people taking the stance that the bible reflects more of the morals of the authors than of god. However, biblical literalists (which is what this thread is about) can not claim a literal moral superiority from the bible when it outright condones slavery.

We're on the same page here. Innate human morality and properly understood biblical morality complement each other. Those who would disregard prevailing senses of right and wrong entirely cannot claim to be truly moral - which is why the biblical system had already evolved in ancient times to reflect more liberal attitudes while still anchoring its interpretations in the text. See my answer to qayak below for a little more along those lines (I hope I get to it or this will look kinda stoopid...).

[David Swidler]

There is general concensus that the the authors had a specific group of people in mind when writing of Ham's descendents. And even a non-literal reading dirrectly places these people bellow the Israelites

But that's not where it ends. What makes them inferior? A specific pattern of behavior? If so, then let's all please avoid that behavior. The point is not that someone is inferior - if that someone even exists - it's that there are actions capable of rendering someone inferior.

So, women not being able to divorce, when men can? that isn't property? Women being bought, isn't property? Clearly in context of the ancient Yahwists, women were the property of their husbands/fathers/brothers. The laws and stories of the text, portray women as property.

I think we're talking to cross-purposes. No one here (well, maybe JF; does he count?) disagrees that a literal reading provides a distasteful picture from a modern perspective. I argue that even from an ancient perspective that held true, which is why ancient interpretation and practice already departed from the literal reading. I'm further positing that the text itself was never intended as literal, but I'm not sure how to demonstrate that without a forty thousand page thread.

While this is too modern for me to really comment on, what I have studied of the bible is that grammer, syntax, and verse are all debated, and anything that one sees as inherint because of it is completely debatable because of this.

No argument there; you'll notice I didn't exactly cite Ibn Ezra as the paradigm of biblical commentary, just a precedent.

archaeological and textual evidence points to the treatment of women as property and legal protection of slavery. Both are written about and supported in the bible, why should we assume that some unknown aspect of the context changes the agency of the texts author?

What archaeological evidence points to women as property? And what do you mean by "agency"?

In any case, "supported" is too strong a word. "Expressed ideas in terms of the existing culture so that they would be most easily grasped" is more what I'm getting at. Consider the six-day creation story: it bears uncanny parallels to other stories from the same region. Intentionally so, I would argue - that's what the ancient Israelites understood from the surrounding culture, so whatever messages to be conveyed, the author couched in a modified version of a familiar tale. That doesn't mean that the bible is passing judgment on the provenance of those stories, merely employing them didactically.

The same can be said for OT morality generally, and in fact that's the way it was already seen thousands of years ago: just because principles are framed in the context of a society with particular values doesn't mean that the existing values are supported. The evolution of a more liberal Israelite/Jewish society dovetails with that.

[David Swidler]

If what you say here is true, the bible is absolutely worthless. It doesn't tell us a damn thing about anything. We can just make up anything we want and the bible will just come around later and justify why we did it. Apparently that's what it did in regard to slavery.

To be a moral guide, it has to inform you of what is right and wrong. The bible seems to do that with a literal reading. It does give answers but they are so screwed up that no sane person would dare follow them.

Of course it should say what's right and wrong. And it does. But it couldn't explicitly say certain things that would automatically make the immature Israelite nation reject it as too radical or unrealistic to be practical. So biblical society maintained slavery for a time, but by the time Jeremiah came around, for example, things were already changing. He's got quite a bit to say about slavery, all of it not nice. But wasn't this supposed to come from the same God? Sure. Now the people were more ready to hear a more elevated message. Ezekiel does it too, with a more ritual focus. One can see the refinement of the Pentateuch's societal model through the prophets and other books way before the close of the second temple period. The Talmud's repository of ancient "liberal" interpretation is a direct continuation of this evolution, always striving to remain loyal to the text in which it finds its roots, and always striving for internal and systemic consistency.

That latter point is the key. You can cherry-pick and twist anything you want, but what makes it legit is how it fits with the rest of the picture.

[David Swidler]

I'm sorry, I missed joobz's post. I'll try to address it here.

Concedes isn't correct either. THere is no text stating the horrible nature of one human owning another. THe bible condones slavery is probably most accurate. It speaks of the proper behavior that slaves should possess. So it not only condones slavery, but also speaks of putting slaves in their place.

(Here you quoted a passage from Timothy).

As I said before, I can't comment on the NT. If anyone better versed in its interpretation is willing to do so, feel free to make an argument parallel to mine with regard to the NT. I have no idea to what extent such an approach can be supported.

Alcohol is a good example because our society condones alcohol consumption. Our country does not see it as a morally abohrent act. Much the same way as the bible doesn't see Slavery as a morally abohrent act.

Which is exactly why I chose alcohol. With all the medical and societal problems involving alcohol, what justification is there for allowing it? Society just isn't prepared to give it up; we just have to regulate it and deal with whatever consequences. Our society never developed an overall distaste for alcohol.

Similar thing with slavery. It was such an integral part of the ancient mentality (and economy?) that condemning and banning it outright was impractical. So it was regulated instead, and slowly devolved away as the society matured.

[Hokulele]

Similar thing with slavery. It was such an integral part of the ancient mentality (and economy?) that condemning and banning it outright was impractical. So it was regulated instead, and slowly devolved away as the society matured.


I guess this is the problem I have with biblical literalism. If it had been a living document (such as the US constitution), it would have evolved with the times, and would be relevant to modern life. Since it was essentially frozen in time, and further modifications are considered sacrilege, it is hard to see why we have to accept it as a valid document to apply to modern society. Historical context, fine. Cultural touchstone, fine. Modern moral code, err...

Now I am not saying that nothing in the bible has relevance, but rather any document claiming to be essentially a manual or framework for how one should pattern one's life must be dynamic.

[qayak]

Of course it should say what's right and wrong. And it does. But it couldn't explicitly say certain things that would automatically make the immature Israelite nation reject it as too radical or unrealistic to be practical. So biblical society maintained slavery for a time, but by the time Jeremiah came around, for example, things were already changing. He's got quite a bit to say about slavery, all of it not nice. But wasn't this supposed to come from the same God? Sure. Now the people were more ready to hear a more elevated message. Ezekiel does it too, with a more ritual focus. One can see the refinement of the Pentateuch's societal model through the prophets and other books way before the close of the second temple period. The Talmud's repository of ancient "liberal" interpretation is a direct continuation of this evolution, always striving to remain loyal to the text in which it finds its roots, and always striving for internal and systemic consistency.

That latter point is the key. You can cherry-pick and twist anything you want, but what makes it legit is how it fits with the rest of the picture.

This is easy to check. Your argument claims that the bible becomes more and more morally correct as it progresses. By the end of the bible we should have a very clear picture of exactly what is and is not morally correct. If the bible is to be relevent as a moral guide in today's world we should be able to look at its last pages and get the correct answer to all our problems.

And yet, this is not the case. It cannot give us the answers to any modern problems. What does it say about stem cell research? About same sex marriage? About dealing with other religions in a global community? About environmental issues? About nuclear threats?

For all these, and an infinite number more, we must use our own judgement because the bible does not tell us anything. Not only that but we have no way of knowing even what direction god wants us to move because somethings become more moral at the end of the bible but just as many become less or do not change at all.

[ChristineR]

I do see an evolution of ideas as the Bible moves forward chronologically. It's not so much an evolution of morals as it is an evolution of cosmology. In the Old Testament Yahweh is just a person with some extra abilities who lives up in the sky. He's on the same side as the writers, but he's temperamental. Sometimes he comes down to earth and yells at the Israelites. Most often the yelling is done by his proxies. It's a tribal society. Insiders have pretty decent legal protections. Outsiders are judged by whether they aid, ignore, or attack the central ethnic group but have no legal rights.

By the end of the Bible God is more of a spiritual entity. He relates to an individual through some sort of unseen force. It's a multi-cultural society. People are judged by their own individual merits. It's still a pretty immoral society by our standards, with the strong raping and enslaving the weak, but at least this is acknowledged as a problem.

[ReligionStudent]

But that's not where it ends. What makes them inferior? A specific pattern of behavior? If so, then let's all please avoid that behavior. The point is not that someone is inferior - if that someone even exists - it's that there are actions capable of rendering someone inferior.
Then what about the actual treatment of these people. It is likely, from a text critical perspective that this text was likely a post hoc justification for an existing treatment of people.


I think we're talking to cross-purposes. No one here (well, maybe JF; does he count?) disagrees that a literal reading provides a distasteful picture from a modern perspective. I argue that even from an ancient perspective that held true, which is why ancient interpretation and practice already departed from the literal reading. I'm further positing that the text itself was never intended as literal, but I'm not sure how to demonstrate that without a forty thousand page thread. The bible has portions that were likely not meant to be taken literaly. however, I have never seen evidence that the law codes and the issues concerning the treatment of women are parts of this non-literal portion.

What archaeological evidence points to women as property? And what do you mean by "agency"? We know that the Jewish faith and early Yahwist faith involved the purchasing of women. Even in modern Judaism this lays behind some traditions. We can look at the place of women in burrials and in the positions they are found in within society. For actual evidence of ownership, texts are the largest helpl, what we find is that women were seen as the property or their husbands and before that their fathers. Agency is the origional intent of the authors or actors

In any case, "supported" is too strong a word. "Expressed ideas in terms of the existing culture so that they would be most easily grasped" is more what I'm getting at. Consider the six-day creation story: it bears uncanny parallels to other stories from the same region. Intentionally so, I would argue - that's what the ancient Israelites understood from the surrounding culture, so whatever messages to be conveyed, the author couched in a modified version of a familiar tale. That doesn't mean that the bible is passing judgment on the provenance of those stories, merely employing them didactically. Are you saying they did not believe the six day creation story? Additionaly, yes, we know they adapted things from other near eastern cultures, but this does not mean we should look on their law codes as being viewed in a literal light. The early Yahwists were based in people who came from these other local cultures, of coures they used their words, but this deos not mean they did not use them literaly. Are you proposing that the law code they wrote, and the stories we have dirrectly telling how to treat other peoples and women are not based on how they acted? Certainly if you are saying that they wrote based on what they would be expected to know, the writings showing the ownership of women only seem to support its existence in the Yahwist faith.

The same can be said for OT morality generally, and in fact that's the way it was already seen thousands of years ago: just because principles are framed in the context of a society with particular values doesn't mean that the existing values are supported. The evolution of a more liberal Israelite/Jewish society dovetails with that.
Ok, so what is the fact that Jewish society still does not grant woment the ability to ask for a divorce? I think that is clear evidence that this has been interprated literaly. While the Yahwist/Jewish faith changed, it appears to have happened over many many many years. Remember that the earliest parts of the text were written likely between 1200 and 1000 BCE, but a large portion of the rest, including Deuteronomy with the law codes, was written later (c 500 BCE). That means that these laws and traditions continued over this period. Then think of early Christians, also Jews really, who noted women as inferior, and largely treated them as property of their husbands and not equal within the religious communitee (Jews and Catholics today really as well). This more liberal Israelite/Jewish faith you look for is likely a much more modern thing than you give it credit for.

[JJM 777]

Joining the discussion for the first time... some comments about the diverse issues debated afore:
a definition of biblical literalism is actually a useful thing to have.
The questions to be asked are:

1) Which collection of texts is "the Bible"? Who decides/decided this?

2) Were all those texts originally written with the intention of dictating "Word of God"? (Most of the writers make the claim that the message is divinely inspired -- but not all of them. For example, the books of Esther and Song of Songs never mention God at all.)

3) What do these writers believe and claim about themselves? In some cases a divine source is claimed, "Thus saith the Lord", but not in all books and not in all text passages. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 apostle Paul makes the famous comments: "I give this command (not I, but the Lord)" ... and then ... "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)".

A careful study of these questions reveals that the Bible claims much less about itself than other non-authoritative (!) sources claim about it.

The bible doesn't even address abortion, and it gets it wrong on slavery, polygamy, racism, and genocide.
The Bible comes closest to the abortion issue in the law that decrees a death penalty for any man who uses violence against a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. The Law of Moses also condems the practice of killing newborn children (by throwing them to fire).

Polygamy was never clearly banned even in the writings of New Testament. On the other hand, I cannot see how the modern (perfectly legal and not so uncommon) custom of casual infidelity to a large group of girlfriends is morally more upright than the old-fashioned fidelity to a small number of spouses?

Well, lets see, the bible allows for slavery (generally recognized as a terrible and inhuman institution)
Slavery between citizens of the state was not much different than the lives of modern-day workers in low-paid jobs: the maximum allowed duration of slavery was 6 years (for a citizen of the state, but unlimited for prisoners of war), and the typical reason was settling debts.

The American slavery system of the 19th century differed from the Biblical one (excluding POWs) in three important ways: 1) The slaves did not sell themselves to the host, they were simply kidnapped from Africa. 2) The duration of slavery was unlimited. 3) Slavery was hereditary.

With all the medical and societal problems involving alcohol, what justification is there for allowing it? Society just isn't prepared to give it up
I see no reason why societies should completely quit using alcohol. Control is a different issue: alcohol could be served in restaurants only, to relatively sober people only, without selling it in shops in unlimited amounts.

I do see an evolution of ideas as the Bible moves forward chronologically. It's not so much an evolution of morals as it is an evolution of cosmology.
"Evolution of morals" would be a perfect way to describe the differences in the moral teachings of OT and NT.

OT laws create free competition, hard capitalism, the right to be selfish.
In nearly every issue discussed both by NT and OT, NT sets a clearly higher moral goal: forgiveness instead of revenge, pacifism instead of war, cosmopolitanism instead of racism and nationalism, socialist pursuit of equality instead of hard capitalism, idealizing monogamy instead of polygamy (even if polygamy is never actually banned), etc.

[ReligionStudent]

Joining the discussion for the first time... some comments about the diverse issues debated afore:

The questions to be asked are:

1) Which collection of texts is "the Bible"? Who decides/decided this?

2) Were all those texts originally written with the intention of dictating "Word of God"? (Most of the writers make the claim that the message is divinely inspired -- but not all of them. For example, the books of Esther and Song of Songs never mention God at all.)

3) What do these writers believe and claim about themselves? In some cases a divine source is claimed, "Thus saith the Lord", but not in all books and not in all text passages. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 apostle Paul makes the famous comments: "I give this command (not I, but the Lord)" ... and then ... "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)".

A careful study of these questions reveals that the Bible claims much less about itself than other non-authoritative (!) sources claim about it. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the modern concept of biblical literalism


The Bible comes closest to the abortion issue in the law that decrees a death penalty for any man who uses violence against a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. The Law of Moses also condems the practice of killing newborn children (by throwing them to fire).

Polygamy was never clearly banned even in the writings of New Testament. On the other hand, I cannot see how the modern (perfectly legal and not so uncommon) custom of casual infidelity to a large group of girlfriends is morally more upright than the old-fashioned fidelity to a small number of spouses?
As somone stated above, the polygamy of the bible and that still practiced in parts of America is problematic because of the subserviant and basically property-like treatment of women .

Slavery between citizens of the state was not much different than the lives of modern-day workers in low-paid jobs: the maximum allowed duration of slavery was 6 years (for a citizen of the state, but unlimited for prisoners of war), and the typical reason was settling debts.

The American slavery system of the 19th century differed from the Biblical one (excluding POWs) in three important ways: 1) The slaves did not sell themselves to the host, they were simply kidnapped from Africa. 2) The duration of slavery was unlimited. 3) Slavery was hereditary. I am aware of the difference in salvery, but I still think, allowing for slavery as prisoners of war is wrong, and that slavery of citizens is still wrong. Comparing it to people in low paying jobs has some accuracy, but overlooks the writes of property, freedom to travel, and participation in any democratic procedures that would not have been granted to the slave. Additionally, as many biblical scholars will point out, people would find ways to work around the rules of six years etc quite easily.


I see no reason why societies should completely quit using alcohol. Control is a different issue: alcohol could be served in restaurants only, to relatively sober people only, without selling it in shops in unlimited amounts. While I disagree with the idea of control, I agree that alcohol should be freely available

[ChristineR]

Ancient polygamy did not involve fidelity to one's spouses. Only the females were expected to be faithful. Males were allowed as many prostitutes and unmarried women as they could obtain. "Adultery" in the old testament means sleeping with other men's wives.

There's plenty of room for debate as to whether casual sex with multiple girlfriends and boyfriends is healthy or moral, but at least we all agree that it's wrong if one party is sleeping around without the other party's permission, it's wrong if the second party cannot legally leave the relationship, and it's wrong to unilaterally impose restrictions on one person.

[ponderingturtle]

Additionally, if you believe that the bible does not get slavery, polygamy, racism, and genocide wrong, you are just a horrible person.

I just wonder why polygamy is on this list, misogyny would be better.

[ReligionStudent]

I just wonder why polygamy is on this list, misogyny would be better.

Someone used that as the term for it, and it just got quoted throughout the thread instead of putting in another word for it.

[ChristineR]

I used it, and I contend that polygamy is wrong. People are talking about polygamy as if it were an equal and voluntary relationship chosen by a man and one or more woman, something that is in every way parallel to polyamory and polyandry or just having sex with more than one person. As far as I know there is not nor has there ever been a society where those sorts of free relationships are practiced at will by the majority of the population. Polygamy in the past and in the present has always meant the treatment of woman and girls as property.

The people living in voluntary pseudo-polygamous relationships (such as in various splinter Christian sects in the U.S.) are protected by the fact that there is in fact no legal basis to their relationship and there probably never will be. That many of the women in these relationships were cajoled or forced into them simply proves my point.

Sleeping with more than one person is not the same as polygamy. Even a commitment ceremony means nothing as legal marriage in this country is more or less an equal contract.

[ponderingturtle]

I used it, and I contend that polygamy is wrong. People are talking about polygamy as if it were an equal and voluntary relationship chosen by a man and one or more woman, something that is in every way parallel to polyamory and polyandry or just having sex with more than one person. As far as I know there is not nor has there ever been a society where those sorts of free relationships are practiced at will by the majority of the population. Polygamy in the past and in the present has always meant the treatment of woman and girls as property.

No, that was marriage in general not polygamy. So marriage is what is so immoral, we need to ban it for the sake of all the women that have been enslaved by it for millennia.

[David Swidler]

I guess this is the problem I have with biblical literalism. If it had been a living document (such as the US constitution), it would have evolved with the times, and would be relevant to modern life. Since it was essentially frozen in time, and further modifications are considered sacrilege, it is hard to see why we have to accept it as a valid document to apply to modern society. Historical context, fine. Cultural touchstone, fine. Modern moral code, err...

Now I am not saying that nothing in the bible has relevance, but rather any document claiming to be essentially a manual or framework for how one should pattern one's life must be dynamic.

This is easy to check. Your argument claims that the bible becomes more and more morally correct as it progresses. By the end of the bible we should have a very clear picture of exactly what is and is not morally correct. If the bible is to be relevent as a moral guide in today's world we should be able to look at its last pages and get the correct answer to all our problems.

And yet, this is not the case. It cannot give us the answers to any modern problems. What does it say about stem cell research? About same sex marriage? About dealing with other religions in a global community? About environmental issues? About nuclear threats?

For all these, and an infinite number more, we must use our own judgement because the bible does not tell us anything. Not only that but we have no way of knowing even what direction god wants us to move because somethings become more moral at the end of the bible but just as many become less or do not change at all.

I grouped the above posts together because I see them as making the general point: that if what I've said is true, then the bible should be more dynamic and patently relevant.

But both posts make the assumption that the evolution of moral thought that the bible sowed is contained entirely within its pages (er, columns). But that's not what I meant. Scripture serves both as the textual starting point and a historical one: the moral evolution continued after the OT canon was closed two millennia ago, as documented in the Midrash, Mishnah and other Talmudic works. It never ended, in fact, but outside of a yeshiva, no one's likely to notice. Nevertheless, each point of law can be traced back to its source in the text (although a number of them lie outside the text entirely, in a parallel oral tradition; hardly our subject). It's that continued interpretation that applies biblical law to contemporary circumstances, taking care to maintain its integrity. So while the text might prohibit moving the boundary of one's land at the expense of the neighbors', the contemporary scholar understands that the same applies to intellectual property and the online world.

[Hokulele]

I grouped the above posts together because I see them as making the general point: that if what I've said is true, then the bible should be more dynamic and patently relevant.

But both posts make the assumption that the evolution of moral thought that the bible sowed is contained entirely within its pages (er, columns). But that's not what I meant. Scripture serves both as the textual starting point and a historical one: the moral evolution continued after the OT canon was closed two millennia ago, as documented in the Midrash, Mishnah and other Talmudic works. It never ended, in fact, but outside of a yeshiva, no one's likely to notice. Nevertheless, each point of law can be traced back to its source in the text (although a number of them lie outside the text entirely, in a parallel oral tradition; hardly our subject). It's that continued interpretation that applies biblical law to contemporary circumstances, taking care to maintain its integrity. So while the text might prohibit moving the boundary of one's land at the expense of the neighbors', the contemporary scholar understands that the same applies to intellectual property and the online world.


While I can appreciate your position, and the fact that this position is held by more people than not, I believe the OP was directed towards those whose opinion fall along the lines of the sentence in your post which I have bolded. Also, since many bible literalists are christians, they cannot exempt the NT passages, many of which reinforce concepts of misogyny.

For a lovely example of how far some of them will go to support the bible as truth, there is a thread over in SMMT created by a bible literalist who is trying to prove that every word of the Noah tale is hard fact.

[calebprime]

jesus_freak?

Dustin?

This is your chance to shine!

[slingblade]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72651

In the Mosuo culture, there is no marriage. No marriage ceremonies exist. There is no expectation whatsoever of life-time bonds or pairings. Children are raised not only without an expectation of spending their life with that one special person, but they often don't even know (or care) who their biological father is.

Good thread. Fascinating culture. Just sayin'....:)

[David Swidler]

Then what about the actual treatment of these people. It is likely, from a text critical perspective that this text was likely a post hoc justification for an existing treatment of people.

Many things are likely, but where's the evidence? If it's only in the text, that hardly weakens my argument.

The bible has portions that were likely not meant to be taken literaly. however, I have never seen evidence that the law codes and the issues concerning the treatment of women are parts of this non-literal portion. We know that the Jewish faith and early Yahwist faith involved the purchasing of women. Even in modern Judaism this lays behind some traditions. We can look at the place of women in burrials and in the positions they are found in within society. For actual evidence of ownership, texts are the largest helpl, what we find is that women were seen as the property or their husbands and before that their fathers.

Not at all. You're essentially saying that in the biblical view, women=slaves, but that's clearly not true, considering that women could own and inherit property (ref the daughters of Tz'laph'had, toward the end of Numbers).

I'm not denying that biblical society assigns different roles to men and women - from our perspective, it would seem, unjustly - but to call women "property" under that system is simply inaccurate. Subservient, maybe.

Are you saying they did not believe the six day creation story?
I'm saying it's immaterial, because the historicity of the story isn't its point. It's truth exists irrespective of its factuality.
Additionaly, yes, we know they adapted things from other near eastern cultures, but this does not mean we should look on their law codes as being viewed in a literal light. The early Yahwists were based in people who came from these other local cultures, of coures they used their words, but this deos not mean they did not use them literaly. Are you proposing that the law code they wrote, and the stories we have dirrectly telling how to treat other peoples and women are not based on how they acted? Certainly if you are saying that they wrote based on what they would be expected to know, the writings showing the ownership of women only seem to support its existence in the Yahwist faith.

Again, you're imputing "ownership" into a relationship with quite a bit more nuance than you assume. Women were not slaves. And just like any other adult, they could accept or reject marriage.

Ok, so what is the fact that Jewish society still does not grant woment the ability to ask for a divorce? I think that is clear evidence that this has been interprated literaly. It might indicate that, but you're missing some information, emphasized in the Talmud and every subsequent compilation of Jewish law: "If a man refuses to give his wife a divorce, [we] (i.e. the courts) physically force him (e.g. with physical violence) until he says, 'I want to'." The main reason there's such a problem nowadays is that the religious courts in whose province these cases fall are not empowered by the secular authorities to take any real punitive measures against such a scumbag. And since the powers that be will not interfere in what they see as a purely religious matter, the Jewish courts have their hands tied in implementing the very solution that worked until modern times.

But it all goes back to the false dichotomy of being property vs. being completely empowered. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

While the Yahwist/Jewish faith changed, it appears to have happened over many many many years. Remember that the earliest parts of the text were written likely between 1200 and 1000 BCE, but a large portion of the rest, including Deuteronomy with the law codes, was written later (c 500 BCE). That means that these laws and traditions continued over this period. Then think of early Christians, also Jews really, who noted women as inferior, and largely treated them as property of their husbands and not equal within the religious communitee (Jews and Catholics today really as well). This more liberal Israelite/Jewish faith you look for is likely a much more modern thing than you give it credit for.

Only if you ignore the fact that the Talmud records ancient precedent as much as it apparently innovates.

The "early Christians were really Jews" argument doesn't hold water, though. The body of early Christian material that is not a specific departure from the prevailing Jewish schools of thought is rather small, as any comparative study of early Midrash and Mishnah to early Christian texts amply demonstrates. Those looking for the Jewish roots of Christian thought invariably turn to the writings of fringe groups such as the Essenes.

As an aside, it has become standard practice among Orthodox Jews to sign a secular prenuptial agreement to be enforced by the state courts to the effect that if she wants a divorce, he must grant it, as a way to eliminate the problem of "chained" women.

[ReligionStudent]

I grouped the above posts together because I see them as making the general point: that if what I've said is true, then the bible should be more dynamic and patently relevant.

But both posts make the assumption that the evolution of moral thought that the bible sowed is contained entirely within its pages (er, columns). But that's not what I meant. Scripture serves both as the textual starting point and a historical one: the moral evolution continued after the OT canon was closed two millennia ago, as documented in the Midrash, Mishnah and other Talmudic works. It never ended, in fact, but outside of a yeshiva, no one's likely to notice. Nevertheless, each point of law can be traced back to its source in the text (although a number of them lie outside the text entirely, in a parallel oral tradition; hardly our subject). It's that continued interpretation that applies biblical law to contemporary circumstances, taking care to maintain its integrity. So while the text might prohibit moving the boundary of one's land at the expense of the neighbors', the contemporary scholar understands that the same applies to intellectual property and the online world.
What does this have to do with biblical literalism?

[ReligionStudent]

Many things are likely, but where's the evidence? If it's only in the text, that hardly weakens my argument.
Well for one the non-historicity of the stories such as the one about Ham, have them written for a reason. One such reason, which is generally accepted is that the people said to have descended from Ham were then legitimized as being lower than Israelites


Not at all. You're essentially saying that in the biblical view, women=slaves, but that's clearly not true, considering that women could own and inherit property (ref the daughters of Tz'laph'had, toward the end of Numbers).

I'm not denying that biblical society assigns different roles to men and women - from our perspective, it would seem, unjustly - but to call women "property" under that system is simply inaccurate. Subservient, maybe. let's see, women cannot divorce? Women are purchased from the father for marriage? Hm, something that can be bought and sold, sounds like property.


I'm saying it's immaterial, because the historicity of the story isn't its point. It's truth exists irrespective of its factuality. In a thread concerning biblical literalism, the historicity is the point


Again, you're imputing "ownership" into a relationship with quite a bit more nuance than you assume. Women were not slaves. And just like any other adult, they could accept or reject marriage. The traditional methods of marriage included buying the woman, without ability to reject

It might indicate that, but you're missing some information, emphasized in the Talmud and every subsequent compilation of Jewish law: "If a man refuses to give his wife a divorce, [we] (i.e. the courts) physically force him (e.g. with physical violence) until he says, 'I want to'." The main reason there's such a problem nowadays is that the religious courts in whose province these cases fall are not empowered by the secular authorities to take any real punitive measures against such a scumbag. And since the powers that be will not interfere in what they see as a purely religious matter, the Jewish courts have their hands tied in implementing the very solution that worked until modern times. There are cases where men did not allow it and the courts could not force it.

But it all goes back to the false dichotomy of being property vs. being completely empowered. The truth is somewhere in the middle.



Only if you ignore the fact that the Talmud records ancient precedent as much as it apparently innovates.

The "early Christians were really Jews" argument doesn't hold water, though. The body of early Christian material that is not a specific departure from the prevailing Jewish schools of thought is rather small, as any comparative study of early Midrash and Mishnah to early Christian texts amply demonstrates. Those looking for the Jewish roots of Christian thought invariably turn to the writings of fringe groups such as the Essenes.

As an aside, it has become standard practice among Orthodox Jews to sign a secular prenuptial agreement to be enforced by the state courts to the effect that if she wants a divorce, he must grant it, as a way to eliminate the problem of "chained" women.

Ok, What does any of this have to do with BIBLICAL LITERALISM? Do you not understand that this thread is about this and not interpretations of it?

[ChristineR]

Keep in mind that if a man raped an unmarried woman when no one was around the solution was for him to pay a fine to her father and marry her.

Pondering turtle, marriage is often pretty oppressive to women, but the reality of life on earth today is that we have polygamous societies where women have no rights, monogamous societies where women have almost as many rights as men, a whole bunch of in-between societies, and a few odd societies where things are different.

I'm don't feel I'm capable of imagining a world where the churches held marriage seminars for male-female-male couples and preached against divorcing your second husband. So I don't consider this imaginative situation in any way equal to the reality of polygamy as it is and has been practiced.

[ceo_esq]

Well, lets see, the bible allows for slavery (generally recognized as a terrible and inhuman institution), polygamy (not really horrible, but I copied and pasted the list), racism (its horrible and wrong), and genocide (racism and murder all in one). God specifically orders genocide at points, lays out laws for slavery, and is said to have positioned specific races below others all in the bible.

Could you (or ChristineR) provide specific citations where the bible "gets it wrong" on these issues? I'm not disputing it, just trying to verify what you actually have in mind. To save everyone's time, let's dispense with mere instances of references to these things (which won't do the trick here), or omissions of correct statements, and start with actually wrong statements.

[slingblade]

Could you (or ChristineR) provide specific citations where the bible "gets it wrong" on these issues? I'm not disputing it, just trying to verify what you actually have in mind. To save everyone's time, let's dispense with mere instances of references to these things (which won't do the trick here), or omissions of correct statements, and start with actually wrong statements.

I took "gets it wrong" as meaning the Bible seems to have passages in which God either approves of or orders people to do these things, and in this way, the Bible "gets it" morally "wrong." Or so it seems to some of us.

Am I wrong? :boxedin:

[ReligionStudent]

Could you (or ChristineR) provide specific citations where the bible "gets it wrong" on these issues? I'm not disputing it, just trying to verify what you actually have in mind. To save everyone's time, let's dispense with mere instances of references to these things (which won't do the trick here), or omissions of correct statements, and start with actually wrong statements.

Off the top of my head (I will check a bible later)

Genocide: Joshua, on entering the land is ordered to kill all of the native people in the cities he conqueres.

Racism: The people of Ham are bellow the Israelites (in Genesis I believe) this was in reference to peoples from parts of Africa

Slavery: The bible, throughout Leviticus for example, sets up rules and laws governing slavery.

[qayak]

But both posts make the assumption that the evolution of moral thought that the bible sowed is contained entirely within its pages (er, columns). But that's not what I meant. Scripture serves both as the textual starting point and a historical one: the moral evolution continued after the OT canon was closed two millennia ago, as documented in the Midrash, Mishnah and other Talmudic works. It never ended, in fact, but outside of a yeshiva, no one's likely to notice. Nevertheless, each point of law can be traced back to its source in the text (although a number of them lie outside the text entirely, in a parallel oral tradition; hardly our subject). It's that continued interpretation that applies biblical law to contemporary circumstances, taking care to maintain its integrity. So while the text might prohibit moving the boundary of one's land at the expense of the neighbors', the contemporary scholar understands that the same applies to intellectual property and the online world.

This would also apply to women would it not? For instance, it would be against the law for me to move my boundary to include my neighbour's wive and then claim her as my own? The reason I ask is that I have not seen where women have been declared to no longer be the property of their husband, or father or brother.

And that is the whole point of the OP. It has long been realized that women are the equal of men and are entitled to the same rights. Our laws have been changing to recognize this but biblical laws haven't.

So, yes, there were property disputes back in the day and the laws made to resolve them can indeed be used to solve the same problems today. However, what about where ideas have changed from biblical times as in the example I gave here? How do you use the bible to extend rights to women or do you continue to say that women are not the equal of men and that it is morally correct to view them as property in order to deny them these rights?

[ChristineR]

The entire Bible takes polygamy as a given. Paul (and the author of Timothy) speak against it, but they also speak against sex and marriage in general. This is partly because of the belief that the second coming was imminent, and partly because of the Grecian philosophy of a distaste for the flesh.

The usual argument given is that we need to infer that God disapproves of polygamy from these passages, and that God never bothered to tell the Israelites because he knew they wouldn't listen. But that's absolutely the viewpoint of someone who already disapproves of polygamy and is looking for the Bible to agree with him.

Here's a nice collection of the Bible's thoughts on slavery:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

Philemon in particular contains the glaring omission of a statement that slavery is wrong. It was just taken as a given so there was no need to explicitly approve of it.

I suspect you're going to tell us that lack of explicit condemnation is not the same as tolerance. However anyone who read the Bible with a complete objectiveness toward these practices would conclude that God disapproves of polygamy but permits it, and that God approves of slavery.

[triadboy]

Could you (or ChristineR) provide specific citations where the bible "gets it wrong" on these issues? I'm not disputing it, just trying to verify what you actually have in mind. To save everyone's time, let's dispense with mere instances of references to these things (which won't do the trick here), or omissions of correct statements, and start with actually wrong statements.

If you believe the findings of Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed), that Judah was settled peacefully - then the entire history from Joshua back becomes 'wrong'. There was no marauding Joshua. He was a mythic hero of a peaceful people.

And with this thought in mind, we can clearly see the "destruction" of Jericho as a 'just so' story. Archaeologists know Jericho was in ruins at the time of Joshua - then why the momentous battle engineered by Yahweh?...where 7 priests blow 7 trumpets and blow the walls of Jericho down? It was a tale to explain the ruins. It was a fartin' round the campfire doosey. And somehow - 3000 years later - people believe it is history!!

We can now dispense with the miraculous halting of the sun (?!) during one of Joshua's battles.

This idea is also in line with there being no record of Jews enslaved in Egypt and also no evidence of an Exodus of 2-3 million people from Egypt.

It also removes Moses and his obviously crafted tale.

And finally,
Joshua 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

5:3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.

Now c'mon, ceo_esq - that's just wrong. :)

[JJM 777]

I contend that polygamy is wrong. People are talking about polygamy as if it were an equal and voluntary relationship chosen by a man and one or more woman
Just to get the details clear:

What does "wrong" mean in this context? Non-advisable, should anyone ask your opinion? Or absolutely and universally criminal, a crime against the basic human rights?

If a man (or a woman) agrees with two spouse candidates that the three of them shall form a family together, thus becoming married to each other (living in a country where this would be legal), and having the same rights of divorce as any married person anywhere in the (western) world, would this be "wrong"?

What comes to equality, in the ancient times the fatality of men was high at times of war, where the losing army was often killed to the last man. The Bible describes a scene where "seven women grip the sleeve of one man" after a lost battle, wishing to become married to him -- since no more men survived from the battle than one for every seven women. In this setting polygamy would make the seven women more equally happy than only one of them getting a husband and the rest being doomed to solitude.

Normally, when the number of women and men is quite equal in the society, polygamy of one man and more than one woman causes a national problem of many men being left without a spouse, as the existing women were shared to men inequally.

China is currently creating a national problem of this kind, as female babies are being aborted in large numbers, as parents wish their only legally allowed child to be a boy.

[ChristineR]

Just to get the details clear:

What does "wrong" mean in this context? Non-advisable, should anyone ask your opinion? Or absolutely and universally criminal, a crime against the basic human rights?

Neither. Polygamy is illegal is most countries. In countries where it is legal, it is done in such a way as to make it morally wrong.

Just to get the details clear:
If a man (or a woman) agrees with two spouse candidates that the three of them shall form a family together, thus becoming married to each other (living in a country where this would be legal), and having the same rights of divorce as any married person anywhere in the (western) world, would this be "wrong"?


This situation does not exist anywhere in the world and it's unlikely that it ever will exist. The institute of marriage by definition is a set of duties and privileges granted by a society to persons for the general benefit of that society. A triple marriage of the sort you're talking about is incompatible with any known society's ideas of duty and privilege.

In order to legally engage in a polygamous marriage I'd have to move to a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia, which would mean sacrificing almost all of my rights.

If modern society ever evolves to the point where no one cares who sleeps with whom, the whole institute of marriage will likely be reduced to a symbolic one.


What comes to equality, in the ancient times the fatality of men was high at times of war, where the losing army was often killed to the last man. The Bible describes a scene where "seven women grip the sleeve of one man" after a lost battle, wishing to become married to him -- since no more men survived from the battle than one for every seven women. In this setting polygamy would make the seven women more equally happy than only one of them getting a husband and the rest being doomed to solitude.

This is a vicious circle, as one of the major motives for war was to get other men's women. Those seven women were probably desperate not to be enslaved by the winning side. I wouldn't use the word happy here. Solitude would be the least of their worries.

J
Normally, when the number of women and men is quite equal in the society, polygamy of one man and more than one woman causes a national problem of many men being left without a spouse, as the existing women were shared to men inequally.

China is currently creating a national problem of this kind, as female babies are being aborted in large numbers, as parents wish their only legally allowed child to be a boy.

And yet it seems unlikely that China will be allowing polyandrous marriage anytime soon. And polygamy was quite common in China up until the communist revolution, as was bride-selling.

The point I would like to make is that the whole idea of "free marriage" is an oxymoron. It's a social institution. If we allowed any group of people to marry one another at will with no strings attached, how would it resemble marriage? Private decisions to live in a female-male-female relationship are not the same as polygamous marriage.

[arthwollipot]

This situation does not exist anywhere in the world and it's unlikely that it ever will exist. The institute of marriage by definition is a set of duties and privileges granted by a society to persons for the general benefit of that society. A triple marriage of the sort you're talking about is incompatible with any known society's ideas of duty and privilege.

I beg to differ. I personally am currently living in exactly such an arrangement (the details are different - eg there's four people, not three) and while it is not called "marriage", it comes with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Our solicitor made sure of that.

[The Atheist]

Good on you, I was just about to chip in with polygamous arrangements which work like marriage, but obviously cannot be a legal marriage.

There are relationships out there which are to all intents and purposes polygamous marriages. The participants lack merely a paper certificate.

I'm sure that the majority of polygamous relationships are flawed in some way, but they certainly aren't all flawed.

[JJM 777]

I beg to differ. I personally am currently living in exactly such an arrangement (the details are different - eg there's four people, not three) and while it is not called "marriage", it comes with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Our solicitor made sure of that.

You wouldn't share with us some of the motives that have led to these arrangements?

Supposing that two men and two women found a swinging family of four people, it would easily happen that both women become pregnant from one man, either accidentally or by their choice. Which would potentially lead to a major crisis between members of the extended family.

(Not that this would have much to do with "Bible Literalist Question"...)

[ChristineR]

I beg to differ. I personally am currently living in exactly such an arrangement (the details are different - eg there's four people, not three) and while it is not called "marriage", it comes with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Our solicitor made sure of that.

But this is a private agreement. No offense, but it doesn't fit my definition of marriage. Marriage is a social institution.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US these sorts of agreements never have all the full rights of marriage. There are hundreds, if not thousands. For example, do you have an exemption from the estate tax for property you will to your partners?

[David Swidler]

In trying to explore the boundaries of biblical literalism and its relevance to ancient practice, I apologize if I sidetracked the thread toward specifically non-literal ideas. If anyone wants to discuss that, let's do it in a separate thread.

Sorry for the distraction.

[JJM 777]

it doesn't fit my definition of marriage. (...) For example, do you have an exemption from the estate tax for property

So money is the essence of marriage? But marriages existed before any taxes did. Marriages existed before any states did. Stateless persons (not having any nationality or passport) can be married still today.

Members of the original Apostolic Church in Jerusalem (40 AD) were married, even though they "shared everything with each other, without considering anything as their personal property".

[ponderingturtle]

Pondering turtle, marriage is often pretty oppressive to women, but the reality of life on earth today is that we have polygamous societies where women have no rights, monogamous societies where women have almost as many rights as men, a whole bunch of in-between societies, and a few odd societies where things are different.

We still have plenty of monogamous societies where women have no rights also.

The thing is that the societies where women got rights, they where already monogamous, so the tieing of womens right to monogamy might well just be historical artifact. You could just as easily say that Caucasian men accept that women are equal more readily than other races.

I also find it unlikely that large sections of any society where polygamous with some exceptions, like that polyandry example that everyone brings up in these debates.

I'm don't feel I'm capable of imagining a world where the churches held marriage seminars for male-female-male couples and preached against divorcing your second husband. So I don't consider this imaginative situation in any way equal to the reality of polygamy as it is and has been practiced.

We still have plenty of monogamous societies where women have no rights also.

[ponderingturtle]

I beg to differ. I personally am currently living in exactly such an arrangement (the details are different - eg there's four people, not three) and while it is not called "marriage", it comes with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Our solicitor made sure of that.

I don't think there are many coutnries where you can get all the benefits of marriage through any other means. You might well get as close as can be done by the way the laws are writen, but there are still things that only marriage does.

[ChristineR]

So money is the essence of marriage? But marriages existed before any taxes did. Marriages existed before any states did. Stateless persons (not having any nationality or passport) can be married still today.

Members of the original Apostolic Church in Jerusalem (40 AD) were married, even though they "shared everything with each other, without considering anything as their personal property".

Money has nothing to do with it. Where did you get that? The tax exemption is one of many rights (monetary and otherwise) granted to married couples by society. Social institutions predate the state.

The Apostolic Church granted rights to it's married members, and more to the point, the larger community granted rights also.

[ChristineR]

We still have plenty of monogamous societies where women have no rights also.

The thing is that the societies where women got rights, they where already monogamous, so the tieing of womens right to monogamy might well just be historical artifact. You could just as easily say that Caucasian men accept that women are equal more readily than other races.

I also find it unlikely that large sections of any society where polygamous with some exceptions, like that polyandry example that everyone brings up in these debates.


We still have plenty of monogamous societies where women have no rights also.

Women in monogamous societies at least have the right not to be one of multiple wives. This gives them more influence over their husbands. There's also the right not to be arbitrarily divorced. If you could marry a woman and divorce her an hour later then monogamy would be meaningless. True, plenty of these monogamous societies treat women pretty badly, but all other things being equal, the monogamous society is a step up in woman's rights.

And all other things are not equal of course. There is a clear correlation between societies that forbid polygamy and societies that grant rights to women.

Here's another way to look at it. If you assume women and children are property with no social rights of their own, polygamy is the natural result. Monogamous societies must see some sort of benefit for providing women at least the protections associated with an exclusive piece of property.

I see no obvious correlations between race and polygamy.

[ponderingturtle]

Women in monogamous societies at least have the right not to be one of multiple wives.

That is not a right that they can choose to use or not, it is a forced condition

This gives them more influence over their husbands.
Evidence? Does someone with only one wife in say Saudi Arabia have the wife exerting more influence over them than one with multiple wives? This would seem to be far more something that varies individuals more than.

In the US in cases where one partner makes most of the decisions how often is that one the husband vs the wife? In my family it would seem that in marriages where one person dominates the decision making it is the woman.

So why would multiple wives change this? Other than more domination for the men I mean.

Hmm, maybe polygamy is not such a good idea.

There's also the right not to be arbitrarily divorced.

Evidence? Please support that monogamous societies offer more rights to women than polygamous societies. Looking at the ancient world, the Greek and roman cultures would seem to not have monogamy leading to a better situation for women.

If you could marry a woman and divorce her an hour later then monogamy would be meaningless. True, plenty of these monogamous societies treat women pretty badly, but all other things being equal, the monogamous society is a step up in woman's rights.

Evidence?

And all other things are not equal of course. There is a clear correlation between societies that forbid polygamy and societies that grant rights to women.
And evidence that this is not a historic artifact? There is clear correlation between technological development and the innovators not being of African decent, that does not mean it is anything but a historic artifact.

Here's another way to look at it. If you assume women and children are property with no social rights of their own, polygamy is the natural result. Monogamous societies must see some sort of benefit for providing women at least the protections associated with an exclusive piece of property.


Wrong, this was not to far off from the Pater-Familiaris of Rome, and that was absolute domination of the household, and yet there was not a history of polygamy there.

Fundamentally correlation does not equal causation that seems to be where you keep going astray.

[Jon.]

I don't think there are many coutnries where you can get all the benefits of marriage through any other means. You might well get as close as can be done by the way the laws are writen, but there are still things that only marriage does.

In Canada, common-law couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, have all the rights of married couples. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the Charter of Rights' guarantee of equality covers this. The only difference is that one has to live common-law for a certain period of time (usually 1 or 2 years, depending on the specific right sought) to get the benefits, while married couples get them immediately upon marriage.

[ChristineR]

Fundamentally correlation does not equal causation that seems to be where you keep going astray.

The problem with saying correlation does not equal causation is that there are no counter examples and there is plenty of evidence that the origin of polygamy is the status of women as property.


Evidence? Does someone with only one wife in say Saudi Arabia have the wife exerting more influence over them than one with multiple wives? This would seem to be far more something that varies individuals more than.

In the US in cases where one partner makes most of the decisions how often is that one the husband vs the wife? In my family it would seem that in marriages where one person dominates the decision making it is the woman.

So why would multiple wives change this? Other than more domination for the men I mean.

Hmm, maybe polygamy is not such a good idea.


Your hypothetical example supports my claim. If your male family member was unhappy with his wife's decision making he could marry a second wife and undermine her authority. Even the threat of acquiring a second wife that she disliked could be enough to make her less domineering.

That is not a right that they can choose to use or not, it is a forced condition


If a woman wants her husband to have other female sex partners she can permit this even in monogamous societies. This is fairly common. However these mistresses do not have the same legal status as the wife so she at least as a degree of control over the situation.


Evidence? Please support that monogamous societies offer more rights to women than polygamous societies. Looking at the ancient world, the Greek and roman cultures would seem to not have monogamy leading to a better situation for women.


Please name a single polygamous society where women have a respectable level of rights.

The rise of woman's rights has paralleled the rise of monogamy, and historically they have always gone together.


And evidence that this is not a historic artifact? There is clear correlation between technological development and the innovators not being of African decent, that does not mean it is anything but a historic artifact.


Neither slavery nor the oppression of women are what I would call historic artifacts.

Evidence? Please support that monogamous societies offer more rights to women than polygamous societies. Looking at the ancient world, the Greek and roman cultures would seem to not have monogamy leading to a better situation for women.



Wrong, this was not to far off from the Pater-Familiaris of Rome, and that was absolute domination of the household, and yet there was not a history of polygamy there.

As I said before, there are many monogamous societies where women are badly treated. There are no polygamous societies where woman are well-treated.

You seem to be arguing about some hypothetical imaginary society where everyone agrees that it's okay for men to have multiple wives and not okay for wives to have multiple husbands yet nobody notices that this is fundamentally discriminatory, nobody argues women are inferior, and nobody suggests that things should be changed! There's never been such a beast, and I doubt if it ever will.

[arthwollipot]

Supposing that two men and two women found a swinging family of four people, it would easily happen that both women become pregnant from one man, either accidentally or by their choice. Which would potentially lead to a major crisis between members of the extended family.

You're making an assumption here. You're assuming that the relationship is sexual between all four partners. In fact, one of us (only one) is gay.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US these sorts of agreements never have all the full rights of marriage. There are hundreds, if not thousands. For example, do you have an exemption from the estate tax for property you will to your partners?

I don't know about the UK either, and we know how traditional and conservative the US tends to be. As far as I know (and you'd have to ask one of my partners to be sure) our arrangement carries all of the legal standing of marriage.

And that's all I'll say on this thread, as it is off-topic. If you want me to explain more, feel free to start another thread and I'll elaborate.

[qayak]

You're making an assumption here. You're assuming that the relationship is sexual between all four partners. In fact, one of us (only one) is gay.

They are also making the assumption that the people involved are not intelligent enough to know that this might happen, nor mature enough to deal with it when it does.

[arthwollipot]

They are also making the assumption that the people involved are not intelligent enough to know that this might happen, nor mature enough to deal with it when it does.

Very true.

[ceo_esq]

I suspect you're going to tell us that lack of explicit condemnation is not the same as tolerance.

No, I wouldn't have thought it was necessary to point that out to anyone. Is it necessary?


However anyone who read the Bible with a complete objectiveness toward these practices would conclude that God disapproves of polygamy but permits it, and that God approves of slavery.

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who could "read the Bible with complete objectiveness toward these practices" (whatever that means" so I feel a great deal less confident than you in speculating about the conclusions such a person would draw. However, while I'm probably not entirely objective about slavery, I am utterly indifferent to whether the God of the Bible approves of it or not. It simply doesn't emerge from my reading that he does.

[ponderingturtle]

The problem with saying correlation does not equal causation is that there are no counter examples and there is plenty of evidence that the origin of polygamy is the status of women as property.

I would think that strong social inequalities in men would be a more likely cause. If you can justify high status men having many wives while low status men can not get any, you create the same situation.

You are simply picking the conclusion you want.


Your hypothetical example supports my claim. If your male family member was unhappy with his wife's decision making he could marry a second wife and undermine her authority. Even the threat of acquiring a second wife that she disliked could be enough to make her less domineering.

I thought that as property he could simply beat her as any society where that is an option women are by definition property? You seem to be mixing your claims.


If a woman wants her husband to have other female sex partners she can permit this even in monogamous societies. This is fairly common. However these mistresses do not have the same legal status as the wife so she at least as a degree of control over the situation.

Wrong, you see a female sex partner is not a wife. They get none of the rights and legal support that a wife gets. They do not have any choice about entering into such a situation even if they want to.


Please name a single polygamous society where women have a respectable level of rights.
Name one polygamous society that claimed "All men are created equal". You are looking for enlightenment principles, but are providing no evidence that the enlightenment is restricted to monogamous cultures, and I even provided an alternate explanation as to why this might be that has nothing to do with womens rights at all.

A culture that believes that all people are equal seems less likely to have the weatherly to have many more rights than the less wealthy, so as an egalitarian measure you distribute the women more equally in a monogamous manor.

These ideas might later be expanded to include women. So here we have a situation where they are not causally related to each other but both caused by a different issue

The rise of woman's rights has paralleled the rise of monogamy, and historically they have always gone together.
Evidence? The rise of womens rights happened in a monogamous society, but there are plenty of monogamous societies that women have few rights.

Of course polygamy is much more attractive if women have fewer rights as you can control them more, preventing the situation from getting as complex as it might.


Neither slavery nor the oppression of women are what I would call historic artifacts.
What would you call then the correlation between Christianity and womens rights? Clearly we need to spread the word to liberate these women.


As I said before, there are many monogamous societies where women are badly treated. There are no polygamous societies where woman are well-treated.
Define ill treated and well treated.


You seem to be arguing about some hypothetical imaginary society where everyone agrees that it's okay for men to have multiple wives and not okay for wives to have multiple husbands yet nobody notices that this is fundamentally discriminatory, nobody argues women are inferior, and nobody suggests that things should be changed! There's never been such a beast, and I doubt if it ever will.

No, I am arguing that I do not see how your position is not the same as "the Heathens mistreat women". As real equality stems from one culture at one time in history it is impossible to say what is coincidence in its cause and what is related to it.

[ponderingturtle]

You're making an assumption here. You're assuming that the relationship is sexual between all four partners. In fact, one of us (only one) is gay.



I don't know about the UK either, and we know how traditional and conservative the US tends to be. As far as I know (and you'd have to ask one of my partners to be sure) our arrangement carries all of the legal standing of marriage.

And that's all I'll say on this thread, as it is off-topic. If you want me to explain more, feel free to start another thread and I'll elaborate.

I would find that interesting, as legal alternatives to marriage are one of the more unclear portions when the various marriage debates get going on this board.

[zooterkin]

As I must admit to being intrigued, here's a pointer to a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85428) that JJM 777 started regarding extended marriages, following arthwollipot's suggestion.

[JJM 777]

If you want me to explain more, feel free to start another thread and I'll elaborate.
I started the thread "Extended marriages" in this same section of JREF forum.