Conference turris::womannotes-v1

What I am going to do, is look in my concordance for generic female terms, and
give the verses that look like they could be discriminatory.  This may take a
loooong time, but I'm fairly certain we will develop a pretty accurate picture.
All quotes are from the New American Bible, Catholic Edition. 

I would like to point out that there is (naturally enough) a major difference
between the Old Testament, and the New Testament.  I consider the NT primarily
Christian, and the OT primarily 'Jewish'.  To me as a Christian, the NT is the
heart of my faith, and when in doubt, I prefer to follow the NT. 

Alternative words for Woman:  Woman, Bondwoman, Kinswoman, Woman's,
Womenservants, Freewoman, Wife, Female

WOMAN

Genesis: 2:18

"The Lord God said: "It is not good for the Man to be alone.  I will make a
suitable Partner for him". 

The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man.
When he brought her to the man  the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman.' for out of 'her
man' this one has been taken."  That is why a man leaves his father and mother
and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

   Interesting that it does not literally say that woman was "created" after
   man.


Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing;
in pain shall you bring forth children.  Yet your urge shall be for your
husband, and he shall be your master.

To the man he said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of
which I had forbidden you to eat, "Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil
shall you eat its yeild all the days or your life.  Thorns and thistles shall
it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field.  By the sweat of
your face shall you get bread to eat, Untill you return to the ground from
which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return."

    Whose punishment was worse? 

Exodus 21:22

When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a
miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as
the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the
judges.

Leviticus 12:2 (female sexual impurity)

"Tell the Israelites:  When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy. he
shall be unclean for seven days, with the same cleanness as at her menstrual
period.  On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be
circumcised and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming
purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the
sanctuary till the days of her purification are fullfilled.  If she gives birth
to a girl for fourteen days she shall be unclean as at her menstruation, after
which she shall spend sixty six days in becoming purified of her blood. 

15:16 (1-15 are about male 'sexual' impurity)

When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and
be unclean untill evening.  Any piece of cloth or leather with seed on it shall
be washed with water and be unclean until evening.

If a man lies with a woman, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean
untill evening. 

When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity
for seven days. ... (19-30 are about menstral impurity)

Numbers 5:29

This then is the law for jealousy: When a woman goes astray while under the
authority of her jusband and acts impurely, or when such a feeling of jealousy
comes over a man that he becomes suspicious of his wife, he shall have her
stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this law [test] in full to
her.  The man shall be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear such guilt as
she may have.

 
   That should be enough to get discussion started...

   Jim Baranski

    RE .1:
    
    >When he brought her to the man  the man said: "This one, at last, is
    >bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called
    >'woman.' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."  That is why a
    >man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of
    >them become one body." 

   >Interesting that it does not literally say that woman was "created" after
   >man.

    	"Out of her man this one has been taken" sounds pretty unequal
         me - especially since as humans reproduce people come out of
         women.  While it does not say, literally, that the woman was
    	 created after the man, if he were not created first, how did
     	 God take the man's rib and create the woman?

    
        
     >Whose punishment was worse? 
    
    	The man still has is autonomy - the woman has to submit
    	to whatever the man wants.  Yes, he needs to work, but
    	he is "his own boss", so to speak.
                           
    >Exodus 21:22
    
    >When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a
    >miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as
    >much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the
    >presence of the judges. 
    
    This passage implies ownership of the woman by her husband.  Similar
    to passages of someone damaging your property.



>Leviticus 12:2 (female sexual impurity)

>"Tell the Israelites:  When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy. he
>shall be unclean for seven days, with the same cleanness as at her menstrual
>period.  On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be
>circumcised and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming
>purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the
>sanctuary till the days of her purification are fullfilled.  If she gives birth
>to a girl for fourteen days she shall be unclean as at her menstruation, after
>which she shall spend sixty six days in becoming purified of her blood. 

    Offline, we have discussed this passage.   While it may be a good
    thing for her to be "unclean" for a few days, so that she is left
    alone to rest, why the difference depending on whether the baby
    was a boy or a girl?  Sounds *definitely* sexist to me.  Even at
    that, why the prohibition against goint into the sanctuary for 70+
    days?  Does God not love mothers enough to want them in his presence?
    
    >15:16 (1-15 are about male 'sexual' impurity)

>When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and
>be unclean untill evening.  Any piece of cloth or leather with seed on it shall
>be washed with water and be unclean until evening.
    
    Why a punishment for a natural occurance - esp. one that is not
    totally voluntary?  God made men the way he did.  Now punish them
    for the way their body works.  Sounds like a child-abuser god who
    makes things one way, then punishes them for being that way.

>If a man lies with a woman, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean
>untill evening.                                                 
    
    Again, why the prohibition against something natural - and NECESSARY
    for the survival of the race?  At least this one is equally oppressive.

>When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity
>for seven days. ... (19-30 are about menstral impurity)
                                                        
    Again, punishment for a natural, involuntary occurance.
    
>    Numbers 5:29

>This then is the law for jealousy: When a woman goes astray while under the
>authority of her jusband and acts impurely, or when such a feeling of jealousy
>comes over a man that he becomes suspicious of his wife, he shall have her
>stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this law [test] in full to
>her.  The man shall be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear such guilt as
>she may have.

    Wonderful.  A man becomes suspicious of his wife, so the priest
    can punish her.  He is free of guilt, even for a wrongful accusation.
    Clearly unfair, as a man is allowed multiple wives and concubines.
    This one could get interesting in connection with 635 and 636...

Elizabeth (Who believes in a God who loves us the way we are)

    Folks,
    
    Substantial work already exists in the published realm.  I recommend
    again that reference be made to Phylllis Trible's ' Texts of Terror
    ' -----  in which she highlights four stories from the hebrew
    scriptures with some analysis on the indignities [ polite term ]
    endured by women.  This is a highly respected biblical scholar who
    has earned the respect of her peers for her articulate writings.
    
    

    re .1, .2
    
    Let's not go overboard with the King James. It is often a poor
    translation (ie, this nonsense about Isaiah prophesying a "virgin"
    birth when he actually said "maiden shall give birth" (young girl,
    no connotations).
    
    About Eve, I will have to go home and read my bible again.
    
    About a "sexist God." Lots of nasty things have been said about
    the old testament God. The NT God is sooooo much nicer. Well, the
    God of the Torah (the first 5 books) layed it on the line, and told
    you the rules. Interpretation was (supposedly) partially handed
    down in oral form, and partially determined by man (in this case,
    the gender is almost correct usage, whatever you may think of it).
    God did not say sex is evil -- in fact, while the bible decries
    certain so-called "abnormal" acts, sex is portrayed matter of factly
    and without prejudice. Contrast that with the absurd pronouncements
    of some of the disciples (who were basically men using their position
    to "add in" some views of their own ;-) )
    
    If you look at the words "unclean" as "evil" or "disgusting" then
    yes, women are being discriminated against. On the other hand, if
    you realize that the word is actually "ritually impure" and that
    the only reason you would go to the temple is to give a sacrifice,
    then it is not really something bad, just a restriction on behavior.
    And it is one, that, like MANY applying to both sexes in Judaism
    (such as keeping kosher) is COMPLETELY inexplicable, with no reason
    given, other than because you are told to.
    
    If you read the Talmud (the legal, written-down version of the oral
    law) you see things like: women having the right to sexual satisfaction
    (as a grounds for DIVORCE I believe!) Women having to accept a divorce
    in order for it to be legal, the outlawing of polygamy on the grounds
    of unfairness, etc. etc. Incidentally, the woman could NOT initiate
    a divorce, but since the rabbinate was the legal body, recalcitrant husbands
    was put in PRISON until he gave it.
    
    Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the so-called
    "Old Testament God" (a Christian label) not my own :-)
    
    Serious Disclaimer: I don't believe any of this s**t but the bad
    press of the old testament god is something that irks me. Christianity
    has traditionally tried to do a smear job on other religions. God
    is JUST -- if you don't like it, accept it, whatever, that is YOUR
    PROBLEM. If you accept what Judaism or Christianity tells you, it
    is essentially that God is so far above us that we cannot comprehend
    her reasoning.
    

    re .-*
    
    I might add that if you look at the *entire* bible, you tend to
    notice certain patterns. God does not necessarily make sense to
    humans. You might also notice that the pronouncements are in human
    terms. Do modern people really think God wants animal sacrifices?
    No, but the early Jews were from pagan backgrounds, and God dealt
    with them in a manner they would understand.
    
    In the same way, you can look on God's actions as not rocking the
    boat, so that people could deal with it. Say you were Abraham. God
    tells you to sacrifice your son. That, you can understand, it's
    something that's been done. So you are prepared to do it. If God
    tells you to lose all but one wife, you say "Why, am I less deserving
    than the rest of the neighbors?"
    
    It takes a long time before a culture is ready to accept radical
    new ideas. Note that the Jews were constantly backsliding because
    they were surrounded by idol worshippers, and still had an
    idol-worshipping mentality. In the same way, society's attitude
    towards women has undergone a tremendous change for the better.
    But that was not God's problem, it was a people problem. So why
    didn't God step in and intervene? You tell me.... I personally think
    she's an MCP.
    
    COUNTERPOINT
    
    There are numerous stories which are downright nasty in their treatment
    of women. I feel that these are all people-related, but others will
    no doubt disagree. For example:
    
    Jacob (Yaakov) has twelve sons, and one daughter, Dina. She is raped by
    a local prince, who enjoys her so much, he asks for her hand (what
    a deal, huh?) One of the twelve sons tells him ok, but he'll have
    to convert, and all his town as well. When the men are all laid
    up with the pain of circumcision (guys, time to groan) they kill
    all of them. The kid is roundly criticised by his father. Moral?
    I dunno, but the twelve boys were not shining examples at any time,
    although one of them, Joseph (yo' seph) is considered a "righteous man"
    (tzaddik). Moral? Don't be a woman in the old testament, you can
    get hurt. Did the boys do well? No. Was the prince (Schem?) criticized? He
    got the ultimate criticism.
    
    I think the story is a *social* commentary, not a religious one.
    Much of the bible is that way. It does not say that women should
    not be treated as chattel, but every nasty act is shown as such.
    In terms of sin, the Talmud states that a sin against God can always
    be forgiven, but that sometimes, punishment MUST be part of the
    process.
    
    Sin against your fellow people
    can only be forgiven if you try to undo the damage, and in some
    cases, such as murder, there is no way to undo the damage. Death
    is seen as the way to atone, to balance out the crime.
    
    This is something primitive people could understand. Emancipate
    women? Do you want me to emancipate my horse as well?
    
    Sigh. No doubt I'll get flamed for this one. Though I've tried to
    present the traditional Jewish view (as taught in an orthodox yeshiva)
    I will state again that I do not believe any of this. God does not
    author trashy sex novels. 'Nuff said.

    RE: entries by whyvax::Kruger......fascinating.

    re .5
    
    Of course, if the husband runs off, the rabbinate can't put him
    in prison, and there's no divorce, the wife can't remarry.
    Yes, wives can run off too, however their status restricts their
    mobility: an unescorted man can travel, but an unescorted woman?
                               
    Or horse?
    Gee, as far back as I can remember, women are smarter than horses.
    (Yeah, I know: women pay taxes, but horses get curb bits put in
    their mouths.)
    This equine analogy is a bit insulting to both sides of the fence.
    Perhaps this is a blind-spot of mine, never having been a slave-owner.

    Reply to .9; Russ,
    
    Why do you think it was woman's problem? 
    
    In the past politicians and those in the place of power have insisted
    that such things as procreation rights and equal pay were *women's*
    *issues* and as such easily ignored. Saying that relations between the
    sexes is woman's problem begs the question and seems to be a cop out,
    a tired one at that.

Hey guys, how about taking the ratholes somewhere else for a change?

Martin.

    liz the person speaking here:
    [insert all standard disclaimers here]

    
    Hold on Russ. Who are you, a young, white male, to tell us women
    what we should and should not be talking about? You are a member
    of a large community. Should we discuss issues of interest to 
    Russ Pollitz, and avoid issues not of interest to him just because
    he offers an opinion about what should be discussed here? Do you
    think that you're helping the goals of the community by saying that
    topics we 'talk' about are "not only nonsensical, but destructive"?
    
    I'm sorry men are upset about "losing contact with Women". That's truly
    a difficult issue. Is it necessary, however, to discuss that issue here?
    Is it necessary for the efforts of the community to be focused around
    placating, educating, and supporting men? Is it necessary for the
    members of the community to interrupt their agenda for the benefit of
    men whose feelings are hurt? 
    
    You suggest that women listen to men in an effort to understand
    their problems. You mention that men are "banging their heads trying
    to figure why Women don't want them (here)". May I suggest that
    a less painful path to understanding is just what you yourself have
    suggested. Try listening for a change. (We can't even hear ourselves
    think for all the head banging going on).
    
    In the rape note, someone recently entered a note saying that the
    attempt to "gain respect" by overpowering another is morally
    contemptible. But that's an excellent metaphor for what's been
    happening in this file for weeks now.
    

    Losing patience 
    Liz Augustine

    re. .8
    
    In comparing a wife to a horse I was giving the analogy of property,
    since others had stated that women were treated as chattel (and
    I agree). Why do you feel insulted?
    
    Women could travel alone in rabbinic times, although maybe it wasn't
    considered wise. Then again, I know lots of people who won't walk
    alone at night in a big city. In a world where a lone woman is
    considered fair game, it makes sense not to walk alone. I don't recall
    it ever coming up in the bible.
    
    There are prohibitions in the Talmud against a woman being alone
    with a man. The prohibition is to avoid temptation, and it is a
    rabbinic directive, without, as far as I know, any punishment for
    doing so. In fact, crimes like adultery are largely your own business.
    While officially, adultery deserves the death penalty, the rabbinate
    legislated this out of existence by requiring good proof (2 witnesses).
    Thus, only very unlucky adulterers died.
    
    The problem of a runaway husband is a bad one. The rabbinate did
    what they could in the framework of the law. They did not feel they
    had the authority to change that much. 

    The issue of purity/impurity is related to the physical vs. the
    spiritual. Why the bible classifies menstruation as a greater class
    than nocturnal ejaculation, I don't know, but either way, the impurity
    is not a result of sin, and is no one's fault. Nore is it limiting,
    except for the case of menstruation, which limits sexual activity.
    
    Just a point of interest: According to Jewish law, the act of sex
    constitutes marriage (although kind of a sleazy way; the ceremony
    is considered an appropriate precursor). The ceremony can be as
    short as a sentence, before two witnesses (who must be male, one
    of the MANY instances of sexual discrimination by the rabbinate)
    with a gift of more than a penny's value (kind of like civil contracts
    involving "$1 + considerations" given from the groom to the bride.
    The bride must accept.
    
    Back to the first point in the above paragraph. Since sex constitutes
    adultery, yes, a man is in better shape until he has sex with someone
    he knows has has sex before and is not divorced. At that point,
    he is guilty of adultery, and merits the death penalty. Barring
    a large ratio of women to men (not common then, although child-bearing
    and medical knowledge was more advanced than later in the middle ages)
    there are simply no women available for polygamy except for the
    very rich and powerful. So in practice, polygamy is rare, although
    it is known because of the patriarchs.

    Since the notes by Kruger, I have been fascinated with this topic.
    It was much to my surprise yesterday to open TIME magazine and find
    that the Talmud is now being translated into readable Hebrew, and
    plans are to translate to English as well.  About 1/3 of the Talmud
    has been completed now, or possibly more.  Half of the Babylonian
    Talmud, anyway.  I am looking forward to being able to read this,
    since I have learned so much from this note (topic) alone.
    
                  Carol

The Talmud is a written codification of the "Oral Law" -- which was
given to the Jews along with the Torah.  In addition, it contains
debates and confrontations as to the meaning of the written and
oral law.

For example, the Torah says one may not work on the Sabbath.  The
Talmud defines when Sabbath begins and ends, and what constitutes
"work."

The Talmud was written during the first 400-600 years of the Christian
era in order to preserve the oral law (and interpretations) during
the diaspora.  It contains:

-- The Mishnah "repetition, teaching" -- a systematic collection of
   religious/legal decisions developing the laws of the Torah.

-- The Gemara "completion, decision, teaching" containing supplementary
   material.

along with additional material that represents the orthodox Rabbinical
literature.

In a civil context, you might reasonably consider the Talmud as a
combination of Supreme Court decisions (and disagreements) and law textbook.

Martin.

    amplification on .19
    
    The Talmud is composed of the Mishnah, written in Hebrew about 600-300
    B.C.E. (Before the Common Era, the Jewish way of saying B.C.) The
    Gemara was an elaboration on the mishnah, composed around 0 B.C.E.
    It is written in Aramaic, a somewhat related but different language
    that I for one never fully mastered. Usually present, but not an
    intrinsic part of the document, are various commentaries written
    in Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, English, and many other languages.
    Exactly which ones are put in depends on the edition, of course.
    The original text, however, is not a translation and is therefore
    unchanged.
    
    The entire Talmud is characterized by many dissenting opinions,
    and unresolved arguments that are compromized on and "left for the
    messiah to resolve." It is both a legal document, a code by which
    a Jew is to live his/her life, and a historical document.
    
    The torah says not to work on the Sabbath. The mishna defines work,
    and states punishments for disobeying this law (Judaism was a theocracy
    at this time). The gemara discusses actual situations, argues the
    issues back and forth in a very courtroom style, and gives a record
    of what can only be called precedents.
    
    There is a version of the Talmud coming out in Hebrew, but as far
    as I know, there has been no attempt to translate large segments
    of it to English. There are 64 Tractates (BIG books).
    
    dov
    

    This IS very interesting ..... There seems to be a sufficient
    "Biblical perspective" of women from a Jewish perspective, from
    a Christian (Catholic variety) perspective, and from a non-believer
    perspective. So I will add my own perception (or a taste of it)
    to add to this philosophic quorum:
    
    We could debate the reasons why the OT laws were established and/or
    why they were defined as they were. We could discuss the premise
    for any or all "legal" or moral matters that existed from the Dawn
    of Man (Adam/Eve if you will) to the time of Jesus Christ's sacrifice
    on the cross - which, from the Christian perspective, is when changes
    came about for such matters.
    
    You CANNOT dismiss the existence of Satan from any consideration
    of WHY laws existed as they did, and WHY the Messiah had to come
    to rectify the nature of Satan's rule over this earth. It isn't
    a simple "this quote vs. that quote" or this act vs. that act
    understanding. It is an involved study that requires more than faith
    or perceived reason to fathom - that is why Biblical debates continue
    adinfinitum by those who believe and study within the context of
    their faith. 
    
    So it should come as no surprise to my fellow noters when I state
    that, in my view - from my understanding of the Old & New Testaments,
    that the Lord's view of women is pretty much the same as His view
    of men. There are some points that may be deemed "sexist" by a
    humanistic oriented society, but such is expected. As for how God
    views women, I need only look at such terrific women as Ruth, Rahab
    and others in the OT to know how the Lord cherishes such people
    as these. There are many examples in the NT as well that show how
    God's love lives within their lives. It isn't a gender-specific
    thing to consider when we attempt to view God's "treatment" of people.
    It is a matter of heart/attitude that defines how He views us -
    individually - male/female.
    
    On that premise (from my point of view), I can certainly match "quote
    for quote" example for example with those that would issue Biblical
    "proof" for God's injustice (via man or otherwise) toward women
    or individuals in the Bible. Perhaps you aren't aware of how involved
    a process that can become, but believe me it is a protracted endeavor!
    If you'd like a practical example, just call up any ol' topic in
    the CHRISTIAN conference and see what I mean.
    
    I am willing to take a stand, however, and represent (please join
    me if you're out there) the pro-women view (God/Bible view) in this
    discussion. I will contend with the adverse points and challenge
    the basis for such Biblical interpretation, expecting a reciprocal
    approach from those who contend the Bible is anti-woman. 
    
    If this is desirable, let the debate begin (and continue). 
    Otherwise, it's been a pleasure joining in the discussion.
    
                                                Marvin

    Actually, you can quite easily dismiss Satan from the OT laws. 
    The only Satan that appears in the OT is a sort of "Devil's advocate",
    who points out each of a person's flaws, so that God can forgive
    them, or to test a person (i.e., Job).
    
    Up until a few hundred years before Christ, the Jews didn't believe
    in an afterlife.  When they did, it was just a dreary place of the
    dead - no judgment - everyone went to the same place.
    
    The Jewish concept of the Messiah was a political leader - one who
    would throw out the Roman rule and establish an autonomous Judea.
    The concept of overthrowing Satan wasn't even thought about.
    
    In fact, the only time Jesus and Satan talk to each other, Satan
    is trying to tempt Jesus.  Satan fails, thus establishing Jesus'
    worthiness.
    
    Elizabeth

    Reply to the last -.2;
    
    I threw out both God and Satan as being two sides of the same
    mythological coin. In the Eastern view God and Satan are akin to
    a natural high and low pressure system. One pushes, one pulls.
    
    And if memory serves me correctly, our Jewish friends basicly stated
    that Satan was a Christian invention.  Perhaps the Greek and Roman
    influence of Janus and/or the ancient Inanna/Ereskigal mythologies
    penetrated the Christian sects at an early date. 
    
    To me both mythological personages are out of the picture and the
    race of man is in the forefront as inventor and perpetrator of
    the domination type societies.

    re .-2
    
    Minor point of etiquette -- I would suggest the use of 'People' rather
    than 'Man'. I don't find the usage offensive, but there are people
    who do.
    
    The concept of a Satan (NOT a yin/yang philosophy, which is quite
    different) began in Persia, (Ahriman/Ahura Mazda). Dualism is a
    convenient way to explain suffering in the world, but it doesn't
    sit well with monotheism. Christianity solved this problem by placing
    Satan subordinate to God (at least in the long run).
    
    And of course, the only place Satan is mentioned in the bible is
    in Job, although the Oral traditions are full of this type of thing
    (presumably borrowed from other religions, notably Christianity).

    I love it ..... I really don't know where to begin, with the few
    moments I can afford to spend here. Interesting responses there,
    extracting and focusing on the "concept" of Satan. Somehow I didn't
    quite expect *this* approach, but let me offer my perspective to
    the past few replies (forgive my synoptic overview, please).
    
    First, I will say that there are indeed MORE than just one reference
    to Satan in the Bible. Granted, many refer to him as the Devil,
    Lucifer, the Evil one, Evil or other such terms (rather apparent
    to whom they refer anyway). There are also *numerous* inferences
    and symbolic references to Satan throughout the Bible, in both the
    Old & New Testaments. To dispute the claim that he is found in only
    Job of the OT, try looking at Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen
    from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down
    to the ground, which didst weaken the nations".
    
    You will find references to Satan in Genesis, 1Kings, Daniel, Joel
    and Ezekiel (9 & 33 I believe), in the OT. In the NT, you will find
    references to him in Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians (as in 4:27),
    and Revelations (13:16-18, 20:4-10, 21:) just to name a few. Sorry
    I can't offer more specifics, if I had a Bible here for reference,
    I'm sure I could.
    
    The name of this "entity" was originally Lucifer, or Hehlel' (Hebrew),
    or Ho Heospho'ros (Greek) - Lucifer being the Latin equivalent of
    the other two. Satan became his name once he was cast down to the
    earth. Satan certainly was NOT a Christian invention, unless you
    consider the OT a Christian invention, which it is not.
    
    As far as the contention that Christianity or Judeo-Christian thought
    is somehow an offshoot of Greek or Roman influences, that's really
    stretching it ..... our entire Western culture is such a thing,
    but the Bible does not reflect anything more than a nebulous
    resemblance to the theologic or philosophic thought of those cultures.
    Some would even go so far as to say the Bible derived it's stories
    from earlier Babylonian tales, and I will agree there are similarities;
    but the Bible will still stand alone when weighed against any other
    doctrine outside of it's compositional parameters.
    
    Mythological personages ? ........ well, I can see where some might
    view God & Satan as such, given their point of view is leaning toward
    such personages being fictictious or imaginary. But you must be
    cautious when defining mythology, since it predisposes a view that
    notions are based on convenience or tradition, not on fact - and
    there is enough historical fact to substantiate Biblical events
    and characters. The subsequent belief in those "supernatural" powers
    we define as God & Satan, is of course everything, when it comes
    to accepting them as Reality or Mythology. I will grant your belief
    in Mythology if you will grant my belief in Reality.
    
    As for the notion that the "race of man is in the forefront as inventor
    and perpetrator of the domination type societies" - I couldn't agree
    with you more - except I see it from the other end of the spectrum.
    Man (People if you insist) has indeed elevated Man to an esteemed
    position - it is the very root of Secular Humanism, which can
    essentially be defined as the most prevalent "religion" in our modern
    world.  (That should open another can of worms - but I still love
    it).
    
    Let's see where this all leads now ..... it's been fun !
    
                                                                Marvin

    I can appreciate how the foregoing theological details can be construed
    as necessary background information, but my sense is that it would be
    difficult to carry on very much more such argument without the whole
    thing seeming like a tangent or rathole.  Can we presume that a
    return to the actual topic is now imminent?
    
    						=maggie

    A.S.  The following was acceptable within this topic to one
    moderator.  I added some stuff to make it more applicable anyhow.
    
    Marvin,

    Your statements about references to Satan in the Bible demonstrate
    a problem with such classifications.  When Dov Kruger was speaking
    of the Bible, he meant the Jewish Bible, which intersects with your
    idea of the Old Testament.  What I was taught in a course called
    World Literature was that there were only three references to Satan
    in the Old Testament, and two of them were in the Book of Job.  Then
    I was told that the Book of Job was foreign in origin; it was not
    written by any Jew, but was accepted in because its philosophical
    stance was correct/appropriate/true.

    So, given the above, there is only one other reference to Satan in
    the Old Testament (No, my teacher did not say where it was.), yet
    you claim there are many.  If this were CHRISTIANITY or even RELIGION,
    that would be considered a valid claim.  However, in this notefile
    we look at things from cultural and historical viewpoints.

    You say that Satan is mentioned in Genesis, but this is not so.  The
    *serpent* is the character mentioned.  In old versions of the Goddess
    religion, the serpent is her consort.  The serpent therein is
    considered to be the symbol of Immortality and Wisdom.  It is the
    former because it sheds its skin and seems to become young again.
    It is the latter because any creature that is immortal must know
    and understand everything.  It is cast as a villain in Genesis (with
    Eve, you will note) *because* it was the consort of the Goddess.
    (The full explication of this requires a note of its own.  Not now.)
    Satan is not the consort of the Goddess; therefore, Satan is not
    the serpent.

    I do not know if you are considering Leviathan as Satan, but this
    too is incorrect.  The story of Leviathan derives from the legend of
    the conflict of Marduk and Tiamat.  Leviathan is Tiamat is the
    Goddess.  Therefore, Satan is not Leviathan either.

    Lucifer is described as the Son of the Morning Star.  The Morning
    Star is the Goddess.  Lucifer is thus her son, and perhaps her consort.
    Again, this is not Satan.

    Essentially, Marvin, Christianity has accepted the concept of a
    powerful, evil, immortal entity, and back-projected it onto the
    writings of its principle precursor religion.  This is fine in terms
    of Christian theology, but it is not a construct that will be acceptable
    to Judaism or to cultural anthropology.
    
    A further interesting note is that all these entities (described
    above) which Christianity states are forms of Satan are properly linked
    with the religion of the Goddess.  I therefore feel that it is
    legitimate to claim that Christianity has used this technique to
    denigrate the Goddess religion, and, by extension, its followers.
    Its followers, as the Bible itself makes clear, are predominantly
    women.
    
    We are now back to the topic.

    							Ann B.

    Thanks Ann

RE: .2

""Out of her man this one has been taken" sounds pretty unequal to me" 

If you look carefully at the quote, "The Lord God then built up into a woman the
rib that he had taken from the man."  It sounds to me more like the rib was
transplanted from the man to the woman, rather then the woman was made from the
man.  But it could be taken either way... 

Hmmm... Woman from Man... isn't it usually the other way, at least these days?
~/~ :->

"The man still has is autonomy - the woman has to submit to whatever the man
wants.  Yes, he needs to work, but he is "his own boss", so to speak."

I would rather have the woman's part, and be taken care of.

"This passage implies ownership of the woman by her husband." 

I think that that is an assumption.

"Even at that, why the prohibition against going into the sanctuary for 70+
days?  Does God not love mothers enough to want them in his presence?"

The assumption seems to be that women went off someplace while they were
unclean.  Unfortunately I do not know where that was, or what it was like for
them.  Perhaps it was restfull... but I don't know. 

"Why a punishment for a natural occurrence - esp. one that is not totally
voluntary?"

It is not clear to me that this is addressed to purely natural occurrences. This
may be addressed to sickness, or even masturbation.  This may be to help prevent
social diseases.

"Again, why the prohibition against something natural"

I do not see a "prohibition" here, but merely standards of cleanliness. Think
about it, you have a tribe of unkempt savages, and you want to teach them
cleanliness.  How do you do it?  have you ever heard a doctor tell you after an
operation, "Now I want you to take a bath at least three times a day,
*religiously*!" 

Standard disclaimer:  I do not claim that these *are* the reasons for various
Biblical laws, but these are merely possibilities I can think of. 

"Again, punishment for a natural, involuntary occurrence."

Again, sanitation...

"Wonderful.  A man becomes suspicious of his wife, so the priest can punish
her."

What the priest does is not described as a "punishment", but rather a 'test'. 

"He is free of guilt, even for a wrongful accusation. Clearly unfair, as a man
is allowed multiple wives and concubines."

I have no idea if there is a similar such law for men, I was not looking for
such. 

RE: .5

I am not using the King James, but rather the New American Catholic Bible.

'keeping kosher is inexplicable'

There are possible reasons.  For instance, the prohibition of pork, pig biology
is *very* similar to humans, unless the food was prepared *very* carefully, you
stand a much greater chance of contracting, say trichinosis, then from beef.

"Christianity has traditionally tried to do a smear job on other religions."

Please believe that I am not trying to conduct a smear campaign against any
religions.  I am merely looking at what the Bible has to say about women. Please
add your *valuable* insights, but please stick to the topic.

RE: .6

"Do modern people really think God wants animal sacrifices? No, but the early
Jews were from pagan backgrounds, and God dealt with them in a manner they would
understand."

That is the way I understand it as well.

"So why didn't God step in and intervene? You tell me.... I personally think
she's an MCP."

I would guess for the same reasons that Christ did not condemn slavery. But I
will not presume to state what God's answers were.

"There are numerous stories which are downright nasty in their treatment of
women."

There are a *lots* of stories of bad things happening in the Bible... for
various reasons.  I suggest that we stick to considering individual items,
rather then generalizing.

Jim.

RE: .8

"Of course, if the husband runs off, the rabbinate can't put him in prison, and
there's no divorce, the wife can't remarry."

I believe that after a certain time the husband may be assumed dead.  But, in
any case, I would like to stick with 'The Bible', I'd rather not get into
arguments about 'what was' unless it is something directed to be done in the
Bible.  I expect that will be difficult enough. 

RE: .13  Russ...

Yes, Russ, I believe you are starting a rathole (FWIW).  Please start a new
topic if you wish to discuss "just what constitutes an "Issue" between the sexes
and just what does not."  This topic is "Women in the Bible".

RE: .14

"Who are you, a young, white male, to tell us women what we should and should
not be talking about?" 

(not directed at me, but I'll answer before someone complains about me wanting
to keep this topic from being derailed) 

No, I am not.  However, I am requesting that if you want to talk about something
other then the topic, that you do it in another topic.  (an answer which would
serve the stated purpose for FWO notes)

"Is it necessary for the members of the community to interrupt their agenda for
the benefit of men whose feelings are hurt?"

Interrupt?  No.  Listen to, and deal with in some timely and equitable basis?
*Yes*. (discuss it elsewhere...)

RE: .16 KRUGER (your notes are a valuable addition)

"Since sex constitutes adultery, yes, a man is in better shape until he has sex
with someone he knows has has sex before and is not divorced."

Could you explain this a bit more? 

RE: Talmud...

While I welcome your knowledge, I have to say that your knowledge of the Talmud
leaves me in the dust... :-(  Oh well, I guess I will just have to listen a
while... :-) (betcha didn't think I could! :-)) 

RE: .23  Mikie

"And if memory serves me correctly, our Jewish friends basicly stated that Satan
was a Christian invention."

I cannot find any reply in this topic stating that.

RE: .27

"If this were CHRISTIANITY or even RELIGION, that would be considered a valid
claim.  However, in this notefile we look at things from cultural and historical
viewpoints."

And in this *topic* we are supposed to be looking at "Biblical" viewpoints!
(Sorry, but I get upset at the idea that XXX is not considered a valid claim as
defined by YYY)

"You say that Satan is mentioned in Genesis, but this is not so.  The *serpent*
is the character mentioned."

You may consider the serpent to be the Goddess, however, that is not stated in
the Bible.  Niether is it stated that the serpent is 'Satan', however. (is it?)

"The story of Leviathan derives from the legend of the conflict of Marduk and
Tiamat."

Again, does it state that Leviathan is (Marduk & Tiamat) in the Bible? I do not
see what does this have to do with "Women in the Bible"?  The same with 'The
Morning Star'.

"I therefore feel that it is legitimate to claim that Christianity has used this
technique to denigrate the Goddess religion, and, by extension, its followers."

What Goddess religions were in the area in the early Christian Era?

Jim.