Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Hmmmm....interesting note.  I've also read recently that women in
    Israel had more freedoms (and I believe still do) than women in most of
    the other countries surrounding it.  Women in Muslim and Asian
    countries come to mind as being considered inferior to men.
    
    But I started wondering how as you said women were segregated more and
    more.  First the prophets, judges, and queens were few and far between,
    so let's not pass them off as the norm.  They were indeed the
    exception. However, I wonder if the fact that Israel disobeyed God and
    mixing with other cultures as God commanded them not to influenced
    them.  God didn't want the Israelites to pick up their ways, but they
    did as the intermarried. Perhaps had they stayed with what God had
    showed them, it might not have seem so very revolutionary when Christ
    came.  Of course, I'm sure He would have found a way to do so. :-)
    
    Jill

    
    This may seem unrelated, but I've been looking for a place to share it.
    Below is information that I got out of World Vision's Childlife
    magazine. World Vision is a organization that helps people sponsor kids
    around the world and tries to help improve the overall living quality of 
    their villages including self-sufficiency. I can't substantiate this 
    information, but I thought it was interesting and at least worth sharing.
    
    Religious & cultual beliefs frequently place women and girls lowest in
    society.  Some Hindus accord to women the social status of an
    "untouchable," the lowest class of all human beings; Buddhists believe
    only men can achieve Nirvana; and under Islamic Shari'a law, two
    women's testimonies equal that of a single man.  Even some Christians
    believe that the Bible teaches that women are created inferior to men.
    
    Here are some proverbs from around the world.  They are both religious
    and cultural.  Sorry, the magazine didn't provide references to where
    these proverbs are from.
    
    - Bringing up a girl is like watering a plant in someone else's
         courtyard
    - An unmarried girl must obey her father, a married woman her husband,
         and a widow her children.
    - No man wants a well-educated wife.
    - Women who talk back to men stay unmarried.
    - A woman's brain cannot perceive anything further than the handle of 
         a spoon.
    - The thoughts of a woman are afterthoughts.
    - A woman is cotton, a man is a diamond.  If you throw cotton in the
         mud, it always soiled.  But if you throw a diamond in the mud, it 
         can be cleaned.
    - There are only two places for a woman, the house and the grave.
    - The luckless man loses his horse, the lucky man loses his wife.
     
                                    March 1993
    
    % of Bangladeshi women who want their next child to be a boy:  96
    
    % of girls younger than 5 who are malnouished in Pakistan:  61
    % of boys                             "                  :  52
    
    # of girls worldwide without access to schooling:   	81 million
    # of boys                     "                     	49 million
    
    # of illiterate women among the 960 mil illiterate people worldwide: 
      								640 mil
    
    % of girls ages 15 to 19 in Africa & Asia who are married:  60-70
    % of boys                         "                         10-25
    
    # of girl prostitues in Thailand younger than 16:  		800,000
    
    % of India's child labor workforce that is female:  	80
    
    # of single mothers in America in 1990:  			7.7 million
    % of us households headed by women who earn less than $20K/year:  65
     
    Portion of the world's work done by women:  		2/3
    Portion of the world's income earned by women:  		1/10
    Portion of the world's property owned by women  		1/100
    
    # of women out of 14 million infected with HIV-virus:  	6-7 mil
    
    Chances that a woman in Africa will die in childbirth:  	1 in 20
    Chances that a woman in Western Europe/U.S. will die in childbirth: 
    								1 in 3600
    
    Chances for political change:
    Ratio of parliamentary seats worldwide held by men to thos held 
    by women: 							9:1
       

    So is it safe to say that the greatest majority of female oppression
    in the world happens in countries of Non Christian/Jewish cultures?

    No it is not!
    
    

    
    
    
    jmartin,
    
      I am certain that the list of top offenders changes with the
    political winds. 
    
    
    David

        And the evidence leading you to this certainty is?
    
    /Greg

    
    
    
       I will ask Rush how I should respond to you :-)

    I should have known :-)

    Patricia:
    
    Yes it is!!!!

    According to a feminist lawyer and one of Hillaries cronies, any man
    who engages in sex with his wife is raping her.  
    
    Amuzing that she just got married!!!!
    
    I think this is what Dave was referring to.  Women are abused at times
    when and if it fits their political agendas.  I don't make light of
    abused women or spousal abuse.  I believe this is a very real part of
    society.  But I also believe that feminists like this NYC lawyer give
    what women are trying to accomplish a bad name and a black eye to the 
    cause of battered women everywhere.   To publicly make a remark like
    this is so proposterous it puts the feminist into the realm of
    ridicule!!!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 942.10 by -Jack

>    According to a feminist lawyer and one of Hillaries cronies, any man
>    who engages in sex with his wife is raping her.  
    
Name?  Quote?

THanks,

Jim

    Another astonishing accusation. Does *this* one have any bearing in
    reality. 

    This lawyer got a name? How does Hillary tie in (aside from being a
    woman lawyer)? Can you enter the quote? Can you cite the publication? 

    The statement is preposterous and just a tad sweeping, but I've seen
    similar convolutions and misstatements of Hillary's ideas and Lonie
    Guinere's ideas.

    Eric

    This isn't one of those...Nyah Nyah I got you notes.  This is
    documented.  I don't have the name right now but I will get it
    and I openly admit that this one I did hear on Rush; however, Rush was
    reading it from a source.  I will find out.  Will you at least agree
    with me that if this quote is accurate, she is hurting the women's
    movement in this country?
    
    -Jack

    > Will you at least agree with me that if this quote is accurate, she is
    > hurting the women's movement in this country?

    The statement, as I said, is preposterous. I think anyone who makes
    such a statement - that any man who makes love with his wife is a
    rapist - hurts their own credibility, but not necessarily the entire
    women's movement.  

    I did feel that the "one of Hillary's cronies" statement was a non
    sequitur, guilt by association remark. I don't know what it added to
    the statement. I bristle when I see gratuitous remarks like that.

    I have seen Rush's TV show on a several occasions. I have heard him
    read snippets of news items interspersed with his own commentary such
    that the original context is lost. He did this with some of Mrs.
    Clinton's statements regarding parental liability (i.e. children
    divorcing parents) and some of Lonie Guinere's papers regarding the
    locking out of minority votes (i.e. quota queen). I have little respect
    for his integrity. 

    If you can find where Rush read this, I'd appreciate it.
    
    Eric

	You heard it on Rush? Ohhhh Jack... how could you? I would trust Rush
as far as I could throw him, which wouldn't be far because I wouldn't want to
go near him. This is the same guy who came out with feminazi's (sp?), right?
This guy makes a living by slamming others, and this is who you follow? Wow...


Glen

re Note 942.14 by HURON::MYERS:

>     I did feel that the "one of Hillary's cronies" statement was a non
>     sequitur, guilt by association remark. I don't know what it added to
>     the statement. I bristle when I see gratuitous remarks like that.
  
        Don't you understand?  Hillary and her cronies are part of a
        conspiracy to destroy America and hand it over to the
        Communists?

    Glen:
    
    If I remember correctly, Rush defined Feminazi as a woman who gets mad
    when an abortion doesn't happen.  Since there are very few of them in
    the country in leadership roles, your villifying Limbaugh on this piece
    of information is not based on knowledge Glen.
    
    Bob, Clinton is probably the most socialist president we've had since
    Harry Truman.  As far as quotas are concerned, they have been
    implemented in the cabinet and many of them have been unqualified
    disasters.  You will see many politicians distancing themselves from
    Clinton this November.  But to be honest with you, the one that really
    sticks in my claw is the present Attorney General.  Race and Gender
    have nothing to do with it.  She is simply embarrassing the
    administration.  
    
    -Jack

    Getting back to the basenote,  I was watching TODAY on NBC this
    morning.  They had a woman/reporter who they interviewed.  She was a 
    resident of Saudi Arabia for some period of time, not sure how long.
    
    To say that equal rights are worse in the US than other parts of the
    world is somewhat ludicrous.  Saudi Arabia is a very sobering testimony 
    to gender rights in other parts of the world.  You had to see it to
    believe it!!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    So what if he slams others. Are the only persons worth listening to
    the ones that never criticize??
    
    David

    Jack - I think you are confusing Joycelyn Elders and Janet Reno.
    
    Maybe you better tell us again who it is you have your "main 
    beef" with - is it the "condom queen" or the Attorney General?
    
    Or is the problem that nasty feminist lawyer Rush Limbaugh quoted 
    out of context and accused of stating that sex with consent within
    a marriage is rape (could her name be Susan Estrich?  Maybe it was
    Katherine MacKinnon? - who can tell, all those "feminazis" are
    the same, right?)
    
    Your argument would be a bit more substantial (not to mention
    far more coherent) if you could get your facts straight.
    
    /Greg

    Naw...I wasn't referring to the Arsonist of Waco; I meant to say our
    SURGEON General, the Condom Queen.  Sorry about that.
    
    As far as the rape comment, sorry Greg that I don't have the memory you
    expect me to.  I believe the name was Achtenburg or something similar.
    I'm sorry if these kinds of stories get your goat but if it is
    accurate, please don't shoot the messenger just because the leaders of
    your agenda lack common sense.  Thank you.
    
    -Jack

re: Note 942.21 by -Jack

>    I'm sorry if these kinds of stories get your goat but if it is
    accurate, ...

That's the question, though.  Is it accurate?  Was it taken in context?

Peace,

Jim

    Bold, unsubstantiated, and sweeping statements with vaporous links to
    public figures (Hillary) issued by shock-jocks always get my goat.
    Whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern, I wouldn't trust them to
    read a stop sign with out taking it out of context.
                                                  
    Eric

    Usually Rush will get a piece of info from a reputable source before
    commenting on it...or he will quote the "victim" himself.

re Note 942.21 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

        "please don't shoot the messenger just because the leaders of
        your agenda lack common sense."

        How do you know that these people (e.g., the one equating
        marital relations to rape) are leaders of Greg's (or anybody
        else's) agenda?

        Please do not confuse "prominent person" with "leader". 
        (Would you want every noisy conservative to be regarded as a
        leader of *your* agenda, Jack?)

        You have to be especially careful to avoid this confusion
        since one of favorite tactics of "shock jocks" is to
        associate extremists and their statements with the opposition. 
        If there is even the remotest association of any type between
        extremists and the shock jock's opponents the extremist will
        be portrayed as some sort of leader of the opposition.

        It's amazing how often such tactics will succeed.

        Bob

    Point noted Bob.  I should be careful of that.  Similar to Operation
    Rescue and how they do not represent the full pro life movement.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Eric,
    
      As opposed to knee jerk liberals Rush Limbaugh is an Abraham
    Lincoln..
    
    
    David

    .27  Gosh, that's sounding a lot like provocation to me.
    

    RE: David - Comparing Limbaugh to Lincoln?  Please, spare us.

    RE: Jack, my only point is that you would do well to verify what and who 
    it is you are talking about before repeating these things.  It makes you 
    look foolish.  For example, [Roberta] Achtenburg is the assistant 
    secretary for fair housing at HUD.  She's most notable (in this context) 
    for being called a "damned lesbian" in the U.S. Senate by Jesse Helms.  
    She isn't one of "Hillaries [sic] cronies" - I don't even think she's a 
    lawyer (leastwise not a prominent feminist lawyer).  Prior to being 
    nominated for a position in the Clinton administration she was a San 
    Francisco city supervisor.

    There *has* been an ongoing (for several years) "debate" over the 
    misrepresentation of some of Katherine MacKinnon's writings about sex and 
    rape and feminist politics.  I don't pretend to understand the whole story 
    myself but the way it was explained to me, MacKinnon used a metaphor to 
    explain a related point and the whole thing was taken out of context and 
    used by feminist bashers as another stone against "feminazis."  The
    reason I believe it is MacKinnon Limbaugh was referring to is because she 
    was recently married.

    I would certainly never accuse an author of writing something as patently
    absurd as "all sex within marriage is rape" without first *READING*
    the author in question.  I haven't read MacKinnon so I err on the side
    of caution and insist on better evidence than "I heard it from Rush."
    
    You haven't read MacKinnon, have you, Jack?

    /Greg

   > As opposed to knee jerk liberals Rush Limbaugh is an Abraham Lincoln..

    Compared to balanced, insightful reporters and commentators, however,
    Rush is a knee jerk conservative.
    
    Eric 

    You're right Greg...I shouldn't speak until I am fully informed of what
    an author has said or is saying.  Afterall this is the value of the
    notesfile...to point these things out!
    
    Never read McKinnon.  What did she say to accidentally misrepresent
    herself?
    
    -Jack

    
    
     > Gosh, that's sounding a lot like provocation to me
    
       Well let me now when your sure..

    
    > Rush is a knee jerk conservative
    
    He has his moments when that fits. 

    Rush is the Pillbury doughboy of insult and innuendo.  It is no
    surprise to me that some in this in conference are so inspired by
    his mean-spirited rhetoric and example.
    
    Rush is not a knee-jerk conservative.  He's just a jerk.
    

    
    
      > He's just a jerk
    
     ...oh Richard where is the love in all this? Why don't you value his
    difference?
    
    David

    I rest my case.
    

    
    
    > I rest my case
    
       You sir do not have a career as an attorney, you have not made a
    case..
    
    David

    Richard:
    
    I look at Limbaugh as another source of information...that is all.  I
    also use CSPAN, WSJ, USA TODAY, and many other sources.  
    
    I look at the liberal establishment not as jerks as you do.  I see them 
    as a sincere bunch with unfortunate delusions of stability, that's all.
    I see many of them as consisting very little in substance, that's why
    they are such strong proponents of the fairness doctrine.  They're so
    mad that nobody is listening to them that they need government mandate
    to make their voice heard.
    
    I feel sorry for them.  
    
    -Jack

    Richard:
    
    You didn't rest your case.  What did you mean by that?

    
    Excuse me gentlemen...
    
    The topic is women of the Bible...maybe we could turn this note back
    around in that direction.  Why don't someone start a new string on 
    Christianity and Rush Limbaugh and go debate all this stuff over there.
    
    Getting back to Patricia's original note (.0) and my follow-up (.1).
    I was doing a little checking in my study Bible and checked into the
    Babylonian exile and it comments that the Israelites were heavily 
    influenced by Babylonian culture and it's code of laws, the Hammurabi.  
    The Israelites often got off course from God's way as the Bible shows 
    us time and time again.  Hopefully, it can serve as an example for us 
    to stay faithful to God.  We should learn from their mistakes.
    
    Jill

re Note 942.41 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     The topic is women of the Bible...maybe we could turn this note back
>     around in that direction.  

        Thanks, Jill, for getting us back on track.

        Bob

re Note 9.1383 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

        One of the things one notices in Gen 19:8-11 is that while
        the angelic visitors immediately "smote the men that [were]
        at the door" these same supposed messengers of the holy God
        (to whom even the slightest sin is cause for damnation) say
        nothing at all to Lot about his offer of his daughters to
        those men (instead, they offer him refuge from the wickedness
        of the others).

        Much is said by this passage.  Either the holy God ignores
        some rather horrendous sin (even while punishing other sin)
        or the holy God was *not* the author of this text.

        Bob

    .43
    
    Genesis 19
    
    16  And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon
    the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the lord
    being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the
    city.
    
    Perhaps the phrase, "the lord being merciful unto him" means
    something???
    
    

re Note 942.44 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Perhaps the phrase, "the lord being merciful unto him" means
>     something???
  
        Given the context, it (probably) means that he and his family
        were delivered from the midst of a city about to be
        destroyed.  Given the context, it doesn't mean he was in any
        way forgiven of a grievous sin in offering his daughters to
        be raped, since the context doesn't call that evil, and in
        fact implies that such an offer was an alternative to an
        evil.

        Bob

	Bob, you have such great insight. I'm glad you note here!


Glen

    .46
    
    Okay you can view it that way if you so choose.  However, the fact that
    the angels pulled Lot back in from the men outside, instead of shoving
    the girls out the door says something to me.
    
    In the whole of the story, it says they were delivered immediately
    after he pulled Lot back inside.  It was then that the words were given
    to Lot.  
    
    
    
    
    
    

	Thank you for allowing me to view Bob in that light Nancy. 

	As far as the angels pulling Lot into the house and not throwing the
daughters out to them, you're right, it does say a lot. The angels pulled Lot
in for safety. To throw anyone else back out there would only show that God is
kind of a heartless Guy, only caring for His own. He led the entire family to 
safety (well, until the wife looked back anyway). He saved the lot (pun
intended). God sent Lot and his family there. Why would He ONLY protect some of
them? 

	What it does show though is that with the way women were treated by men 
back then was pretty sad. How they are portrayed in the Bible helps show that 
men wrote the book. It was common practice do offer women for things. But no
where do you see anyone saying it was wrong to do this. 


Glen

    oops... my note was supposed to be addressed to Bob.

    Glen:
    
    What about Potiphers wife?  What about Jezebel's treatment of Elijah?
    What about Rahab's deceit which cost the lives of a nation at
    Jericho?  What about Delilah's deceit toward Sampson?  Point here is
    that women were no more the virtuous because of their ill
    treatment.  These are examples of women's tenacity and forwardness,
    the nature stays the same even today!! 
    
    Yes Glen, nations in that part of the world treat women as if they are
    chattel, no denial on that.  Women in Kuwait just got the right to vote
    and as far as I know, it is the only Arab nation that allows this.  
    The fact that women were/are treated poorly does not excuse the fact
    that men and women were created with different roles in life.  
    
    When Michele and I first married, we decided on three children - done.
    Both she and I thought it best for her to stay home with the 
    children until they are a little older.  So far it has worked out.
    As the man, it is my responsibility to set the spiritual tone in the
    family.  I stumble but I'm trying.    It is not impossible for a woman
    to be a spiritual leader, it is done more often I think than the other
    way around.  It has certainly been proven that women can out think men,
    out perform men, and in many cases women can physically pounce on a
    man.  I believe however that the best scenario is for a woman to 
    take on the role of a woman and the man to take on the role of a man!!
    
    -Jack

re:  Note 942.50 by Jack

>    Yes Glen, nations in that part of the world treat women as if they are
>    chattel, no denial on that.  Women in Kuwait just got the right to vote
>    and as far as I know, it is the only Arab nation that allows this.  

I've been told by a co-worker from Iran that except in recent history (this 
century), women have more rights and more equal treatment in Islamic culture
than in Western culture.

FWIW,

Jim

    It wasn't all that long ago (less than 100 years) that women in the
    U.S. were granted the right to vote.
    
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 942.50 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

	Jack, I was reading throught your note and I was thinking, ok, so he
does realize that women are equal to men, that women have/are being treated
poorly, and then you threw a monkey into the works to totally confuse me. Could
you clarify this for me:

| I believe however that the best scenario is for a woman to take on the role 
| of a woman and the man to take on the role of a man!!

	What do these, "roles" you talk about consist of?


Glen

    Glen:
    
    The roles I refer to are mainly located in Paul's epistles.  Paul is 
    looked upon as a sexist by some so I assume that must be the case with
    me also. 
    
    I hate to sound like an idealist, I'm not.  The reality is that
    households for the most part require two incomes.  I think you will
    find many women in the workforce resentful that they cannot be home
    with the children.  The perfect scenario in my eye is in fact the 
    Donna Reed scenario, where the dad is working and the mom is nurturing
    the family with love and security.  Is this reality..?..hardly in
    today's world.  Let me make it perfectly clear that I believe women
    have the right to compete for any job a man does.  I believe in equal
    pay and all that.   I believe there are things a mother is far more
    qualified to do than a dad and vice versa.  
    
    -Jack 
    

re Note 942.54 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     The roles I refer to are mainly located in Paul's epistles.  Paul is 
>     looked upon as a sexist by some so I assume that must be the case with
>     me also. 
  
        I think that the most powerful statement of a woman's "role"
        in the Bible is Proverbs 31 (hint: it's not the "Donna Reed
        scenario").

        Bob

        P.S.  Nothing I have ever seen in the Bible indicates that
        the role descriptions (such as there are) are exclusive and
        exhaustive.  

	Jack, thatnks for being honest. I guess what I'm seeing is you believe
they have the right to all that, but you feel they should stay home with the
kids. Is this correct?



Glen

    Not really.  Michele and I talked alot about this before we had
    children.  Any outcome had to be likeminded and mutual.  She wanted to
    stay home with the children, there was no coersion involved.  I
    encourage her that if God has it on her heart to have a career then she
    should go for it.  However, having children may have been considered
    differently, i.e. later in life or none at all.  Since she wanted to
    have a family and also wanted to stay home, it made it very easy for
    us.
    
    This is the reason why it is so vital to marry somebody with the same
    philosophy on specific issues.  It can be difficult when there is no
    unity.   
    
    To sum it up, having children does not preclude the woman staying home;
    however, I believe it is the best way of doing it!!  I know as a young
    boy I certainly didn't want my father around, and I love him very
    much!!!  
    
    -Jack

    "Favor is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord
    shall be praised" Proverbs 31:30.
    
    This sums up all the virtues listed in Proverbs 31 in my mind and I
    believe completely that this is the ideal woman.  (Just like Donna
    Reed!! :-) :-) )
    
    -Jack 

	Thanks Jack.

    Glen:
    
    In my six years at DEC there has never been a time when I didn't report
    directly to a woman.  Some of them belonged where they were, some of
    them simply did not.
    
    -Jack

    What can any of you tell me about Jezebel?
    
    Any suggestions regarding how I might defend her against the 
    character assasination she receives?
    
                                           Patricia

    .61
    
    It would be helpful Patricia if you told us first what you
    know about Jezebel.  Your last question, obviously states your
    position that she was not as bad as what the Bible has made her out to
    be...  Can you explain how you've come to that conclusion in
    conjunction with what you already know?
    
    Thanks
    Nancy
    
    
    

    I actually know very little about Jezebel.    I have reached no
    conclusions regarding this Historic character.  It is just a hunch
    that the bible may be just a little prejudice against her.
    
    Patricia

Patricia, I don't expect you to see anything wrong with Jezebel.

Jezebel was a person who didn't believe God meant business when he said
that he was Israel's God and commanded them to have no other gods but
Him.

Jezebel erected altars to pagan gods and godesses and encouraged the
People of God to turn from him and towards these false gods.  She
encouraged human sacrifice.

If you believe that God means business when he commands all people to
worship him, then you also have to believe that someone who actively
encourages the worship of other gods has done something quite wrong.

If you believe that there is no consequence in rejecting God and
worshipping idols, then you'll naturally think Jezebel got a bad rap.

/john

    John,
    
    That certainly is a traditional interpretation of the Jezebel story.  I
    guess I would like to dig a little deeper.
    
                                           Patricia
    
                         

Here's what Isaac Asimov has to say about Jezebel in "Asimov's Guide to
the Bible":

	    1 Kings 16:31.... he [Ahab] took to wife Jezebel the daughter of
	  Ethbaal king of the Zidonians ...

	  It was customary for kings in that time of religious
	inclusiveness to allow foreign queens their own religious rites,
	as Solomon had done for his own numerous wives.

	  Jezebel, however, was a domineering woman who wanted not merely
	to pursue the worship of her own particular "baal" (Melkart, a
	specific name which does not appear in the Bible) but labored to
	establish its worship throughout Israel generally.  This may have
	been more than religious fervor; it may have been a device on her
	part to tie Israel more firmly to the Pheonician cities for the
	benefit of both.

	  It apparently suited Ahab's purposes to encourage her in this,
	for the prophetic party with its attempts to limit royal power and
	to dictate foreign policy along supernaturalist lines could, in
	his eyes, well stand being weakened.

	...

	  Jehu marched instantly on Jezreel with the intention of laying
	it under seige and establishing his kingship by executing Jehoram.
	Jehoram and Ahaziah, the two kings, came out to meet Jehu's army...
	There Jehu killed Jehoram and when Ahaziah attempted to escape,
	had him pursued and killed likewise.

	  Jezebel, her son and grandson dead, retained her pride and
	courage to the end.

	    2 Kings 9:30.  And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel
	  heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and
	  looked out at a window.

	  That is, she put on eye make-up (the Revised Standard Version
	renders the phrase "she painted her eyes and adorned her head") to
	hide any signs of grief and to show herself even at this last
	moment a queen.  Posterity, unwilling to give the old queen credit
	for any virtue, even that of courage, uses the term "painted
	Jezebel" to signify not bravery in the face of disaster, but
	merely to signify wickedness - usually sexual wickedness, of which
	there is no Biblical ground for accusing Jezebel.

	  ... [Jehu] had Jezebel thrown from the window and killed.

				-- Bob

    THanks Bob for entering Asimov notes.  THey are interesting.
    
    Patricia

>	Posterity, unwilling to give the old queen credit for any virtue,
>       even that of courage, uses the term "painted Jezebel" to signify
>       not bravery in the face of disaster, but merely to signify
>       wickedness - usually sexual wickedness, of which there is no
>       Biblical ground for accusing Jezebel.

There is a close relationship between sexual wickedness and idolatry; it is
quite evident in a figurative sense in the Jezebel story:

	"What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and
	 sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?"

						-2 Kings 9:22b, NRSV

Of course, the whoredoms referred to are "whoring after other Gods", being
unfaithful to the God of Israel, of "selling your soul to Baal", and not
necessarily sexual prostitution, but prostitution, nonetheless.

The relationship between sexual immorality and idolatry is nowhere made
more clear than in Romans 1:18-32.

/john

    The Old testament makes extensive usage of the metaphor of Israel as a
    whoring bride, to discuss alternative images of the Divine worshipped
    in Israel.  Hosea is asked by God to marry a whore to help him in his
    prophesy.  THe theme of mothers or whores as the only two roles allowed
    for women is played out.
    
    But I am trying t strip away this questionable metaphor to understand
    the social, political, religious and cultural dynamic at work.
    
    Jezebel is a strong, domineering, politically astute woman.
    Jezebel is courageous, even in the face of death.
    Jezebel is ready to die for her faith and for her country.
    Must all strong, domineering women being potrayed as whores?
    
    Jezebel is not sold on the Male God of the Israeli prophets.
    
    Can we learn from what the OT does have to say about Jezebel without
    necessarily being biased by the Prophet's Androcentric condemnation of
    her?
    
    Patricia

    Let's look at a parellel here, not from the standpoint of gender but
    from the standpoint of leadership.
    
    King Hezekiah was one of the predominant Kings of Israel and a very
    Godly man.  Hezekiah had a son named Manassah, in contrast, one of the
    most wicked Kings of not the most wicked king in Israels history.
    Let's look at his resume.
    
    A. Manasseh becomes King at age 12.
    B. Manasseh reconstructs the alters of Balaam.  Balaam is one of the
       worst idols of that time.
    C. Manasseh dealves into sorcery, witchcraft, spiritism.
    D. Suppressed the nation of Israel through his wickedness.
    E. Proponent of human sacrifice to false Gods.  
    
    All these things were once endorsed by Jezabel.  Gender is not as issue
    here.  Jezebel may have died bravely, Jezebel may have had inner
    strength, but so what?  Hitler was a great orator and had the charisma 
    to incite a national mob.  But Hitler was a bad man.  Same with 
    Jezebel.  Jezebel was a bad lady and Jezebel deserves every bit of
    scorn that history has to offer her.  
    
    -Jack

    Actually the prophet Jehu sounded a lot more wicked than Jezebel.
    
    Jezebel was a foreign princess with a different religion.
    
    Jezebel was strong whereas her husband the king is pictured as week.
    
    Now were all the prophets really spokesperson for God or were they a
    political faction supporting the purification of "the chosen people"
    
    Patricia

    Do you remember the incident between Elijah and the prophets of Baal?
    
    Elijah was certainly not part of a political faction.  God wiped out
    the prophets of Baal and openly accepted the sacrifice of Elijah.  If
    you recall, Jezebel basically put a bounty on Elijahs head because of
    this.  It sounds like her motives were more politically driven than
    those of God's prophet.
    
    -Jack

    Everything is political.
    

    Elijah loved and served God.  Jezebel was a self serving politico in
    her time.
    
    -Jack

    Loving and serving God is political, too.
    

  Patricia, have you read about Jezebel for yourself?

  Its an interesting story. I kings 20-22 and II Kings 9,10 (I believe).
  She committed pre-meditated murder when Ahab (her husband) wanted a garden 
  owned by a man named Naboth (or something close to that)and he wouldnt give 
  it to him. She plotted his murder and then gave the garden to Ahab.

  Besides being an accurate historical record the story is an allegory of a
  dark occultic secret concerning the Church (at least at Thyatira).

  Jesus speaking to the Church at Thyatira :

  "Nevertheless I have a few things against you because you allow that woman
   Jezebel , who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants
   to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols"
  Revelation 2:20 NKJV.

  BTW, the scriptures are not prejudiced against women when they use the 
  names of women as portraits of evil because it uses the names of men also
  neither male or female has a 99 year lease on evil, (although Lucifer is
  the Father of it and he's always refered to as a male).

  Hank D
 

    The Elizah story!
    
    That story deeply offended me too!
    
    Elizah invited all of the worshippers of Baal to attend a worship
    service with him.  They believed his sincerity.  After the service, he
    slaughter them all.
    
    And he defended his actions saying he did it for God.
    
    How would you feel if a modern day "prophet" did the same to some non
    "Christian" group.  Gee, I could imagine someone doing that to a group
    of us UU's.  The thought is chilling.
    
                                     Patricia

    During one of my daughters Church school classes she came home after
    studying the story of Pandora's Box and Adam and Eve and was impalled.
    
    Do you know that all the  evil of the world is blamed on women she
    said.
    
    Yes I replied.  these two classical myths say it all.
    
    Jezebel certainly was a politician of her time and practiced political
    intrigue like the rest.  The prophet Jehu was no better.  Jezel
    practiced political intrigue in the name of Baal and is considered
    evil.  Jehu and Elizah practiced political intrigue "in the name of
    Jehovah" and are considered good.  To me political intrigue and
    assasination is political intrigue and assasination.
    
    The image of Jezebel as a whore is erroneous and serves only to degrade
    women. 
    
    I read Zeccariah last night.  One of his visions is of a basket with a
    woman in it representing evil again.
    
    The old testament potrayal of Satan is interesting.  The dualism of God
    and Satan.  Two "men" opposing each other is not the same as the
    metaphorical image of women as the cause of corruption in our world.
    
    As for the quote in Revelation,  I don't base any of my theology on the
    book of revelation.  It should be excluded from the canon.  It is a
    book of torture and hate.
    
    Patricia
    

    actually my daughter was appauled and not impalled.
    (fortunately)

>
>    The Elizah story!
>    

	Looks like we can DO LITTLE good with you, Patricia.

/john

  Re .78 "all the evil of the world is blamed on women"

  First of of all I'm very happy that your daughter was not impalled!

  Patricia, I'm wondering if you are just saying these things to generate
  a little "BOX shock".

  No christian that I know of (and of course i don't know them all) or 
  any theology of any degree of "thumper" lays the blame of the "Original
  Sin" on anyone other than Adam. The pauline epistles do not blame Eve,
  but state that she was deceived "being in the transgression (or seduction)"
  Adam was not deceived but sinned *willfully* with full knowledge of what 
  he was doing.

  Blaming women "for all the evil of the world"

  "For since by man (not woman) came death, by Man comes the resurrection 
   of the dead For as in Adam (not Eve) all die, even so in Christ all shall 
   be made alive" I Corinthians 15:21-22

  "They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of 
   Balaam the son of Beor who loved the wages of unrighteousness" II Peter

  "They have gone in the way of Cain and have run greedily in the error of
   Balaam..."  Jude

  Just three of many examples of "men" who are portrayed as evil.
  In addition women are often held up as examples of "warriors of the Lord"
  such as Huldah and Deborah (called by the scriptures "judges and 
  prophetesses")  who slaughtered not a few Philistines and put their male 
  contemporaries to shame. Many women are portrayed as examples of holiness
  and righteousness - Ruth, Esther, Mary, Elizabeth... No sex is given 
  exclusive treatment as to either end of the scale of good-evil.

  Revelation is a book of justice, the wrath of Our Heavenly Father upon 
  those who are reprobate

  "and they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their
   sexual immorality or their thefts" Rev 9:21

  It is also in fact a book of mercy in that God gives them opportunity to 
  repent of their terrible evil.

  It is a prophetic book which states that the wicked will be treated as
  they have treated others.

  "he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword" Rev 13:10

  God is love, but He is also Righteous and will avenge all of the injustices
  perpetrated by the reprobate wicked upon men, women, and children down 
  through the ages and destroy them. We are His to do with as He pleases and 
  He will do what is right.
    
  Hank D

	Hank, maybe you don't hang out in "those circles", but I have heard
many Christians who do feel Eve was at fault, and blame the woes of the world
on her. Maybe these are the type of people that Patricia was speaking of? 


Glen

    But John,
    
    you taught me how to spell Isaiah.(If that is still spelt correctly.)
    I've learned that there is no s on revelation.
    I do all right with Matthew, Marc, Luke, and Jon.
    
    THere is hope for me yet.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Well, there lies the predjudice.
    
    The Bible clearly states that Adam is resposible for the fall of
    mankind.  "For through one man sin entered into the world and death
    comes from sin, then death passed upon all men for all have sinned."
    Romans 5:17.
    
    Patricia, if you really believe Rev. should be stripped from the Canon, 
    then it stands to reason that many other books in the OT should also be
    stripped.  I take Revelation as a book of great grace.  God is giving
    you a snapshot of what will take place in the end times.  If you were
    on a course of ruin, wouldn't you want to know ahead of time so you
    could avoid it?  If we passed on a road and I said there were nests of
    poisoness snakes around the corner, would you appreciate the warning 
    or would you say, "Jack your an unfeeling letch always bringing bad
    news!"  The answer should be rhetorical.
    
    You are looking for a PC version of reality, which isn't reality at
    all.  God is going to judge the nations as stated in Revelation and 
    I only pray that now, you can heed the warning given unlike those who
    live in the tribulation and don't pay heed.  What awesome grace, to
    foretell certain destruction for your benefit and mine!
    
    By the way, defending Jezebel as a victim is not even feasible to try.  
    There are others better suited for this.
    
    -Jack

    >Patricia, I'm wondering if you are just saying these things to
    >generate a little "Box Shock"
    
    An interesting comment.  I may be occasionally guilty of that as a
    rhetorical device.
    
    I do believe though that there are two major models of women in the
    Bible.  Mary and Jezebel
    
    Mother or Whore.
    
    I need to read through the Historic books though and read up on
    Deborah, Ruth, Esther, etc.
    
    I still like the image though of the Corinthian Woman Prophet.
    
    Jezebel with her act cleaned up a bit, might make a great Corinthian
    Woman Prophet.  I cannot condone the assasination plot.  I do believe
    that "all Gods are one God" so I'm not sure that the denounciation of
    idolatry in the OT is not more Political than theological. I also
    believe a lot of the condemnation was inserted by the deuteronimic
    tradition.
    
    Some feminist scholars feel that Ashtar was worship in the historic books
    as the cohort of Yahweh.
    
    Patricia
    
    
    

    Jezebel didn't only need to clean up her act, she would have needed to
    become a believer in order to become a prophet.  Jezebel was not a
    believer.  I also beg to report that your stand on All God's are one
    God is not supported by any of the scripture writers.  Furthermore, you
    may want to read up on Deborah.  She would wholeheartedly disagree with
    that teaching.  Remember the 1st commandment:  "I am the Lord Thy God.  
    You shall have no other gods before me".
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    The point in defending Jezebel is to question what kind of questions we
    might ask and what kind of things we might learn if we did not view the
    Bible as "Gospel" truth.
    
    I think it is important to attempt to understand who Jezebel really was
    and what kind of impact she made on society and why she was condemned.
    An easy approach but an approach that is too simplistic to me is to say
    that she was condemn because she was an enemy of Yahweh.  I will keep
    my antenna up as I continue my studies for more information.  In this
    few weeks of noting about Jezebel, I have learned a lot.  I have no
    conclusions, but I believe that questions are more important than
    answers.
    
    My instructor tried to convince me that there was value in revelation
    too.  Not as a accurate picture of the end time, but as a response to
    the severe persecution that Christians were experiencing at that time.
    Some day I may be more able to appreciate this book.  Not though as an
    example of how a loving God is going to torture his creatures.
    
    Patricia

re Note 942.82 by BIGQ::SILVA:

> 	Hank, maybe you don't hang out in "those circles", but I have heard
> many Christians who do feel Eve was at fault, and blame the woes of the world
> on her. Maybe these are the type of people that Patricia was speaking of? 
  
        You don't understand, Eve was deceived -- she was too stupid
        to understand what she was doing.  So she got off on a
        technicality (just try that one in a courtroom!).

        Bob

    Actually Jack doesn't go something like
    
    I am the Lord thy God,  I am a jeolous god.  Thou should have no other
    gods before me.
    
    An interesting statement in many respects.
    
    Jeolousy is an emotion I have a very difficult time attributing to God.
    
    The statement is also very polytheistic for a monotheistic religion.
    
    There are several of the ten commandments that I don't agree with.
    
                                      Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Realizing we are not under the law, I bring this up to you.
    
    If you were on Route 2 going 70 miles an hour and an Acton police
    officer pulls you over, tickets you, then you go to the magistrates
    office to fight the ticket, what defense would you use?  Would you
    say,"Yes officer, the law does say 55 MPH but I don't agree with it!"
    
    God is sovereign.  Jesus himself said that not one stroke of the pen
    will depart from the law.  For you to deny the importance of the first
    commandment you would have to deny every historical account in the Old
    Testament as well as Revelation.  Remember the Babylonian exile, be
    warned by it!!!  Israel, the apple of God's eye, was a harlot!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Actually, I did try that once for getting a ticket in Acton.  I went
    to magistrate and made my case.  Yes I was speeding.  But I was driving 
    saftey.  A fifty dollar fine and all those insurance surcharges was
    excessive though.
    
    The result was he reduced the fine from fifty to twenty five dollars.
    
                                   Patricia

    >The image of Jezebel as a whore is erroneous and serves only to degrade
    >women.
    
    >I have no
    >conclusions, but I believe that questions are more important than
    >answers.
    
    Which is it Patricia?

    Nancy,
    
    I have made the conclusion that Jezebel is no whore.
    
    I have made the conslusion that Jezebel as some admirable traits as
    well as some unadmirable traits.
    
    Whether I truly would defend her as a victim or not is what I have no
    conclusions about.
    
    Patricia
    

  Re .82 Glen

  I know there are those who believe that, but Adam is the culprit here
  pain and simple. He should have said "Get thee behind me Satan!"

  The Bible says that Eve gave the forbidden fruit to her huband who was 
  "with her" He should at least stopped her, there are many conjectures
  and opinions about this and why he did nothing to correct Eve. The fact 
  is that we are a fallen race subject to death because of Adam.
 
  Frankly, we all (thumper and non-thumper alike (myself included)) should 
  look at the jots and titles of the scripture before we say things or at 
  least (as Patricia usually does) say that we are making an opinion or a
  subjective call. Re "all the evil of the world is blamed on women".

  Re .85 Ashtar, Ashtaroth, Lilith, etc

  There has always been an element of syncretism or religious absorption
  on the part of heathenism and/or paganism towards the revealed body of 
  truth. To find evidence of this in the scripture (and in fact Jehovah
  accusing His people of this) does not mean He puts His stamp of approval
  on it, on the contrary He chastises them for this, both Israel and the
  Church.

  There are also psuedopigrapha (not scripture) and kabalistic writings
  wich pretend to be scripture or "holy" books which are in reality arcane 
  and occultic.

  Re .87 Book of Rev and a loving God torturing His creatures
 
  He will use their own devices on them.
  

  Hank D

    Your statement/inconclusiveness are oxymoronic to me.
    
    Why would you not defend someone who was no whore?  Your original
    question was "how can I do this?"
    
    If your first conclusion hasn't changed that Jezebel was a whore, then
    to continue this string is another one of those mule points that I've
    myself too often been discussing.
    
    

    Just as an FYI, Hosea amongst other books in the OT refer to nations
    worshipping false gods as harlots.  Jezebel may not have been a
    prostitute but her idol worship made her a harlot in the eyes of God.
    
    -Jack

    Nancy,
    
    I thought my point was quite clear Nancy.
    
    Jezebel was a politician and as such must be evaluated on the public
    role she played as a politician.  She manuevered and caused the death
    of Nahum and his son so her husband could acquire his land.  This was
    wrong.  It is interesting how the Bible attributes this foul deed to
    Jezebel alone and not to Ahab her husband as well.  That is similiar to
    the adam and eve story.  I see a common thread.
    
    There is no evidence that Jezebel is a whore.  The painting her face
    etc has sexual overtones.  The Metaphor of God as a jeolous God raging
    against his whoring bride, Israeel is an offensive metaphor.  Jezebel
    as whore is part of that metaphor.  
    
    I discard the charge of whore so do not need to defend Jezebel against
    that charge.  If nobody needs to defend Soloman and David against
    charges of whoring than I need not defend Jezebel.
    
    I'm not sure I want to defend Jezebel as a model of a woman politician
    either.  I do note that it is significant that the  Bible does clearly
    identify the strong political role she played at a time when women in
    important political roles is rare.   Women discover the roles of women
    in biblical times indirectly from the scriptures.
    
    Now exactly what do you mean by Oxymoronic.  Are you implying that my
    statement is moronic?
    
                                          Patricia

re: Note 942.87 by Patricia "Resident Alien" 

>    but I believe that questions are more important than answers.
    
This just reminded me of a quote from the TV series _The Prisoner_ staring 
Patrick McGoohan.  (Paraphrasing as I remember it....)

    "Questions are a burden, and answers are a prison for your mind."

Just musing,

Jim

re: Note 942.94 by Hank

>  There are also psuedopigrapha (not scripture) and kabalistic writings
>  wich pretend to be scripture or "holy" books which are in reality arcane 
>  and occultic.

Do these books actually pretend, or is it that they are interpreted this way?
It sounds rather like anthropomorphizing to me.

My understanding as to why some (not all) of them are not included in the 
canon is because they are unnecessary for the Bible to be complete.  In some 
cases it is because other writings do not mention them.  Not bad, just not
needed to relay a sufficient message of God for redemption. 

Peace,

Jim

Jealousy is a legitimate and positive emotion when it is felt because one
loves with a perfect love but one's betrothed has been unfaithful.

The People of God are his betrothed, his bride.  He legitimately feels
jealousy (feels his perfect love being rejected) when we go whoring
after false gods.

/john

    and like an angry husband, then beats, punishes, kills based on his
    legitimate jealousy?(oh, I mean perfect love)
    
    Patricia

    .101
    
    You just don't stop with your character assasination of the God of the
    Bible do you?  This is your goal, your mission in life... to say it
    over and over and over and over and over again.
    
    You think are "thought provoking",  but most of the time you are just
    provoking.
    
    Oxymoronic is a paradoxical statement such as, "cold hot".
    
    You have more conclusions than you are readily admitting.  This whole
    q & a is a farce, a venue for you to repeat yourself over and over and
    over and over again.
    
    This is what *I* think.

    Patricia:
    
    In the year and a half I've known you, it has become apparent that
    women's rights is the pinnacle of your agenda, even if it means
    defending a dishonorable woman.
    
    I have fallen from God in the past and God has gotten my attention in
    very strong ways.  God desires this because without God, we are zilch.
    We must realize who we are and who God is.  God is the creator, we are
    the created.  God shows tremendous love when seeking a prodigal son!!
    
    -Jack

    .102 & .103
    
    What a strategy for showing others that yours is a more excellent way!
    
    

    Richard, I don't need to show you anything, you already know what I
    believe.  I also don't need to show Patricia.  This is what prompted me
    to write what I did.
    
    "Therefore, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will
    harden who he hardens.  You will say to me, Why do you find fault, for
    who has resisted your will?  Who are you oh man that replies against
    God in such a way.  Shall the thing formed say to he who molded it, why
    hast thou made me this way.  Doesn't the potter have the power over the
    clay, of the same lump to make vessel unto honor and one vessel unto
    dishonor?  What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
    power known, endured with much patience the vessels of wrath fitted to
    destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory ..."
    
    Romans 9:18-23.
    
    I don't believe in strategies or sales pitches.  You cannot do this
    with the gospel.  And incidentally, I have nothing to do with it.  This 
    is God's plan for salvation, that we believe on the one whom God has
    sent.  I don't need to sweet talk Patricia, she has heard this before.  
    
    Ever hear the song, "Have thine own way Lord, Have thine own way...Thou
    art the potter, I am the clay.."  I stand by what I said, God is the
    creator, I am nothing in comparison to Him.  I can only be a willing
    vessel.  Richard, do you have difficulty seeing God as Lord over all 
    things?  If not, then I repeat, I need no strategy to show anybody
    anything.  Our God is the great and mighty awesome God, who accepts no
    bribes.  
    
    -Jack

    This is a religious conference.  Religion to most people helps create
    who they are.  Those of us who believe in a living God that dwells
    through His Spirit within us... will be offended at such statements as
    made by Patricia in .101.  It serves only one purpose, which is to cause
    dirision.  Then when dirision comes you attack the victim and not the
    perpetrator.
    
    How would the families of the victims of John Wayne Gacy feel if their
    son was the one put on trial instead of him.
    
    Where is your more excellent way?
    
    

    BTW, Glen yes I am saying that I am a victim of Patricia's remark, as
    is Jack and any other Bible believing Christian in this conference.
    
    Why?  Because it was a purposeful "slander" against Bible believing
    Christians.
    
    

    Well, actually I believe that without meaning to, the remark was really
    a slander against God.  I understand it wasn't made that way, it was
    stated to make a viable point.  Jealousy can be a dangerous thing but
    it can also be a healthy thing.
    
    The slanderous hitch is this.  By reading the note, it puts God into a
    category with a raging man who is justified in beating a wife into
    submission.  This is not the case.  As we know, Jesus wept as he looked
    upon Jerusalem, the Apple of his eye.  We have seen how God tarried
    constantly with Israel, a nation that continually prostituted itself in
    idol worship.  Here we have a God who continually sent prophets to warn
    them of the wrath to come, "Here oh Israel, for I am about to pour out
    such calamity on you that those who hear of it will have their ears
    tingle."  Isaiah was sawn in two for that warning of a jealous God.  
    God could have turned his wrath had Israel repented, but they didn't
    and I have no doubt that God was grieved by their stubbornness.  
    
    I know that our pride can get in the way, but we cannot think of our
    relationship to God as we do to another human.  God gives us free will.  
    He asks us to give our very lives to Him.  We must realize that upon
    believeing in the messiah, we are now the property of God, with the
    free will to love Him and to worship him.
    
    Patricia, I could be wrong but I believe part of your hangup is that
    you think of God the father as a man merely because we refer to Him as
    Father.  You must take this out of your mind.  God is a Spiritual being
    and our eyes cannot behold Him in our present state.  It is easy to
    think in human terms.  God is the creator of all, not a bully man on a
    throne as some of us may have once been conditioned to believe.  Our
    eternal life must be on His terms, not ours!!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 942.106 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| This is a religious conference.  Religion to most people helps create
| who they are.  Those of us who believe in a living God that dwells
| through His Spirit within us... will be offended at such statements as
| made by Patricia in .101.  It serves only one purpose, which is to cause
| dirision.  Then when dirision comes you attack the victim and not the
| perpetrator.

	Nancy, I am so glad that I did not have any liquids in my mouth when I
read this. You should be a comedian! Really! You have ripped apart Patricia's
beliefs from ground zero, but that is ok. You say it is your belief. Now
Patricia gives her belief and now it is not ok? Sorry Nancy, you're a walking
contradiction.



Glen

================================================================================
Note 942.100                   women in the Bible                     100 of 109
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       8 lines  26-JUL-1994 14:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jealousy is a legitimate and positive emotion when it is felt because one
loves with a perfect love but one's betrothed has been unfaithful.

The People of God are his betrothed, his bride.  He legitimately feels
jealousy (feels his perfect love being rejected) when we go whoring
after false gods.

/john
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 942.101                   women in the Bible                     101 of 109
POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"                     4 lines  26-JUL-1994 15:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and like an angry husband, then beats, punishes, kills based on his
    legitimate jealousy?(oh, I mean perfect love)
    
    Patricia
    
    ************************************************************************
    
    First of all let's not take my comment out of contexts.  I have spent
    the last month reading the prophets from Isaiah thru Malachi( can't spell
     that one either) and my conclusion of the theme of those book is that
    Israel is punished like an unfaithful bride by a jeolous angry God.
    
    John and I are talking about the same theme that is throughout that 300
    pages of Old testament writings.  We both seem to agree on what the
    theme is.  John and I ask different questions about the book and the
    them.
    
    That is because we  have different assumptions about the nature of the
     Bible and perhaps the nature of God that causes us to accept different
     interpretations  and make different conclusions from the reading.
    
    I challenge anyone, based on the reading of these books to tell me that
    God is not potrayed as an angry husband, punishing his faithless wife. 
    That is 1/3 of the OT with that theme.
    
    My assumptions about the nature of the Bible as an imperfect work of
    humankind allows me to challenge and reject that HUMAN image of God.
    
    My image of God is a God of perfect, unconditional love.  The image of
    God in the prophets does not match my image of perfect, unconditional
    love.  Because of my assumptions about the Bible, my challenge is to
    the men who potrayed God this way and not to God himself/herself. This
    to me is not a viable way of potraying the Divine.
    
    I am intentional in my challenge to Nancy and Jack.  I am challenging
    their assumptions about the nature of the Bible.  I believe that their
    assumptions are erroneous and harmful.  I have attempted to use
    scripture taken as a whole to proof that the nature of God as potrayed
    in a good part of scripture is not worthy of an image of a God of
    omnipotent, unconditional love.  My conclusion.  The scripture is
    inadequate.  The scripture is wrong.  The scripture is misleading.  The
    scripture is harmful to me.  I welcome rational challenges to my assumptions
    and to my conclusions.  I am confident enough in my own faith to defend
    my assumptions and conclusions.  I also believe that I am open to being
    shown where my assumptions and conclusions are inadequate.
    
    It feels to me that both Jack and Nancy, when unable to answer my
    challenge based on reason, logic, or even the Bible itself, then launch
    into personal attack on my religion, value system, and motives when they
    cannot contest my statements.
    
    I have become accustomed to this kind of evangelizing. 
    
                                        Patricia
    
                                  
    
    

    O for bothersome's sake Patricia.  You are no martyr... but you do play
    the role well..
    
    Sheesh.. I'm sorry, I get sick of this intellectual high horse.  This
    is my humanity speaking... and I'm sure I'll get reamed with the holier
    than thou comments.
    
    You attack my God and then call me harmful.  At the same time
    poo-pooing any rebuttal against the humanism represented in your
    relativistic way of faith.
    
    What I see is that we both believe very strongly in our pov. I
    challange you to find where I "started" a discussion through sarcasm or
    insult towards you.  
    
    
    

    Patricia:
    
   >> It feels to me that both Jack and Nancy, when unable to answer my
   >> challenge based on reason, logic, or even the Bible itself, then
   >> launch into personal attack on my religion, value system, and motives when
   >> they cannot contest my statements.
    
    I won't speak for Nancy at this time, just myself.  In the last few 
    responses, when did I ever answer you in what I would term, a
    condescending manner, or when did I ever attack your religion?
    The word Attack, implies negativity and I consider healthy challenge 
    of ones position to not be an attack.   In fact, I believe I used the
    words, "Valid Points" in regards to your comments.
    
    Okay, I'll will lay the foundation with some observations, not attacks,
    then I will try to logically draw a conclusion of text re: the prophets.
    
    Observations:
    
    1. Patricia, every premise you make is tempered somehow with the
    victimization of women, somewhere in history.  This in my mind is 
    what is molding your opinions and sometimes historical documentation
    takes a back seat.
    
    2. Your religion, as you have communicated to me, is based on the
    following.
    
    	A. Biblical facts that are politically expedient.  Examples:
    	    1. Paul was a homophobe
    	    2. Revelation should not be canonized.
    		Results:
    		a. Your religion is on the truth according to Patricia.
                b. You accept that which suits you.  God calls this
    		   rebellion.  Not to worry, I do this too at times.
    
    	B. Most Important.  You are bent on keeping God's attribute of
    	   holiness out of the picture.  Jealousy, Judgement, Wrath, 
     	   Propitiation, all these elements are equal to Love, compassion,
    	   mercy, sacrifice.  All the latter attributes are excentuated by
    	   what Jesus did on the cross, yet another doctrine you have
    	   communicated disbelief in.  
    
    Conclusion is incohesiveness in your beliefs and inconsistency.  
    Furthermore, you have expressed your admiration for Paul in his writings, 
    Corinthians as the prime example, yet you have also stated that you don't 
    believe the very doctrine that Paul preaches on.  Again the inconsistency.  
    Patricia, based on this, my observation (not attack) is that you want 
    God to be your puppet.  You want to pull the strings ONLY as it serves
    what your needs might be.  The very essence of God as the creator 
    seems to be, well, secondary.   Are you going to be able to bow down
    and worship God when in God's presence?  I hope so.  I believe when we
    are in heaven this action will be as desirable to us as breathing.
    
    Prophets coming up!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    It is interesting that based on everything that I have said about the
    Bible, you quote two comments
    
    "Paul is a homophobe"    
    (Where did I state that?)
    
    Revelation should not be part of the Canon.
    
    You make some sweeping generalizations linked to those two statements.
    
    
    Studying Paul and writing my first sermon on What Paul meant to me as a
    UU Feminist was an exciting piece of work.  THere too I was playing the 
    Devil's advocate and did a fairly successful job of arguing to a group
    of persons who by and large find Paul to be off the wall, that he is 
    worth studying and really does have some wonderful things to say.
    
    To summarize my feelings about Paul as "Paul is a homophobe"  A
    statement that misrepresents anything I may have said, is simplistic
    and not balanced.
    
    The final question you ask is hard to answer because it does not make
    too sense to me.Much of my religion is based on this world and
    this life we have which is the only one I am confident that is real. 
    What happens after I die is what will happen after I die.
    
    What I truly admire about Paul is his belief in our living in Christ.
    Each of us following the Law of Christ as is written on our hearts.
    That is the way I try to live my life.  To submit to the will of God
    as written on my heart and not as recorded in the Bible.  For me
    that is living by the spirit and not by the Law.  It seems all very
    Biblical to me and self evident.  I do find it very interesting how
    impossible it is for me to truly understand your point of view which
    is so obvious to you and how impossible it is for you to truly
    understand my point of view.
    
    It is one of life's mysteries about the nature of religion.
    
                               Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    It seems the afterlife would take prescedence to people, being eternal
    and all that.
    
    I still contend that you cannot place a gender on God; however, whether
    God actually looked and sounded like a man or a woman, God is worthy of
    our worship!!!
    
    -Jack

    I agree with you.  We cannot place a gender on God.  I totally agree
    with you that God is worthy of our worship.
    
    Those conclusions inform my theology.  The key question for me, is if
    God is not a man or a woman, what is the significance and consequence
    of scriptures that potray God as a man, which we both agree God is not?
    
    What does it mean growing up a boy/man hearing in sacred scripture that
    God is a man?
    
    What does it mean growing up as a girl/women hearing that God is a man?
    
    How does the way we image a Divine beyond all images impact how we
    define ourselves and our lifes?
    
    Patricia

>    It seems the afterlife would take prescedence to people, being eternal
>    and all that.

In part, this is Hellenistic.

In part, this is fallout we inherited from a self-perservation program
of the church after the dust of the Christian movement began to settle.
A good resource on this is "A Theology for the Social Gospel," by Walter
Raushenbusch.

Richard

     I always understood the social gospel to be based on the synoptics
    whereas I believe the full gospel is to take all four gospels and the
    epistles into context with each other.  I don't disagree with the
    social gospel as I understand it, that being the manifestation of the
    fruit of the Spirit as evidence of having the Spirit.  I do believe
    that Jesus emphatically preached on the necessity of inheriting eternal
    life.  I believe as James wrote that this life is even a vapor, that
    appears for awhile then vanishes away.  The social gospel is vital to
    the Christian witness, it is not the criteria for inheriting eternal
    life.
    
    -Jack

Patricia,

What you seem to reject is the concept that there is a penalty for wrong
behaviour.

/john

    Here we come to a crossroads.  First of all, I believe gender is used
    strictly as a point of reference for our benefit.  God/Goddess may have
    been completely inappropriate for two reasons.
    
    A. It may infer dual Gods, confusing with idol worship or the trinity.
    
    B. If Israel was really a Patriarchy during the times of Moses, then
       using the female gender as a point of reference may have been
       unspeakable.  Also keep in mind that the Hebrew nation was
       conditioned 400 years in a nation that considered women as property.
    
    Here is the crossroads however.  I believe that Adam was a real
    individual.  Jesus believed it because he acknowledged the writings of
    Moses as inspired.  Paul believed Adam was a real individual, confirmed
    in Romans 5.  The Chronicals of the OT give a lineage to Adam as does
    the Gospel of Luke from Adam all the way to Jesus.  Therefore, it is
    corroberated by experts in the field as well as Jesus himself.
    Patricia, you have referred to this as a fable, a fable damaging to 
    the equality of women.   I believe God formed Adam first, Adam was to 
    take the spiritual leadership role in the family.  I believe God formed
    Eve second in order to complete Adam.  Keep in mind however that they
    were created at the same time, but formed at different times.  "And God
    created man in his own image, male and female created He them." 
    Without Eve, Adam was incomplete and couldn't function.  She was not
    meant as a subserviant being.  She was created equally to Adam with a
    different role.  
    
    I don't know how to answer you as far as young men growing up believing
    God was a man.  This may need to be something taught to our youth so
    they will better understand the nature of God.  I do believe also that
    it is inappropriate to tamper with the genders given to us in the
    Bible, i.e. God referred in the masculine, etc.
    
    -Jack

    Without setting fireworks, I'm inclined to agree on the point of
    punishment.  The Bible displays the nature of God quite accurately.  
    We know even throughout the NT that God is a just God.  And God will
    allow us hang ourselves.  It is impossible to dispute the historical
    aspects of the Old Testament.  We cannot just say, "I don't like what
    God did, therefore I don't believe it."  It happens...it's happing
    right now as we speak.
    
    -Jack

    The issue is that bad things happen.  That small nations have always
    been eaten up by large nations.  That innocent people are hurt and
    killed.
    
    The historic books of the OT are set up in sharp contrast to the story
    of Job both pondering the question "Why do bad things happen".
    
    From a historic perspective I need to do a lot more studying to
    understand the history of the Caananites, Israelites, Phoencians,
    Egyptians etc.  I do believe that the Bible was written to attempt to
    find meaning in the Historic happenings of the Hebrew people.  I do not
    believe that when good things happened it was because God was happy and
    rewarding the people and when bad things happen God  was punishing the
    people.  The OT describes the authors understanding of history not
    history itself.
    
    I don't know exactly what role God plays in my life or in the life of
    nations.  Why are the people of Rwonda suffering right now.  What will
    it mean to the children who survive to have had the experience of
    walking over and around so many dead bodies?
    
    Why were 8 million jews murdered in Germany?
    
    Why are some children born into healthy happy homes and others born
    into neglect, lack of love, and poverty?
    
    Why can I walk and Richard not walk?
    
    Why does Unitarian Universalism seem so inspiring to me and why does
    fundemental Christianity seem so inspiring to someone else?
    
    How does it all fit together.
    
    Patricia

  Re Bad things, really BAD things.

  Patricia, Ive heard it said that we should ask "how can this be" rather
  than "why...?". If God is a God of love.

  No matter what view of God we hold (thumper, UU, etc) this is a problem area.
  Many just resolve it by saying "I've got to be honest with myself , I don't
  see how there can be a God" In their minds they wish there was a God, They
  have tried to seek Him out. They have a love for their fellow man, but can't 
  reconcile BAD things with the God-is-love concept.They believe eternal life 
  is just too good to be true. This is probably where most people are.

  For whatever reason Our Heavenly Father has chosen to hide himself from us...

  But he has promised "If you seek me with all your heart you will find me".
  (paraphrase).

  What holds us back is the darkness all around us

  "In Him (Jesus Christ) was life and the life was the light of men 
   (anthropoi) and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness 
   did not comprehend it...

   that was the true light which gives light to every man (anthropos)
   coming into the world"    John 1 NKJV.

  We love the darkness. 

  

Re: Note 942.121                   women in the Bible                     121 of 121
POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"                    34 lines  28-JUL-1994 10:11

>>    The issue is that bad things happen.  That small nations have always
>>    been eaten up by large nations.  That innocent people are hurt and
>>    killed.
  
I see the logic here but it wasn't always the case.  Germany, a small country
did serious damage to Russia, a large country.  The Russian winter is what 
stopped the Germans as well as eventually fighting on two fronts.

Rome was the most powerful nation in history, yet in the small country of 
Italy.  Alexander the Great represented Greece, yet another small country.
I think what you mean is that the country with the most wealth makes the rules.
Yes innocent people are hurt.  Again, look what happened in Germany when we
bombed Berlin.  You may find this is why the "Radical right fundamentalists"
are so strong in presenting what they believe to be right.  When a nation is
judged, the rain falls on the righteous as well as the unrighteous.  
  
  >>  The OT describes the authors understanding of history not
  >>  history itself.
    
Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joshua, David, and other prophets; they all lived
through the very things they recorded.  

>>    I don't know exactly what role God plays in my life or in the life of
>>    nations.  Why are the people of Rwonda suffering right now.  What will
>>    it mean to the children who survive to have had the experience of
>>    walking over and around so many dead bodies?
  
A very good question.  Patricia, do you believe the historical account of Herod
when he found out that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he murdered all children 
three years old and under or do you believe that was written to embellish the 
gospels?  This was the fulfillment of a dual prophecy in the OT, and God knew
it was going to happen, yet God allowed it to happen!  Point:  God's ways 
aren't always our ways!  I know...canned response but it is true.  I don't 
    pretend to understand it!!
  
>>    Why were 8 million jews murdered in Germany?

      My opinion.  The Jews have always been looked upon as an enemy by the
  world.  Why?

	1. The Jewish race is God's chosen people to have brought the Messiah
  	   into the world.  (Hilter was heavily involved in the occult)
           I believe as it says in Ephesians that we wrestle not against
           flesh and blood but with spiritual wickedness in high places.  
           I believe Satan is the catalyst here.
    
	2. I believe it is also a fulfillment of the Isaac/Ishmael prophecy.

           Speculative Memory.  "Isaac, I will make thee a great and mighty
	   nation and I will make your descendents numerous like the sands
 	   of the sea.  I will bless those who bless you and I will curse
           those who curse you."
    
	   "Ishmael (Father of the Arabs) Behold I will make thee a great and
	   mighty nation and your descendents will be like the sands of the
	   sea.  I will make thee as a wild man and the hands of the nations
	   will be against you."  
    
	   I believe the hatred between Israel and the Arabs is not a land
	   issue, it is a covenant issue. 

>>    Why are some children born into healthy happy homes and others born
>>    into neglect, lack of love, and poverty?
  
Good question, wish I had an answer.  I often ask why some of the people Jesus 
healed were incapacitated all their lives.  Why couldn't they, for example, 
have lost their sight six months before they were healed?  

>>    Why does Unitarian Universalism seem so inspiring to me and why does
>>    fundemental Christianity seem so inspiring to someone else?
  
Christianity has been portrayed as an exclusive faith and that is simply not
true.   The promises of Jesus are available to ALL who wish to have eternal 
life.  Christianity can, however, be a faith of strife and enmity 
because many many many in our world are threatened by the realities of
eternal life and eternal damnation.   It may be Patricia, that I am 
comfortable where I am because I believe in these things.  I do believe our
eternity takes prescedence over our lives here.  This is why some of the
great writers of the Word of God died horrible deaths to bring us a book.
Their convictions were so Spirit lead and so powerful that they too became 
a willing sacrifice.  

>>    How does it all fit together.
  
I'm not really sure.  One thing I do know however;  When we meet God, it MUST
be on God's terms, not our own. 

Peace to you,

-Jack
                       

    Hi there, mind me to join this discussion on women in the Bible.
    
    I heard to view in insight from John, Patricia & others about Jezebel. 
    That's very interesting.  I think traditionally women with power and
    influence throughout history have been remembered with bad and hate
    rather than good and loving.  Doesn't anyone read the story about the
    Queen of Sheba.  She's rich and intellience.  But she was a murder too. 
    Was her act overall appreciated by the Ethiopian.  Any insight on this?
    
    Also is Hagar symbolic that women have to suffer or being abused? Or
    women were not valued in Israelite society at that time.
    
    Justina
      
                               

Note 942.124

>    Also is Hagar symbolic that women have to suffer or being abused? Or
>    women were not valued in Israelite society at that time.
    
Welcome to CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, Justina!

	Hagar, according to the Bible, is the mother of the Abrahamic
lineage which became known as Islam or Moslem.

	The reason Abraham and Hagar had sexual relations, again according
to the Bible, was that it was thought that Sarah, Abraham's wife (and sister),
could not bear children.  Children at the time were considered both an
extension of the species *and* an economic necessity.  Hagar was Sarah's
handmaiden.  And sexual relations between Sarah's husband (and brother) and
Sarah's handmaiden were enacted with Sarah's knowledge and consent.

	But to answer your question, women were not thought of as property
in Abraham's time in the same way we tend to think of property today.
On the other hand, neither were women thought of as being very different
from property, either. 8-)

Shalom,
Richard

    I'm looking into the portrayal of women in the scriptures of Judaism,
    Christianity and Islam.   I can't speak for the other two religious
    because I have no knowledge or background about them.  I can only go to
    the Bible that I have at home.
    
    In historical content, these three religions has been obscured by a
    patriarchal tradition.  Women's status in the society was lesser,
    inferior.  Is there a way to relate this situation to the scriptures'
    influence.  Take a look at the women in the bible: Eve, Jezebel, the
    Queen of Sheba, Hagar and the concubines.  They were seen as evil,
    hatred, slave, property ... with influence direct or indirectly from
    Lord (that's my interpretation).  How would you view these scripture
    stories?
    
    From my culture (at least for my mom and grandma's generation), women
    were suffer with inferiority.  If they gave birth to daughters, and
    would be put to work in the field right the way where as on the other
    hand, if they gave birth to sons, they would be served at home and rest
    for a month.  Some horror throughts saying that people would drown the
    baby if it's a girl because each family could only have a child and
    they choose to have a boy.  I can't trace where this male dominant
    society came from.  Those powerful women that we have in our history
    were protrayed as burden, bad or blamed for the downfall of the
    kingdom.
    
    I'm studying this for a university credit and it's part of my interest
    to find out more as well.  Your comments and input is much appreciated.

    .126
    
    I can't argue with what you're saying, Justina.  And judging from
    what I've read in the past here and elsewhere, any argument is either
    a stab at rationalization or an outright whitewashing.  ("Whitewash,"
    for those of other cultures is an expression derived from Mark Twain's
    book, _Tom Sawyer_)
    
    Even in the case of turning out Hagar, Abraham only did so at Sarah's
    insistence, making another woman the "bad guy."
    
    From which culture is your heritage?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Justina,

I wrote a paper on a similar topic for a college course a few years back.
I'll send it to you offline.  I hope you find it helpful.

Shalom,
Richard

Re: Note 942.126             
TROOA::JUCHAN                                        27 lines   7-OCT-1994 16:09

    >>Take a look at the women in the bible: Eve, Jezebel, the
    >>Queen of Sheba, Hagar and the concubines.  They were seen as evil,
    >>hatred, slave, property ... with influence direct or indirectly from
    >>Lord (that's my interpretation).  How would you view these scripture
    >>stories?
    
I cannot speak for the Queen of Sheba.  Eve is really at the forefront since 
Eve was the receiver of the curse.  "Your desire shall be for your husband and
he shall rule over you."  I believe this verse alone has set the condition
of the genders.  It doesn't say here that a woman will desire her husband.
What it says is that a woman will desire the role or position of her husband.
So this is a real whammy because the desire will be there but the ability will
not be. (Societally that is).  

I'm inclined to believe Hagar got a raw deal here.  It was actually Abrahams 
weakness or lack of faith in thinking the seed of promise would come from 
Hagar.  Here again is another of what I call...A covenant mixed with a curse.
"For behold, I will make thee a great and mighty nation...and ye shall be as a
wild man and the hands of the nations will be against you.  This curse went to 
Hagars born, Ishmael, the father of the Arabs.  The anamosity between the Arabs
and the Jews is a covenant issue, not a land issue.  Make no mistake about 
that!!!.

Jezebel, I make no excuses for.  The lady was evil, pure and simple.  She was
a proponent of Baal worship and sacrificing to Molech (children to the fire).
I have no sympathy for her, regardless of her gender.  No, she's not 
getting a raw deal here.

>>    Some horror throughts saying that people would drown the
>>    baby if it's a girl because each family could only have a child and
>>    they choose to have a boy.  

Yes, this is why abortion is so hideous to some people, (for birth control 
purposes).

>>    I can't trace where this male dominant
>>    society came from.  Those powerful women that we have in our history
>>    were protrayed as burden, bad or blamed for the downfall of the
>>    kingdom.
  
Depends of what kingdom we're talking about here.  Israel, Arabs?

Cordially,

-Jack

    .129
    
    I really need to thank you, Jack.  I disagree sharply with your
    bias on this and so many other matters of Christian faith and practice.
    But without your voice, some might find it difficult to believe that
    others (perhaps many) actually profess such beliefs.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I assume you disagree with me on the curse aspect regarding Eve.  If
    that be the case, please give me another opinion of this passage.  
    I only believed this because that is what Wycliffs commentary alluded
    to.  
    
    "And a woman's desire shall be for her husband and her husband shall
    rule over her" 
    
    -Jack

    The assertion about "ruling over" a woman in the marriage relationship
    is clearly affirming subordination on a societal level; thus, it
    becomes justification for doing so.
    
    I do not "rule over" my spouse.  Nor would I "rule over" her just because
    it says that's the way things are supposed to be forever and ever
    somewhere in the Torah.
    
    Sharon and I will have been married 15 years in a couple of weeks.  No
    small achievement in a culture of disposable commitments.
    
    Subordination is not integral to our marriage.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, Okay but what does the verse mean?  

    Richard,
    
    Thanks for your paper.  I will read over it and tell you my thought
    later.
    
    I'm from the Asian culture, Chinese in particular.
    
    

    
    I'm not trying to defence Jezebel.  Does she had any credit being a
    faithful and caring wife of the King?  Her intention to kill was to
    make her husband happy.  She was executing the power of the King to his
    people and this execution of power had been seen very often in history.
    
    Comment please.
    
    

    The trials of Nuremburg rang of the excuse, "I was just doing my job".
    Nevertheless the participants of the holocaust were sentenced and 
    justice prevailed.  
    
    I give Jezebel no slack here.  She was evil to the core, just as many
    men in the Old Testament were evil to the core.  
    
    By the way Richard, was does that part of the curse mean?  A woman's
    desire shall be for the husband and the husband shall rule over her?
    Incidently, I agree with you.  Michele and I have an equal relationship
    and I never do anything major without seeking her approval.  Afterall,
    it is her life too, and ours together.  She does however, through
    faith, allow me a cushion of trust and decisionmaking.  However, I
    still talk things over with her first.  I would still like to know the
    meaning of the verse.  We already know it has been exploited but what
    is it's proper application?
    
    -Jack

Re: .136 Jack

>    I give Jezebel no slack here.  She was evil to the core, just as many
>    men in the Old Testament were evil to the core.  
    
	and when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, Obadiah took a
	hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave, and fed them
	with bread and water.)
					1 Kings 18:4

	And Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one
	of them escape."  And they seized them; and Elijah brought them
	down to the brook Kishon, and killed them there.
					1 Kings 19:40

Who was more evil, Jezebel or Elijah?

	And Jezebel his wife said to him, "Do you now govern Israel?
	Arise, and eat bread, and let your heart be cheerful; I will give
	you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
	  So she wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his
	seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who
	dewlt with Naboth in his city.  And she wrote in the letters,
	"Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people; and set
	two base fellows opposite him, and let them bring a charge against
	him, saying, 'You have cursed God and the king.'  Then take him
	out, and stone him to death."
					1 Kings 21:7-10


	"Thus says the LORD the God of Israel, I annoint you king over the
	people of the LORD, over Israel.  And you shall strike down the
	house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood
	of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of
	the LORD.  For the whole house of Ahab shall perish, and I will
	cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. ...  Thus
	Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi conspired against
	Joram. ... Then Jehu mounted his chariot, and went to Jezreel, for
	Joram lay there.  And Ahaziah king of Judah had come down to visit
	Joram. ...

	  And when Joram saw Jehu he said, "Is it peace, Jehu?"  He
	answered, "What peace can there be, so long as the harlotries and
	the sorceries of your mother Jezebel are so many?"  Then Joram
	reined about and fled, saying to Ahaziah, "Treachery, O Ahaziah!"
	And Jehu drew his bow with his full strength, and shot Joram
	between the shoulders, so that the arrow pierced his heart, and he
	sank in his chariot. ...

	  When Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled in the
	direction of Bethhaggan.  And Jehu pursued him, and said, "Shoot
	him also"; and they shot him in the chariot at the ascent of Gur,
	which is by Ibleam.  And he fled to Megiddo, and died there. ...

	  When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it, and she painted
	her eyes, and adorned her head, and looked out of the window.  And
	as Jehu entered the gate, she said, "Is it peace, you Zimri,
	murderer of your master?"  And he lifted up his face to the
	window, and said, "Who is on my side?  Who?"  Two or three eunuchs
	looked out at him.  He said, "Throw her down."  So they threw her
	down; and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the
	horses, and they trampled on her.
					2 Kings 9:6b-8,14a,16,22-24,27,30

	  Now Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria.  So Jehu wrote letters,
	and sent them to Samaria, to the rulers of the city, to the
	elders, and to the guardians of the sons of Ahab, saying, ...
	"select the best and fittest of your master's sons and set him on
	his father's throne, and fight for your master's house."  But they
	were exceedingly afraid, and said, "Behold, the two kings could
	not stand before him; how then can we stand?"

	  So he who was over the palace, and he who was over the city,
	together with the elders and the guardians, sent to Jehu, saying,
	"We are your servants, and we will do all that you bid us.  We
	will not make anyone king; do whatever is good in your eyes."
	Then he wrote them a second letter, saying, "If you are on my
	side, and if you are ready to obey me, take the heads of your
	master's sons, and come to me at Jezreel tomorrow at this time.
	Now the king's sons, seventy persons, were with the great men of
	the city, who were bringing them up.  And when the letter came to
	them, they took the king's sons, and slew them, seventy persons,
	and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel.

	  So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel,
	all his great men, and his familiar friends, and his priests,
	until he left none remaining.
					2 Kings 10:1,3-7,11

	  Then Jehu assembled all the people, and said to them, "Ahab
	served Baal a little; but Jehu will serve him much.  Now therefore
	call to me all the prophets of Baal, all his worshippers and all
	his priests; let none be missing, for I have a great sacrifice to
	offer to Baal; whoever is missing shall not live."  But Jehu did
	it with cunning in order to destroy the worshippers of Baal.  And
	Jehu ordered, "Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal."  So they
	proclaimed it. And Jehu sent throughout all Israel; and all the
	worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left who did
	not come.  And they entered the house of Baal, and the house of
	Baal wad filled from one end to the other. ...

	  Now Jehu had stationed eighty men outside, and said, "The man
	who allows any of those whom I give into your hands to escape
	shall forfeit his life."  So as soon as he had made and end of
	offering the burnt offering, Jehu said to the guard and to the
	officers, "Go in and slay them; let not a man escape." ...  And
	they demolished the pillar of Baal, and demolished the house of
	Baal, and made it a latrine to this day.
					2 Kings 10:18-21,24b-25a,27

Valuing differences?  I don't think so.

Who was more evil, Jezebel or Jehu?

>    By the way Richard, was does that part of the curse mean?  A woman's
>    desire shall be for the husband and the husband shall rule over her?

It means that the person who wrote that verse was a male chauvinist pig.
(Yes, I know my name isn't Richard.)

				-- Bob

    >    By the way Richard, was does that part of the curse mean?  A woman's
    >    desire shall be for the husband and the husband shall rule over her?
    
    >>It means that the person who wrote that verse was a male chauvinist
    >>pig.  (Yes, I know my name isn't Richard.)
    
    uhhh, okay! Richard, do you buy this?
    By the way, considering the history of what God commanded Israel to do
    to the nations in the book of Joshua, I still say Jezebel!!
    
    -Jack

    Yes, A wonderful situation.
    
    Two nations at bloody war with each other, both claiming that their
    God commands them to slaughter the other.
    
    3000 years later, many still believe that God demanded the slaughter.
    
    Even though the scriptures also state that God commands us to Love our
    enemies.
    
                                   Patricia
    
                                           
    
                                     

    Patricia:
    
    Do you believe the prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos?
    Amos foretold that the Israelites were going to be taken into exile by
    the Babylonians.  That the adults were going to be taken through a
    breach in the wall of Jerusalem with meat hooks through their mouths;
    and because they run out of meathooks, they use fish hooks for the
    children.  Patricia, this is Historical, this is NOT make believe.  
    This prophecy was indeed fulfilled.  
    
    This is one thing I fail to understand about you.  You seem to put God
    in this cozy little box, God made in the image of what WE think God
    should be like.  Keep in mind I am not trying to insult you, I am
    trying to challenge you.  The prophecy of Amos along with the others is
    a clear sign that sin causes death, either naturally or supernaturally. 
    Think of all the many times in the Old Testament where God allowed
    Israel to be oppressed.  The Babylonians, The Chaldeans, The
    Philistines, Rome...God knew full well of everything that happened, yet
    he allowed it to happen.  Why is the Holy aspect of God's nature so
    difficult to accept?
    
    -Jack

    I pretty much buy Bob's take on the verse.  I've been trying to think
    of a way to say it more diplomatically, however.
    
    Doubtlessly at the time the verse was written, the idea of men "ruling
    over" (domination of) women seemed right and proper, as it evidently
    still does in some cultures.
    
    Much of this mindset lingers in our own.  Notice in the movie, "Fatal
    Attraction," the man comes off smelling like a rose.  It's a reflection
    of our social paradigm.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Not necessarily.  Fatal Attraction was a good example of what sin can
    possible do to a family.  If he came out of this smelling rosey, it was
    only by the grace of his wife and her willingness to forgive.  His
    actions still almost caused the death of his family, in more ways than
    one.
    
    Richard, if you really believe that Moses scribes added that verse for
    the sake of being male chauvenists, then consider the following.
    
    1. The writers misrepresented what God stated, hence the whole curse
       to all parties was written under false pretenses...otherwise, we are
       once again picking what we choose to fit our political agenda.
    
    2. Moses scribes wrote under a bias pretense, hence the whole pentatuch
       is now in question.
    
    3. Jesus quoted from the Pentatuch and held the law in high reverence,
       hence he is also a chauvenist or misguided since he follows bad
       example.
    
    4. The writers of the Pentatuch would deserve death by stoning since
       they distorted the nature and attributes of God.
    
    5. If Moses actually penned the Genesis account, he not only was a male
       chauvenist pig, he was also a false prophet and deserved death under
       the mosaic law.
    
    Considering Moses was one who appeared in the transfiguration, I
    consider him a valid source of information as one under the inspiration
    of God.  I therefore conclude that to call the writer of the Genesis
    account a male chauvenist pig, or at least not offer a reason for the
    passage to be written, shows a lack of understanding about God's nature 
    or Holiness.  Either that or just sheer denial.
    
    -Jack

    Just to  challenge you back Jack.
    
    My quest is to understand the nature of the Divine.  I believe that God
    has given me everything I need to pursue my search.
    
    The Bible helps but is not the primary authority in my search.  The
    primary authority is the Spirit of God which is available to all who
    seek it.  
    
    As I begin to comprehend dimly, the nature of the Divine, then I can
    use that revelation to understand the nature of the Bible.  The Bible
    is revelation mediated through lots of different biased humans who each
    perceive the nature of Divinity only dimly.  The multiple attestation
    of this power of Divinity recorded in the Bible is certainly
    compelling.  By studying the Bible, anyone with eyes to see and ears to
    hear can separate out that which is consistent with Divinity in the
    Bible and that which is not.
    
    Some start their search with the nature of the Bible and from there
    deduce what the nature of God is.  This leads to acceptance of a
    jeolous, angry, wrathful, destructive, androcentric, all powerful God
    who in fact has not been successful over the 3000 years of Biblical
    History of destroying an almost as powerful demigod.  This is a false,
    oppressive, harmful reading of the Bible.
    
    Jack, you continually challenge me to start my search with an
    understanding and acceptance of the nature of the bible.  You would
    like me to make my God fit your interpretation of the Bible.
    
    Jack, I would like to challenge you to start your search with and
    understanding and acceptance of the nature of God.  I would like your
    interpretation of the Bible to follow from an understanding of the
    nature of God.  That understanding is available directly to you and I
    if we seek it hard enough.
    
                                 Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    You just told me in philosophical seminary-like jargon that you use
    whatever parts of the Bible you decide fit the mold of the eternal God, 
    which is what I have been saying all along.  
    
    I put God's love and compassion on the back burner to try to focus
    mainly on the message of Holiness, Atonement, and Sanctification. 
    These are areas you seem to have a problem with, or are at least
    communicating to me that you have a problem with.  
    
    You say that we are saved by grace, I have seen it.  Therefore, let me
    refine the question alittle.  Do we need to be saved from something and 
    what is it that we need to be saved from?  I believe we do need to be
    saved from eternal separation from God and it is our sin that separates
    us from Him.  I firmly believe the incidents of the Old Testament are a
    manifestation of the seriousness of God's attributes of Holiness and
    seperation from sin.  
    -------------------------------------------
    Richard, do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?  And do
    you believe that verse in the curse is divinely inspired?
    
    -Jack

    >You just told me in philosophical seminary-like jargon that you use
    >whatever parts of the Bible you decide fit the mold of the eternal God, 
    >which is what I have been saying all along.  
    
    I understand that is your interpretation of what I am saying.
    
    What I
    am trying to say is that the God who is who he is is much bigger than
    the God potrayed in the Bible.  There are many ungodly elements asigned
    to God in the Bible.  The slaughter of children, the massacre of the
    Cannanites, The oppression of women, the Jeolousy and Wrath, the Hate.
    
    I refuse to accept these attributes of the Divine regardless of where
    they are recorded and who pronounces them innerrant.
    
    >I put God's love and compassion on the back burner to try to focus
    >mainly on the message of Holiness, Atonement, and Sanctification. 
    
    Why are you picking and choosing?  Why put God's love and compassion on
    the back burner.
    
    BTW  I also accept the Holiness of God, the need for Atonement(at
    oneness with Go)d, and Sanctification(setting aside and committing our
    lifes to God).  
    
    >These are areas you seem to have a problem with, or are at least
    >communicating to me that you have a problem with.  
   
    I must not be communicating well. 
    
    >You say that we are saved by grace, I have seen it.  Therefore, let me
    >refine the question alittle.  Do we need to be saved from something and 
    >what is it that we need to be saved from?  I believe we do need to be
    >saved from eternal separation from God and it is our sin that separates
    >us from Him. 
    
    I agree with all that.  I not quite sure what eternal means and as I
    have said before, I don't know what happens to us after we die, but I
    trust whatever it is it will be OK.
    
    
    >I firmly believe the incidents of the Old Testament are a
    >manifestation of the seriousness of God's attributes of Holiness and
    >seperation from sin.  
    
    I believe the recordings in the Old testament are a variety of
    different writings focusing on the theme of "Why do Bad things Happen"
    There are three different answers given probably with a lot of variety
    in those three answers.
    
    The Prophets state that bad things happen because of our sins,
    particularly the oppression of the poor and the worship of other Gods.
    
    Job states that Bad things happen for God and the Devil  to test us and
    see if we can remain faithful to God.
    
    The Psalms state that bad things happen, and we can cry out to God and
    He will comfort us in our agony and lead us to saftey.
    
    The different stories, metaphors, symbols used in the Old Testament all
    reflect the culture of the time.  They are extremely Rascist and 
    Sexist.
    
    In the stories, God identifies a "Chosen People" and encourages them to
    slaughter and wipe out their adversaries.  In the stories The women are
    allowed to be used totally as sex objects for the men.  As stated in
    the Sarah and Abraham note, from Sarah, Hagar, Lot's Daughters,
    Rachail, Leigh,  etc etc etc.  
    
    These stories are products of a rascist, sexist culture, mysogynst
    culture.  Those aspects of the stories are not divinely inspired.  That
    does not mean others aspects of the stories or the questions that the
    stories raise are not divinely inspired.
    
    Divinely inspired but recorded by Biased men who understood only dimly.
    
    I certainly don't believe the curse against womenhood is divinely
    inspired.  Why are you so quick to believe it?  What would it mean if
    you didnn't believe it?
    
                                   Patricia

942.143
    
>    The Bible helps but is not the primary authority in my search.  The
>    primary authority is the Spirit of God which is available to all who
>    seek it.

	This sums it up fairly well for me as well.

Shalom,
Richard

.144

>    Richard, do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?  And do
>    you believe that verse in the curse is divinely inspired?
    
-Jack,

	Didn't notice this question on the first browse through.  (A
confession:  I don't always thoroughly read every note, so I could very
easily miss a question asked of me that's buried deep within an entry.)

	I believe the Bible to be an extraordinary work.  I believe it
to be inspired.  I do not call the Bible inerrant.  (But neither does the
Bible.)

	I believe Christ to be the Word of God.

	The "curse," as you call it, is sure not a piece of Scripture
which I have guiding my spousal relationship, if that's what you mean.
And neither am I going to force it to fit just because it happens to be
in the Pentateuch.

Shalom,
Richard

    .135
    
    Justina,
    
    	How goes your exploration?
    
    	Personally, I've not looked very deeply into the Old Testament
    character of Jezebel.  I'd welcome learning about your findings either
    here or offline.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Richard,
    
    I didn't do much of the study on Jezebel last week.  I don't quite
    understand the whole story.  I read the story in the bible a few times
    but I had a hard time sorting out the story.  I'm reading the KJV.
    I've go on the next study on love and violence in the Biblical stories
    -- Hager and the Anonymous Concubine; Genesis and the Song of Songs.
    The whole course is to study women and the Holy Writ.  Beside the
    bible, other reading are written by feminists such as "Woman Spirit
    Rising" edited by Carol P. Christ & Judith Plaskow; Men and Women of
    the Book by Adin Steinszaltz; Texts of Terror by Phyllis Trible etc.
    So far the study confuses me more than anything.  I found myself
    defending the Bible instead of agree with the feminists' view on how
    women was protrayed in the Bible.
    
    Take Hager and the Anonymous Concubine for example, the text rised the
    below question for personal reflection:
    
    What do you think women and men can learn from these stories?
    Have these stories made you more aware of and concerned about women's
    plain?
    Are you informed about the actions being taken to help abused women in
    today's religious and secular institutions?
    
    As most of people agreed, we cannot read the Bible literally nor
    individually.  God make Hager suffer abuse from Abraham and Sarah
    doesn't mean that God approved their act.  I would said God make use of
    Hager to deliver the message that whoever suffer because of God, he/She
    would be reward in the heaven.  God did make numerous descendents for
    Hager's son Ishmael.
    
    Justina
    

    Justina:
    
    Your last reply prompted me to post something that I found quite
    intriguing.  see below.  This is taken from Genesis 15.  God is telling
    Abraham that his descendents will be like the sand of the sea.  They
    will be innumerable.  Yet even as God tells Abraham of this blessing,
    he asks Abraham to offer an offering to God.  See below.
    
    "And Abram took unto God all of these, and divided them in the midst
    <(the offering of a heifer, a she goat, a ram, and a pigeon)> and laid
    each piece one against the other, but the birds he did not divide.  
    And when the fowls came upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
    And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and lo,
    a horror of great darkness fell upon him.
    And He said unto Abram, Know surely that your seed shall be a stranger
    in a land that is not theirs, and your seed shall serve the inhabitants 
    of that land, and they shall afflict them 400 years.  And also that
    nation, whom shall they serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they
    come out with great substance."  Genesis 15:9-14.
    
    This is a prophecy of the enslavement of the Hebrews under Pharoah and
    Egypt.  Keep in mind that until this point, God had nothing but good
    news for Abraham...and now, 400 years of slavery.  This is a long time.
    So what's the point?  The point is simply that God is sovereign, and 
    God allows things to happen in our lives to accomplish His purpose.  
    I agree with the last reply that just because Sarah was a chosen vessel
    of God and dis what she did to Hagar certainly doesn't make it right.  
    We see in the prophecy above that although God chose Egypt to keep the
    Jews in bondage, God also promised strong judgement for them and did
    exactly that.  
    
    Regardless of gender, the rain will fall on the righteous as well as
    the unrighteous.  Hagar got the bad end of the stick but God also made
    a promise of nationhood through Ishmael, Hagars son.  God allowed the
    ill treatment of Hagar to bring her to the point at her life she needed
    to be at.  Worked the same with the Hebrews of Egypt, it works that way 
    with us today.  
    
    Bottom line, even in our injustices, it is important to remember that
    God is sovereign in everything.
    
    -Jack

Note 942.149

Justina,

>I'm reading the KJV.

Any particular reason you don't use a more modern translation?  (Some
do believe anything other than the KJV is corrupt, for example)

>I found myself
>defending the Bible instead of agree with the feminists' view on how
>women was protrayed in the Bible.

Is it because you feel the Bible is to be revered and is beyond questioning?
Or is it that you believe that some feminists are misunderstanding the texts?

>    Take Hager and the Anonymous Concubine for example, the text rised the
>    below question for personal reflection:

I'm a little lost here.  Who is the Anonymous Concubine (if not Hagar herself)?
    
>    What do you think women and men can learn from these stories?
>    Have these stories made you more aware of and concerned about women's
>    plain?
>    Are you informed about the actions being taken to help abused women in
>    today's religious and secular institutions?

Interesting questions.  How have you answered them?
    
>    As most of people agreed, we cannot read the Bible...
>    individually.

I'd watch carefully whoever is saying this.  I've seen the notion misused,
especially by folks who get you into a group that's got its corporate mind
already made up.

>God make Hager suffer abuse from Abraham and Sarah
>doesn't mean that God approved their act.

God didn't exactly express disapproval either, which God certainly does in
other chapters of the Hebrew Bible.

>I would said God make use of
>Hager to deliver the message that whoever suffer because of God, he/She
>would be reward in the heaven.  God did make numerous descendents for
>Hager's son Ishmael.

The notion of a heavenly reward was not a part of the theology of Hagar's
time, I don't believe.  Feel free to double-check me on this.

Shalom,
Richard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard,
    
    There is an assumption among Feminist Theologians that reading the
    Bible as a community of woman is a way of mainaining a religious
    community as opposed to the dangers of totally individualistic
    interpretations.
    
    To be a Feminist Theologian and to be innerantist are diametrically
    opposed.  Woman must decide whether God wants women to be subordinate
    to men as is stated in Timothy or whether God wants women and men to be
    equal.
    
    If you cannot depend on the innerancy of scripture and  you cannot depend
    on the tradition of the patriarchal church, then experience becomes a
    major source of inspiration.  The experience of all women as opposed to
    the experience of an individual woman or a select group of women is
    seen as a better ground for a religious community of woman than pure
    individual revelation.  That is the rational for a collective reading
    of scripture.
    
    The Sarah/Hagar question is a good example.  Woman began asking the
    question about how would Sarah tell the story of Abraham taking Issaac
    to the mountain to sacrifice him.  What role did she play in that
    decision.  That is a good dominant middle class question, but it misses
    that fact that both Abraham and Sarah oppressed Hagar.  It misses the
    fact that only legitimate children were considered worthy of Family
    protections, that Abraham abandoned his illegitimate Son, and that the
    descendents of the illegitatimate child were considered less worthy than the
    children of the legitimate child.

    Patricia,
    
    	I am not opposed to corporate study.  I am not opposed to
    individual study.  Both ways have the potential for being fertile
    and the potential for being stunting.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    I'm reading the KJV just because I happened to have one and I was told
    that it's the original verison that not being edited.
    
    The story of the concubine is in the Book of Judges: Ch. 19.
    
    I could speak for the men how they feel about these stories.  To me as
    a woman,  I don't feel bad because I'm not being treated that way.  The
    stories simply reflect the culture and attitude toward women at the
    time.  I certainly don't think that today's violect act will have
    anything to do with the biblical text here.
    
    I will respond the rest of the question later.
    
    

Note 942.154

Justina,

>    I'm reading the KJV just because I happened to have one and I was told
>    that it's the original verison that not being edited.

This I have heard as well.  It's not a fully accurate assertion, however.
    
>    The story of the concubine is in the Book of Judges: Ch. 19.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Richard

    >>What role did she play in that
    >>decision.  That is a good dominant middle class question, but it
    >>misses that fact that both Abraham and Sarah oppressed Hagar.  It misses
    >>the fact that only legitimate children were considered worthy of Family
    >>protections, that Abraham abandoned his illegitimate Son, and that
    >>the descendents of the illegitatimate child were considered less worthy
    >>than the children of the legitimate child.
    
    Regarding Sarah's decision in the Isaac incident, keep in mind the
    following.
    
    A. GOD CALLED Abram to go to a land flowing with milk and honey.
    B. GOD CALLED Abram to be the Patriarch of the nation of Israel.
    C. GOD CALLED Abram to bring Isaac to the mountain.
    
    I have touched on this issue a number of times.  Men and womens roles
    are defined by God, not by ability or by predjudice.  Though women have
    equal and even greater ability at times to do this, the man of the home
    holds the role and responsibility of Spiritual leader, setting the
    spiritual tone in the home.  Obviously this isn't followed, probably in
    a majority of homes today, but this is still the case.  God defined
    this role to Abram and it was his job and his alone to remain faithful
    to God, not Sarahs.  
    
    I would like to also remind the readers here that Sarah entreated
    Abraham to have relations with Hagar.  Yes, Abraham did this and that
    was his fall, he lacked faith.  Remember that Sarah laughed at the
    prospect that she was to have a child...at the age of 90+.  God knew
    her disbelief yet honored her as the vessel to bring Isaac into the
    world.  Sarah's attitude toward Hagar was disingenuous at best because
    she incited the whole thing in the first place.  
    
    Secondly, back to the Isaac incident, Isaac was a type of
    Christ...meaning, the incident was an illustration of what Jesus was to
    do on the cross.  If you recall, The Ram in the thicket was the
    substitute, meaning, the Ram was offered in his place, just like Jesus
    was offered in our place.  Also, Abraham told the others to stay, that
    they were going to the top of the mountain to worship, AND THEN THEY
    would return. (Plural...THEY)  He believed in God's promise and passed
    the test.  
    
    But the key here is that GOD directed his instructions to Abram ONLY.  
    Abram was the chief patriarch of the Jewish people.  
    
    -Jack

>    I would like to also remind the readers here that Sarah entreated
>    Abraham to have relations with Hagar.

>    Sarah's attitude toward Hagar was disingenuous at best because
>    she incited the whole thing in the first place.  

I told you so!  Abraham gets a slap on the hand and comes off smelling
like a rose.  ("It was the woman, God!  I was just trying to please the
woman!")

Richard

    And as I have stated many times.
    
    God did not define these roles.
    
    The men who wrote the Bible defined these roles and attributed them to
    the Divine.
    
    It is a great evil defining the oppression of women and then blaming it
    on God.
    
                                    patricia

    I hate to do the wake up call Patricia but there are vast amounts of
    Godly women in the country who prefer it this way.
    
    -Jack

    God commanded the men in the Bible to write down His sovereignty
    regarding relationships.  Admittedly, overzealous men misinterpret the
    passages and do more harm than good, but that doesn't mean we write
    those passages off altogether.  Beautiful things happen in
    relationships where couples allow God's Word to filter their lives,
    instead of them filtering God's Word.
    
    Mike

    Yes,
    
    And for every man who insists on the sovereighty of Timothy's
    interpretation of God's Revelation, there is a man who loves to claim
    divine sovereigty over the women in his life.
    
    Woe to those men, when their women finally realize they have been
    dubbed by a patriarchal message.  Then there will be weeping and
    gnashing of teeth.
    
    Perhaps that is what really scares these sovereign men about the feminist
    movement.  They know someday it will come to  close to home.
    
                                       Patricia
    

>    I hate to do the wake up call Patricia but there are vast amounts of
>    Godly women in the country who prefer it this way.
    
Yes, and plenty of (Godly, I presume) Blacks opposed the civil rights movement,
too.

God didn't make every woman a Phyllis Schlafly, you know (who, incidentally,
has a son who is gay).

Shalom,
Richard

   >>     Woe to those men, when their women finally realize they have been
   >>     dubbed by a patriarchal message.  Then there will be weeping and
   >>     gnashing of teeth.
    
    Patricia, you forgot to put a smiley face after this comment.  
    Painting with a broad brush can be just as damaging.  
    
    Patricia's Edition of Websters:
    
    Woman Oppression: (Wo-man Ou-presh-on) - When a republican
    conservative homophobic fundamentalist christian man weds any woman.
    
    The only time I fear the current feminist movement is when Patricia
    Ireland forms a boycott and protest of Florida citrus products and 
    more than 50 people show up.  
    
    -Jack

 Sunday evening I happened upon a program about bees on the Discovery
 Channel.  As I do with most programs of this type, I watched in fascination
 as the subject animals exist in their society, each member fulfilling their
 respective roles ensuring their continued existance.


 Its interesting to me that the human race was created much the same way, with
 each sex being given a role, each quite significant.  And yet, so much time
 and effort is spent disputing who's role is what, claiming "bigotry" and
 misogyny and all the other buzz words of the day, as our society crumbles
 around us.  And the bees, each continuing to fulfill their roles day to day
 seem to be doing fine.




Jim

    The more I hear the fundementalist buzzword
    
    "fulfilling their role assigned"  The more I want to puke.
    
    
    Jesus spoke out quite clearly about his thoughts about women fulfilling
    their role assigned in the Mary/Martha story.
    
    And at the Cross and ressurection, who fulfilled their asigned role?
    
    Peter or Mary Magdelian?
    
    The story of the Gentile woman with the Child with a demon, also
    encourages women to question the role asigned even if it means
    questioning Jesus himself.
    
    If you remember, Jesus' first response to her when she asked for help
    for her daughter was that little doggies should not be given the bread
    designated for the children.  She may be the only  character in the
    Bible who successfully challenged Jesus.  Her answer,  even the dogs
    are entitled to the children's crumbs.
    
    The Bible contains within itself the seeds for the reformation of even
    what is oppressive in the Bible itself.
    
    I am inspired by the thought that the same Divine who provided divine
    inspiration to the authors of the Bible and those who supervised the
    canonization process also preserved the Gnostic Gospels in glass Jars
    for 1500 years to be rediscovered when the world was a little more
    tolerant of religious diversity.
    
    I am inspired that the Christian Canon contains the sacred material
    from diverse communities even in its diversity.
    
    There is a clear message that none of us should imitate the pharasees
    and scribes and worship the letter of the law over and above the spirit
    of the Law.  
    
    The Spirit of Christianity is about love, mercy, patiences,
    discipleship, justices, caring, radical personal obedience,
    inclusivity.
    
    Modern day pharasees are those that abandon the Spirit of Christianity
    for rigid adherences to dogma and doctrine.
    
    
    If the "Christians" are not going to provide food, clothing, sheltar,
    education for every needy person, then I am quite glad that the
    government is willing to step in to help.
    
    REmember Jesus' words that whatever you fail to do for any one of the
    brothers and sisters, you fail to do for me.  I am glad the Government
    is taking some of this overwhelming responsibility from me.
    
                                         Patricia

    Interesting that folks who're proponents of creationist theory also
    make parallels between human societies and animal societies.
    
    But which animal societies?  Ants?  Sharks?  Baboons?
    
    Richard
    

 What's interesting about it?




 Jim

    I don't believe Yahweh assigned roles to genders.  I do understand
    that there is a tradition that does (the J tradition as I recall, but
    I could be wrong).  But according to one of the Genesis stories (the
    E tradtion?), the male and the female humans were created simulateously
    (Genesis 1.27) and are therefore equal in God's intent and likeness.
    
    Much of today's feminist movement arose out of the church's realization
    that women bear this likeness to the same degree as men.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    See Timothy and Titus!
    
    -Jack

    >    I don't believe Yahweh assigned roles to genders.  I do understand
    
    then what about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Romans 12?  Each
    believer has a gift to serve God with as He pleases.  He also gives us
    talents to serve Him with (music, art, poetry, etc.).
    
    Mike

    Timothy and Titus are somebody else's personal mail, written in
    a different time and addressing a different set of circumstances
    than are currently ours.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .171  Roles are not the same as gifts or talents.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Sorry Richard...I believe like any of the other letters it is divinely
    inspired.
    
    -Jack

    Sorry, Jack.  I believe I can derive value from the letters.  Certainly
    they are a part of my Christian heritage.
    
    They will not, however, rule my relationships.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    >    .171  Roles are not the same as gifts or talents.
    
    Okay then, what does one do with the gift of service from Romans 12:7?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    The gift of service is not gender dependent.  None of the "offices"
    mentioned in Romans 12 are.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    ...but what if God calls a woman to the gift of service.  Let's use
    Mother Theresa as an example.  She has denied herself to serve God and
    those in need.  It would seem to me that a feminist would see this as a
    bad thing.
    
    Mike

    Then I would submit that you may not fully understand feminism.
    
    There is a huge difference between servanthood embraced voluntarily
    and servitude inflicted from the outside.
    
    Both men and women can be and are called to serving others.  You
    mentioned Mother Theresa.  How about Albert Schweitzer?  How about
    Father Damien (the one who lived among the lepers in the South Seas)?
    
    Now this is not to say that there aren't some feminists who feel that
    Mother Theresa is perpetuating a gender stereotype.  There probably are.
    But thinking of all feminists in this way is as inaccurate as thinking
    of all Christians as Bible-thumping fundamentalists.
    
    Personally, I think Mother Theresa wields more influence of an enduring
    nature than the CEOs of all the Fortune 500 companies put together. 
    And she doesn't even have to please a bunch of fickle and profit-hungry
    stockholders.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Permit me to add at this point that service to God and others need
    not be lowly or degrading in form.
    
    The origins of the office of deacon are rooted in selfless servanthood.
    Phoebe (a woman) was a deacon, as was Stephen in the book of Acts.
    
    In the Roman Catholic church, a deacon may be authorized to perform nearly
    every function of a priest in the absence of a priest (See 498.2).

    Also see 498.4, .5 and .6 for relevant information.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    In the Roman Catholic church, a deacon may be authorized to perform nearly
>    every function of a priest in the absence of a priest (See 498.2).

Note 498.2 actually applies to the Episcopal Church, though I think there are
almost no differences in what deacons may and may not do.

However, the most important functions of priests: celebrating the Mass and
granting Absolution to penitents cannot be authorized to be performed by a
deacon.

/john

    
    Hi there,
    
    I come across two quote from a book called "The Future of Feminist
    Spirituality" in which it discuss another woman in the Bible -- Mary
    Magdalene.  "Mary Magdalene became the literary and pictorial symbol
    for immorality." and "Mary Magdalene became the exemplary "great
    sinner".  Can anyone point me to the story please?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Justina
                     

> "Mary Magdalene became the literary and pictorial symbol for immorality."
>  and "Mary Magdalene became the exemplary "great sinner".

The only thing the Bible says about Mary Magdalene's past is that she was
a woman out of whom Jesus cast seven demons.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in and around John 19:25, 20:1, 20:18, Luke 8:2,
24:10, Mark 15:40,47, 16:9, Matthew 27:56,61, and 28:1.  There is no mention
of immorality or great sin.

However, people have claimed that she is the woman caught in adultery in
John 8:1-11 and also the woman in Luke 7:38 who bathed Jesus' feet with her
tears.  There is __no__ evidence whatsoever to support this.

/john

    >is, as Nancy suggests, my beloved; and when she's down, we ALL are down!
    
    This is a prime example of the Wife-is-the-Holy-Spirit-of-the-home
    analogy I was trying to make the other day.  Mark Metcalfe made this
    quote and it is in reference to some physical problems his wife is
    having and how it affects his entire family.  The same happens in my
    home and I'm sure many others.  
    
    The Wife sets the atmosphere of the home just as the Holy Spirit does
    in the church.  This in no way states that a woman's place is in the
    home.  I meant this to be taken literally, with no reading between the
    lines.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I guess I believe in a family systems approach to the family.  John
    Bradshaw is the pop psychologists who is best known to the general
    public through his PBS broadcasts.
    
    The theory states that when there is a problem with any member of a
    family, the whole family is thrown out of balance.  If a member of the
    family is sick, it will impact the whole family whether the sick person
    is mother, father, or child.
    
    I don't believe their are any assigned roles based on Gender.  Every
    member of the family is responsible for the health of the whole family.
    Adult members are more responsible than child members.
    
                                    Patricia

    942.181
    
    Thanks for the clarification.
    
    Deacons are also permitted to officiate at weddings and funerals, are
    they not?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    Deacons are also permitted to officiate at weddings and funerals, are
>    they not?

Permitted, yes.  But in practice, almost never.
There is almost always a mass; this requires a priest.

If there is not to be a mass, and it is impossible to obtain the services of
a priest or bishop a deacon or lay person may read the funeral service.

For a wedding, if it is impossible to obtain the services of a priest or
bishop and civil law permits deacons to perform weddings, a deacon may do
so, but must omit the nuptial blessing.

Both the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church allow this with
differing canonical procedures for authorization and possible variations
for geography.  The Roman Catholic Church (but not the Episcopal Church)
even allows lay persons to officiate at weddings, but again, since there
is almost always a mass, this really never happens in practice.

In the Episcopal Church, it is unlikely that it would ever be impossible
to obtain the services of a priest.  Nearly 1 out of every 100 of our
communicants in good standing are priests.

/john

    Richard,
    
    Respond to the question that you sent me off line.
    
    >what good it is to possess a religious faith if it's not going to have
    any effect on one's behavior.
    
    It all depends on the much faith the person has.  For my mom, she never
    miss the Sunday mass, but that is.  One the other hand, my mom-in-law,
    she is a very religious person.  She attends mass every Sunday, she
    does volunteer work at the Church (making cloths for the elders),
    leading the prayer in groups and she prays along twice a day. 
    Religious do make a difference on her behavior.  She is very
    supportive, care but not dominate.
    
    How many of us could give up all the material wealth today and follow
    Jesus?  Like Mary and Martha in the Bible, I'm a 100% Martha, practical
    and materialistic. I prays once a while when I am depressed or just
    pass by a scene of an accident.  I'm more my mom type of religious
    person.
    
    Justina
    
    P.S. my childhood was a difficult one... it's almost the same across
    all the lower class families.

    Last night my class included a panel of various Biblical Criticism
    methods of studying the Gospel of mark.
    
    I liked the definition of several terms.
    
    The Bible as Androcentric.  
    
    	I termed that male centered.  That was expanded.  The Bible views
    the life of men as normative and women as other or auxiliary.  The
    Bible has much discussion of the lifes and actions of men.  Men are
    called into Covenant.  The women disciples are obscured from Biblical
    Records.  Man's actions are considered those that matter.  Women's
    actions support the men.  Jesus feeds the multitudes of 4000 men plus
    women and children.  Moses calls his followers not to have sex with
    their wifes before their meeting with God.  Men are told not to Covet
    their neighbors wifes.  The disciples are assumed to be all men.  The
    names of many important women characters in the Bible are not recorded,
    they remain anonymous.  In most cases the Bible does not specifically
    say women are this or that or women  should do this or that.  It just
    does  not discuss them and the things that matter to them other than
    perhaps womenn's concern for being unable to produce sons.
    
                                     Patricia
    
    
    
    Woman    A biological term identify the physical aspects of Gender.
    
    Female  A cultural term identify the stereotypical role that Women are
            assumed to play.
    
    Feminist  A person with a  commitment toward collective action
              regarding the politics of gender differences and
              the assignment of roles based of those differences.

    My pastor's wife started an in-depth study on this subject a couple
    years ago.  I started going through the tapes recently and they're very
    good.  She's about half-way through the NT now (about 30 or so tapes). 
    If you're interested in getting some let me know.
    
    Mike