Calling Perry Out (and any others who want to participate) (page 12)

snowbird

According to the bible we are imperfect sinners and God is..................?

The Potter - we the clay.

Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9.

Sylvia

THE GLADIATOR

For I remember stopping by the way
To watch a Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all-obliterated Tongue
It murmur'd--"Gently, Brother, gently, pray!"

Omar Khyam

Terry

Are we seriously discussing the complicity of a tribal deity in the conduct of men engaged in war?

It sounds like a conversation I overheard between two guys in their twenties who are big Magic the Gathering enthusiasts.

This is Nerdville 101.

Mankind has never needed either the permission or the command of their deity to seize land, capture slaves, rape women or later claim it was all done for noble purposes.

What would it actually prove if Perry said, "Yeah, it does really sound like Jehovah allowed rape."?

Everybody piling on Perry is a kind of polemic version of gang rape in itself, wouldn't you say?

One on one is a bit more fair. (not for rape, but, for debate).

THE GLADIATOR

Everybody piling on Perry is a kind of polemic version of gang rape in itself, wouldn't you say?

Perry is not alone. He has his 3 gods and his parrot to help him.

I have no issue with the nature of God or what he allows humans to get away with, because I'm not invested in God as some magical bringer of goody two shoes behavior out of mere human beings who are not that nice, really.

What gets me is that there are people out there sharing my world who truly believe that because it's IN THE BIBLE that it's a template for human behavior and interactions with God NOW.

Particularly the Old Testament. I don't want to be treated like property. Sorry, and thankfully I live in a country where the laws say I'm not. But, this holds us back, trying to emulate what is behind us instead of moving forward to something better.

There are people who believe we'd be better off if we lived like ancient tribal Bronze and Iron Age Jews! Is it because God actually talked to some of them and now won't have anything to do with us that way because we now have telephones and the internet?

Do people think if we start making our employees wear slave collars and an earring to show ownership and have our husbands demand we call them lord, and sell our daughters into slavery or servitude at the temple to pay material and spiritual debt that we'd be a better society?

I know for a fact that there are people who dream of a world where men go out and do all the challenging important work, women stay home and tend the house, raise kids and put supper on the table and know their place and no one rocks the boat, has the same politics and goes to the same Christian church is the ideal GODLY world. The trouble is, that's not the world of the Bible or the patriarchs, or even the first century Christians.

That's post war baby boom suburban America, the only time we had wages high enough and inflation low enough for one man to make enough money to give his wife and kids that lifestyle. It lasted about a decade.

But, if you think that's the "traditional" world that the Bible wants you to live, well...here's a good hard look at "traditional marriage" for instance, Biblical style.

In Hebrew times, you'd likely be sharing your husband with a few other women, some of whom might be prettier and younger than you. They'd all help you run the very large and labor intensive household, along with slaves. When your husband came in from the fields or transacting business in town, and you hadn't gone with him to trade, because it was your turn to water the camels that day, so he took concubine #4 which you suspect he likes better than you anyway because he sleeps with her more often, you'd have to bow to him, call him "lord" and order a servant or a lesser wife to wash his feet and make him comfortable.

You might not be allowed to speak unless permission was asked, and if you spoke out of turn or said something the master didn't like, he had the right to punish you for being an unsubmissive wife.

Now, doesn't "traditional marriage between a man and a his harem" sound like a good old jollly time?

Even among the early Christians, things had changed a little and were definitely better for women, but if you had more than one wife, you'd have to rid yourself of her if you wanted to progress in the congregation. No more polygamy, but you might have to support that wife and her children or find another man to marry her to care for those of your household, although you couldn't have relations with the other wives anymore even if you had to support them.

If you had a wife, she might attend Christian meetings with you. Not held regularly or three times a week or whatever, but by mutual agreement and arrangement. You'd allow her to ask you questions, but she couldn't openly debate scripture and challenge male members of the congregation in public.

A few women were deaconesses, and apparently some of them had no husbands, but were wealthy widows or unmarried daughters of merchants who were running businesses in the community, such as Lydia. They may have had a better status in the congregation. Even in Roman society, a woman with independent means or a money making business, a female merchant had higher social status and privileges than a wife. Christian women fared a bit better than some women of that time, but they were still property and their husbands determined much of their lives for them.

A wife in Greek and Roman, and apparently still, Jewish society has the lowest status of anyone but a slave. Some Greek and Roman wives never left the house unattended, and were virtual prisoners inside their walled villas, not only for protection, but they had no reason to venture outside.

They didn't participate in intellectual discussion or were schooled as men were, not wives. They ran households, household budgets, bore and raised heirs for their husbands. They might not see their husbands except to discuss household matters and for his marital due, marriages were arranged as a business contract by parents, usually, not for love or romance. A woman brought material goods and the ability to bear heirs to a marriage or she was replaced. Men often had mistresses or lovers of both sexes to satisfy their carnal needs...sex with wives was often dutiful, for the making of children.

"Good" Roman wives were not supposed to have a carnal nature, and to not enjoy relations that much. They were prized for being dutiful and chaste and obedient. We might think that stereotype of the dutiful wife comes from Christianity, but more so, the Roman and Hellenistic ideals of womanhood and wifely behavior. Later Christians (Gentiles) borrowed quite a bit of those social ideas, just as they borrowed many philosophical and legal ideas also from the Romans and Greeks, as much as early Christianized Jews.

If this is "traditional marriage between a man and a woman"...count me out. Give me untraditional!

snowbird

They might not see their husbands except to discuss household matters and for his marital due,

This seems kind of appealing ...

Just sayin.'

Sylvia

mindmelda

Well, if your marriage was an arranged one as part of a financial and social arrangement, you might not even want the marital due part, but it was part of the deal...make heirs that were definitely the genetic offspring of the husband. Which is why the laws and punishments in many lands and cultures for ensuring female chastity are so deadly strict.

Men would rather spend their efforts and resources raising their own heirs, not someone elses, not unless it's upfront and they choose it voluntarily, IE adoption.

snowbird

Which is why the laws and punishments in many lands and cultures for ensuring female chastity are so deadly strict.

Word.

I've known of cases where the husband was definitely fooled.

Tee hee hee.

Sylvia

Terry

Everybody piling on Perry is a kind of polemic version of gang rape in itself, wouldn't you say?

Perry is not alone. He has his 3 gods and his parrot to help him.

Are you saying "fair is fair and foul is fowl?"

Calling Perry Out (and any others who want to participate)

Share this