"We Can Quote the Bible Too!" HAHAHAHAAHAHA - I want to make a bumper sticker out of this!

Oh, wait... evangelical fundamentalists!!!!




Nevermind.

That's Roseanne Roseannadanna. It's Emily Litella who said, "Never mind."

Most of the more hardcore fundies are pretty open about picking and choosing which verses are still "in force." Leviticus in its entirety doesn't count, for instance, nor do most of the verses requiring immediate death sentences for, well, stuff that we all do.

Other are luckier than I in that regard, though. ;P

And if you weren't a hell-bound heathen, you'd know which were which.

Excellent!


and recommended!

If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible.. A fairly common bumper sticker around where I live.

22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Just no bloody sheet.

She either has to stay with the man or get stoned to death:freak:

If King James hated his mom...

What an awful way to live.

Edit: grammar

But those who most need to be reached won't "buy" anything that ain't King James..

which was translated in such a way as to promote ideology. If you want something close to accurate the NSRV translates to give an accurate translation of idioms and linguistic use based on the speculated time of writing. Fundies hate this translation as it tends to not support fundamentalist thought.

Nevertheless, fully reading the bible in full context is certainly one of the best ways to become an atheist.

say about it!"

I actually heard a little old man say that as he stormed out of my great grandfather's church.
It was a Church of Christ in very rural West Texas that had about thirty members and some youngin got big ideas about using another version.
I was probably about eight years old, but even then I thought how bizarre to think that Jesus actually read the bible.
I guess he could have used it like a guide book?
"Ok, now Judas is going to sell me for thirty pieces silver and then....Holy Shit! Now this is really starting to suck!"

... at least the Hebrew version (pre-Old Testament tweaks), but "the King James" version? Doubly hilarious.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html

I guess great minds think alike. :hi:

lots of good material there. :hi:

Those sites are hilarious! One more consideration, a medical one. The hymen, which was used to determine virginity in the olden days, is not considered a reliable indicator of virginity today. The hymen can be ruptured in young girls by a variety of ways, such as a hard fall, horseback riding, running, athleticism, weight-lifting, an unusually heavy period or even simple menarche if it is exceptionally fragile. In some cases, the hymen doesn't even rupture until torn away completely by childbirth. It is estimated that maybe one fourth to one third of young girls have lost or partially ruptured their hymens at some time in their lives. It can be fragile, or as I said it can be tenacious and not break until delivery of a child. I don't know the kind of lives young girls lived back then but I imagine it was one of back breaking child labor, and heavy lifting of jugs of water, plowing, etc. It's a tragic thing to consider that many innocents may have died for no reason at all. But, it's altogether likely.

If we were properly doing away with all those weak-willed, weak-hymen'd girls, per the Bible, those traits would be thinned in the gene pool and modern hymens would be more rugged and *could* be used as an indicator.

I was taught in Parochial school by the Sisters of Perpetual Gratification.

I went to have a Sigmoidoscopy a couple of years ago and the doctor who was performing the procedure was a young woman, just out of med school. She struggled with getting it inserted and finally, in frustration, yelled out "I can't get it in!". I turned to her and said: "I told you I was a Virgin."

The Nurses howled. The whole OR cracked up.

"If any man take a wife... and the tokens of virginity be not found for... her... the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

See? King James says it too.

:hi:

-app

:hi:

My point was that unless you use the very language of the King James a lot of people who most need to hear the message simply won't listen.

For reasons too complicated to go into here I grew up in both the Episcopal and the Southern Baptist churches, a rather schizophrenic (in the old sense) religious education but at that time both of 'em used the King James.

Personally I rather like the lyricism of the King James even if the translation is often not as accurate as more modern ones.

they won't listen because they are hypocrites.

But I have found some few who will listen and learn if you speak to them in the language they are used to.

I'm fond of using the parable of the Good Samaritan as a teaching tool, I have yet to find anyone who can seriously challenge my interpretation of that particular scripture and do so with a straight face. When I ask them why the Christ had *two* devout men pass by the wounded traveler as if he were spoiled meat and yet the very first heathen that came by showed mercy on him they are usually left speechless.

It's not like King James was there, is it? It's all conjecture at this point. Accept the parts about selling your children into slavery, going to hell for eating shellfish, and ritual sacrifice of one's own children. Wait that last one was a joke, right?

And that is who we are speaking of, isn't it?

There is no contradiction there.

I was making a point that has apparently gone over a lot of people's heads, the point being that a great many of those you would like to reach with such a message won't get the message unless it is couched in the phraseology they are used to and comfortable with when it comes to scripture.

Fundies say all Catholics are going to hell. You wouldn't quote to them from the Bible used by Catholics would you? They believe one Bible, the King James version, is the actually word of God. Why would you quote anything else if you are directing it to them?

get executed if he is not a virgin!! friggin hypocrites.

Sins don't count when gawd picks you out to be a leader. It's a really good deal.

beating their kids, cheating on their spouse... etc... and just confess in the confessional and say a few hail mary's and our father's and you are free to continue doing what you were doing.... uggh!! i tend to think there are a lot of people who are going to have a rude awakening coming after they die.... just sayin.

I guess because it is harder to prove. :shrug:

;)

That is exactly it. It's pretty easy to tell when a woman is not a virgin. Just like everything else in our society...if it's easy to label, oppress it!

Remember what we call Civil and Criminal areas of the law is a Roman invention, and if he rejects his wife without good cause he has to pay 10,000 Silver coins to her family. Many men given that fine would continue living with his wife but if not paid her family could demand his life unless he comes up with the Cash.

(please - give a few more examples tho! the first was fantastic!)

Of course, when they're accused of proof-texting, they break out the lecture about Context.

--d!

First, widows in the Bible are validly re-married. I'm assuming they aren't virgins, but the marriage is valid. Second, assuming that the husband doesn't "hate" the wife and doesn't care that she isn't a virgin, the marriage is valid. He must "change his mind" (NLT. verse 13). Third, in order for her to be "stoned", she must have been "in her father's house" when she was promiscuous. If she wasn't, there was no crime.

Thus, both lines of the summary are inaccurate.

:eyes:

That is a dead-on interpretation of those verses.

stoned.
The poster left the "hate" part out.
Good book, by the way.

It says nothing about being promiscuous in her father's house. It says she should be taken to her father's house before she is stoned to death.

It also doesn't say she has to have been promiscuous, just that the family can't prove she was a virgin. If the husband wants to get rid of his wife, all he has to do is claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. Some religion.

Prior to marriage, a maiden would be 'in her father's house' by definition, as she would be his possession. The reference is not to the location in which she might have lost her virginity, but to her condition as property of her father.

As for widows, you doubtless will not, on reflection, wish to open up the Biblical regulations on that topic.....

:rofl:

It takes serious training to be so obtuse about historic social realities, and so oblivious to plain words of printed text.

females did not exist as beings outside of a male's ownership. Therefore, the state of being "in her father's house" means a female who has not been married off yet. Once she is married, she is no longer "in her father's house", but "in her husband's house". Ownership is transferred. ANY actions, ANYwhere on her part occur "in the house" of her owner.

(I use the term "females" because there was no concept of the term "women" either)

Nice religion you have. Hateful and so far from Christ

... and so is lots of the old testament.

These laws in Deuteronomy were carried out as a result of the paternal like husband of the damsel and the damsel's father, who could always be bought off in she'kels. What a joke.

If the "tokens" of her virginity were not present, then ... hey, maybe we can step in to the doorway of the father's office and after few she'kels and a public stoning, we're good.

I hate when religion is used for self-perceived truths.

It's not even remotely close to a direct quote in any translation.

direct quote.
I was being a bit sarcastic about it because truthfully its impossible to directly quote from the bible.
Its been translated and retranslated in regards to both language and meaning over and over again.
Yet, the King James version of those particular Deuteronomy verses as are used today by modern people say that a wife who can't show the bloody sheets to prove she was a virgin on her wedding night can be stoned to death. If her husband hates her, of course.

In other words, what is the point of arguing about something that is so clearly fucked?
Seriously?
If you are an adult who believes in magic, that's sweet.
Don't expect other people to respect such "belief."
There is nothing sacred about "belief," no matter how bizarre that belief may be.

Sounds like a pretty accurate summarization to me.

Maybe the above poster is quibbling over the use of "executed" instead of "stoned to death"?

:shrug:

Let's have the "accurate" summary, then.

and I am of the opinion that when you claim the moral high ground, it ought not be when you're standing in a heap of bullshit.

This is why patriarchal religion just pisses me off.

I can think of two reasons for this nastiness. First, the hymen is just like that safety seal on a motel toilet and nervous people really feel better for it.

Second, if she's not a virgin there's a good chance she isn't because she's practicing the old tradition of taking her turn in the temple which means she's a goddess devotee and patriarchs don't like that.

Oh, just thought of a third reason: the inept can escape unfortunate comparison.

Note how this invalidates levirate marriage which the old testament also mandates. Oh, well.

;)

Seriously though... what kind of message does that send to our daughters, when we affirm and support stuff like that?

This has been floating around the Internets for awhile, and I love it.

nt

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

(Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!)

Galatians - Chapter 5, vs 11-12

and glad to know that my marriage is Biblically valid (so take THAT any right winger who thinks that liberals are "immoral".)

"WHEREAS, the party of the second part, XXXXXXX, hereinafter named as WIFE agrees to be put to death if found to be etc., etc..."

I'm sure that's in there somewhere

:))

They don't even ask for that.

I can see the rainbow flag.

:kick:

There seems to be another sign (to the right) that says "Let Us Marry".

help make the point that it is worthless as a moral compass.

the Biblical God wiped out nearly the entire planet because they weren't paying enough attention to him (then later felt kind of bad about it).



Did I do that?

stoning non-virgin brides. I've never even heard of any modern Jews or Christians who advocate it, and the vast majority of Muslims (with a few rather local exceptions) don't seem to believe in it either

It seems that almost all Jews, Christians, and Muslims read those texts differently than you do

and ignore the rest?

I think that was the point of the OP.

DUH. :dunce:

the parts of the bible that might call THEM to account.

Oh, and there ARE some, called DOminionists, who openly advocate all sorts of stonings, along with a return to one family-one vote.

:rofl:

"... that's one fucked up prophet!"

that I could quote the bible too. Then I said "Jesus wept" and left the room.

cared enough to ask. Kinda curious now, though.

Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

All they do is spout old testament stuff. Jesus never said any of that bull poop. They are not Christians and I resent their usurping of that name.

If one is a Christian, then one should gently follow Christ.

more than they follow the Gospels but still proclaim their belief in Jesus. If not for the latter, they'd be of the Jewish faith. (Am I right about that?)

While I don't claim to be an expert, I've always understood that the Jewish faith is built on far, far more than just the Old Testament.

I think Jesus was a socialist
Just a sampling:

Chapter 6

19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Chapter 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

be the ones who raise the money to put them up! Who is with me?

bibles, with stickies to mark the pages?

:thumbsup:

Landoverbaptist.org is one of the funniest satirical sites out there. I've had people get really weird on me after getting stuff from there. "Jesus is watching you toss that salad."
http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/75553

:evilgrin:

obligations to properly raise the little harlot!

Thank you, Jaaayzuss! :evilgrin:

Judges 19:27-29

who think they're God's chosen people.

Selah.

The LOL cats have a translation project underway. Deut. 22 isn't done yet but here's a gem from Deut 1:6-18.

6 K, so it starts off when ceiling cat says u guys r on this meowntin 4 too long7 so u can has jurnee and go a diffrint montin. Is called amorites. also u shud go to youfrates river. and even further. just gtfo the montin ffs.8 k so here is a map, and u shud be thankful cuz I am tellin u about ur land. Is yours. Is ur land becuz remember when ceiling cat said ur fathers cud hav this land, so u can has.

Bosscats R Namd
9 Remembur when dat happend? ya, i was lik teh only 1 doin any werk at teh tym.10 cept now ceilng cat was watchin u guyz do eech udder LOL so now dere is lots of u, so u can do teh werk11 oh ya and ceilng cat was like LOL u guyz shud do it even moar when u get off teh montin.12 i meen srsly i cant do all teh werk!13 So u bring me smart doodz and i make dem ur rulerz so dat u can has govermint, and i will sez whether it is good or not.

14 and u were all: kthx

15 i maid u a govermint wit ur smart doods.16 den i maid a supreem court and sez 2 be fare 2 everyone, not jus ur frends.17 k sew i sez 2 be gud at juging. an' dun be cowrds, ceiling cat will protict u becuz relly he is juging u or sumting. neway if it is 2 hard u can just tell me and i will judg it 4 u.18 so ya, remember dat tym i maid ur governmint? Dat was teh awesomez


http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Deuteronomy_1

In many ways the sign reflect what the Fundamentalist do with biblical quotes, ignore the context (what was happening in Israel at that time) AND then skip huge sections that show that context (Of this see below).

If you read the WHOLE passages (Listed above so I will not repeat it here), you notice several things, first the husband must HATE his wife (i.e. want to end the marriage) AND second, the wife was not a Virgin when their married AND HE WAS TOLD OR UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE WAS. The second idea can be seen is where the stoning had to take place, at her father's home, for it was the failure of the Father to fulfill his obligation (a virgin wife) that was the stoning offense NOT that fact she was NOT a Virgin.

Remember this is the days of arrange marriages, you did not pick your mate, your father (and to a limited extent your mother) did. Your father was assisted by his male relatives.

Side Note: In most of the world, they remains a strong tendency, to this day, for cousins to marry each other. The big exception is the "Christian" West. I use the term "Christian West" in a very narrow way, i.e. those areas whose laws reflect Medieval Catholic Doctrine forbidding cousins to marry. The Medieval Catholic Church expanded the marriage restrictions in the old testament to forbid cousin marring mostly to spread the wealth of society to more people, if people married their cousins there was a tendency for money, land and power to stay in a very narrow group of families and the Medieval Catholic Church saw this as a problem and banned cousin marrying to end it. A side affect of this ban (Which exist in most of the West to this day, through legal bans on cousin marrying are slowing declining) had the additional affect of making this verse even LESS applicable to today's society.

Back to the main topic, given marriages were arranged contracts if someone misrepresented a good (the woman being "a maid") that person (her father) had to make good on the contract. Thus why the execution had to take place at HER FATHER'S HOUSE.

Also note, this clause is an afterthought of the writer, the main thrust was if the woman was rejected by her husband without good cause ("Good Cause" had a very narrow definition, i.e. adultery, she was NOT a virgin as promised etc). If such a case he had to PAY her father to take her back. Thus the woman's virginity did NOT come into play UNLESS her husband could show a prima facia case of her NOT being a virgin (Try to do that some time). No accusation that she was NOT a Virgin, the clause as to her being stoned did NOT even come into play.

Side Note Two: The bible is a book written at a time where what we call Civil and Criminal law were one and the same. The bible said people who commit murder must be stoned, but then say if the victim's family can be bought off the stoning (and any other crime) can be called off. Thus even if the Husband could over come his prima facia case that his wife, at the time of their marriage, was NOT a Virgin AND he did NOT know that AND her parents could NOT produce the "evidence" to show her virginity the stoning could still take be canceled if the family paid off the Husband's family (and this was mostly a family to family conflict NOT Husband and his parents vs Wife and her Parents conflict, and given most people married their cousins most such conflicts were within families and thus rarely taken to the level of being stoned unless some other political problem existed). The Koran clearly state (and encourages as does the bible) such settlements of disputes (i.e. pay off the victims was a better way to punished the criminal then to execute them for with an execution the victim was still out of what ever was taken with no compensation). In many ways the harsh punishment of Leviticus was intended to encourage a settlement then to be actually done.

Last Comment: You also must understand when marriages of people took place, and still take place, in the Middle East. First marriages (and if both parties live to old age, their only marriage) occurs when both parties are about 13-14 years of age NOT the early 20s as is common in the West today (Even in Ancient Rome most people were married by age 16, only when the Roman Army went mercenary in the First Century BC was this delayed, but only for men who wanted to enlist. Such enlistees, generally age 16 and enlisting for 16 years, could NOT marry till their time of their first enlistment was up, when such "Veterans" were about age 32). Given that most men were married by age 16 and most women by age 14, you had a very narrow age period for anyone (both male and female) to be sexually active AND not married. Thus while this rule was in the Leviticus and even enforced once every hundred years or so (if then, the bible does NOT list any such execution for this "Crime" through that does NOT mean such executions did not occur, but they would have been rare) but the whole thrust was to work out a compromise between the parties NOT to execute people.

Personally, I don't care how many steps take place, nor how many alternatives are offered, before someone allows the town to kill a 14 year old girl because her father cannot prove that she was a virgin when she got married.

I don't care if it ever occurred, nor do I care that it was discouraged.

If it exists in the law it is condoned, and therefore acceptable. That fact is unacceptable to me.

Surprising that is the law in most states, most states never brothered to repeal it after it became universally ignored by 1910.

If you are behind a bicyclist and you pass him by going over the yellow line you are violating State law in almost every state (you can NOT cross that double yellow line), What you are suppose to do is stay behind the bicyclist till you can pass him or her AND stay on your side of the double yellow line (Or wait for an area with a dashed yellow line).

I can go on, but just because a law is on the books does NOT mean it is followed. The law can be constitutional (such as the above two laws) but be unenforced and ignored by most people. People forget that most laws are passed NOT after some long debate on its merits but after someone complains and whoever is making the law decides to shut that person up by passing whatever law that person wants. Many can stay on the books for Centuries (Various towns have laws as to Native Americans, probably unconstitutional but since no one has been prosecuted under them for the last 200 years have NEVER been challenge). I tried to stay with CONSTITUTIONAL laws in my two examples above to show even constitutional laws can be laws on the books and long ignored even in the US. Some laws are occasional enforced (for example spitting on the sidewalks and cleaning up after your dog) but for most people those laws can be ignored with almost no chance of those laws ever being enforced against them.

Just a comment on how laws are made and how they can be on the books without ever being enforced.

The summary is not an unfair one, though it could be tightened a little: a maiden proved to have married without intact virginity will be executed at her husband's discretion.

The weakness of the line you press is that you ignore the mores of an 'honor' society, in which a woman offends against her family's honor by sexual acts outside marriage, and in which her family will, as can be seen on occasion in Middle Eastern societies even today, eagerly carry out her execution to wash the shame from the family name. In such a society, a man provided for his wife a maiden who is not an intact virgin will consider himself the object of deadly insult by her family, and demand all recourse available to him. The idea that because no mention of such executions in the book they can be presumed rare is nonesense: what was probably infrequent was the maiden not being an intact virgin on marriage, but in instances where this was the case, execution would have been the normal outcome. That the execution's taking place at her father's house indicates that it is the father being punished is simply ludicrous; it is not the father who is executed, after all, but rather is the executioner of the one who has shamed the family and brought dishonor on him.

Let me quote you:
In such a society, a man provided for his wife a maiden who is not an intact virgin will consider himself the object of deadly insult by her family

Yes, that is a direct insult in such a society and everyone involved would know it. Not only the "wife" but her mother and father. Given the age when most people married for the first time, most if not all women knew one thing by the time they were 12, their had to be virgins. Given that fact women were put into "Their place" more to make sure it was impossible for them NOT to be a virgin then any other reason. Thus the whole society, the interaction between males and females was and is strongly controlled. We may reject that level of control, but it was the rule at the time Leviticus was written and this rule we are discussing reflected not only that insult (i.e. she was NOT a virgin) but the opposite case, if the man rejects his wife WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE. It is clear that the main thrust of this section in Leviticus was to address the issue of a man rejecting his wife without good cause (and stating the fact that the only just cause was the lack of virginity IF THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE MARRIAGE). Remember we are NOT talking about a person who rejects his wife after 20 years of marriage, we are talking about someone who rejects his wife right after the marriage. A Marriage arranged by both couples families (And none times out of ten cousins to each other). If the marriage being rejected was without just cause, then the husband had to pay. If it was for just cause he had to have proof of the lack of Virginity which could be rebutted by her parents.

One last comment, please note it was NOT uncommon for the first act of sex between a married couple to be done in the presence of both parents. Yes it was a communal act, both to show that the couple HAD had sex AND to produce the "Evidence" the wife's family would need under this rule. Such public acts of sex on one's wedding night was done as late as Renaissance Italy (Through may existed longer but that was the last time I heard of the first night sex being done in the presence of your relatives).

The law, after all, continues on for many pages past the particular segment relating, shall we say, execution honeymoon, and states in various lines that a man may reject his wife if 'he has found some uncleaness in her' or simply hates her. Not being an intact virgin is simply the charge on which he can have his new bride executed. That is far from its being the only reason why he could reject her and put her aside.

Again, you mistake where the burden of proof rests. The husband does not have to prove she was not a virgin; her family has to prove she was a virgin. In the absence of such proof, the husband's charge stands, and she is to be battered to death by thrown rocks, for "so shalt thou put evil away from among you'....

It seems likely that 'token' of virginity is blood on bed-clothes: on occasion the exhibition of these will take place the morning after the first night of the wedded state. My command of the subject does not extend to fine-grained detail of wedding practices among the early Hebrews, so whether the first consumation was public, or bloody cloth displayed afterwards, is beyond me. That these 'tokens', if that is the token, are in the custody of the bride's family introduces an odd note, suggesting that possibly the groom comes to bride for the ceremony, and consumates in her father's house, though of course it could be that something is transfered from the groom's house to the bride's former dwelling as the party ends next morning. It does suggest the consumation was not public, however, as if it was, the status of virginity determined by the shedding of blood would be more or less a mater of public record at the very start, and one would expect the objection to be pitched on the spot.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

peace~

Having grown up in the era of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinman, and other prominent women of Jewish descent who led the woman's/feminist movement, I was under the impression that Judeaism had become an enlightened religion that recognized women's co-equal status with men.

That was until, for a post graduatate course in multiculturalism, I read a book (sort of a primer) on being a modern Jewish woman.

I found out that women are still considered "unclean" during menses (and stay separate from men during this time so as not to contaminate them), that they are not allowed to sit with men in temple, that they are not allowed to speak in temple, etc., etc.

The claim is that these rules do not discriminate against women or keep them down. No, the rules show that far from being "equal" with men, women are better than men. :eyes:

Misogyny is an ancient practice. (Men sure did backlash strongly against the Earth Mother religions, didn't they?)

Hunter Gatherer, each sex had different roles, but they were more or less equals

Agricultural Revolution comes and now someone has to guard the grain. The biggest, meanest, guy with the most sticks and clubs.

And the rest, they say, is HIStory

The problem is about the same time, people living in areas which could NOT support farming turned to herding. In farmers the best time someone could take your food was during harvest, a very narrow time period over a huge area. Women did most of the farming at first (The Native Americans in what is now the US was in this stage of development at the time of the European contact), only later did men join in as to farming (Which permitted heavier farming techniques to be adopted).

Herding, on the other hand, suffered from the problem that the most valuable items, the herd, was concentrated in one place, thus easy to steal, and could be stolen all year round. Thus it was herding societies that became the most male dominated and violate. The mid-east suffered from being between two areas, farming in the Fertile crescent, AND herding areas outside that area, i.e. what is now Jordan, Saudi Arabia and what is was the Southern Soviet Union (The later area is NOT farming area, but that required the heavy plow, not introduced into that area till about 700 AD).

But I could be wrong - I can't cite any sources for that, and remember "just knowing it" rather than it being tied to any study.

You end up "just knowing" a lot of erroneous information

Worse, you have some societies doing BOTH at the same time AND shifting from one to another. The Classic case is the Ancient Jews. They appear to be herders even while in Egypt, but converted to farming when they took over what is now the the Palestinian highland (i.e. today's west bank). Thus they retain much of their previous culture of herding, but became mostly farmers do to the fact they took over a part of the Middle East that can be farmed WITHOUT extensive irrigation or the Iron plow. The Iron Plow is needed to break up the soil after a hard, cold and snowy winter, invented about 200 BC did NOT reach what is now England and France till about 700 AD. The Heavy plow is just NOT needed in the Mediterranean climate of Italy, Egypt, Spain or Greece, it is NEEDED in Germany, the Ukraine, Poland France and England. You can farm in those areas but it is simple spade work without a plow (and given that the Iron Spade was rare and expensive till the introduction of Chinese Iron making techniques to Europe about 700 AD. In many ways Constantinople's big fear in the 600s and 700s was NOT the Arabs who were taking over most of the Middle East, but the Slavs moving with the iron plow into the Balkans, an area of previous Roman Herding activity being converted to farming areas by the Slavs as they invaded (With the remnants of the Latin Speaking inhabitants of the Balkans gathering together for protection in what is not Romania while adopting the same farming techniques and many words from the Slavs moving around them. Why Romanian survived as a Latin outpost in what became a Slavic Eastern Europe (The Hungarians are the biggest exception, but they were herders that took over the Hungary Plain for herding purposes and then converted to Farming) is still a question mark in my mind. It is a little to far north for Mediterranean farming Techniques to be of much use (Western Europe is warmer then Eastern Europe do to the affect of the Gulf Stream, thus while France is about the same degree north as Romania, it has a warmer climate). The best explanation is the Romanians, when it was a Roman Province, was a place to trade for Horses from the Samartians who controlled what is now the Ukraine before the Slavic farming expansion of between 600-800 AD converted the area to a farming area. As the Smartians lost out to the Slavs (Either merged into the Slavs or pushed eastward, at the same time the Nomadic Germanic Tribes of what is now Eastern Germany where being driven Westward by the Farming Slavs) the Slavs became more and more important as did farming over herding. The Southern Slavs had reached as far south as Greece before they were turned back (and not only the Romanians but Constantinople adopted several Slavic "customs", butter was used for cooking instead of Olive Oil (this is traditionally attributed to the cut off of Olive Oil from Syria by the Arabic Invasion, but the change may have more to do with a one two punch, one by the Arabs taking Syria and Egypt and then the second punch being the Slavs who opened up the Ukraine as a source of Grain and butter to Constantinople.

Anyway, that was a long way from Ancient Jews to the Fall of the Roman Empire via the Arab Conquest. The Ancient Jews seem to be a ex-herding population that converted to farming, but given that the Rain line (i.e. the line where rain fall dropped off to a level that no longer could support farming) from the Mediterranean is about where the West Bank and Jordan Border is. Given that fact you still had a huge population of Ancient Jews that still did herding. Some time on the West Bank other times in what is now Jordan. Furthermore given where that rain line was, herding populations in time of drought saw Ancient Israel as a place to go to gather food for their animals when the drought stopped grass from growing at all in what is now Jordan and Arabia (Several books in the Bible show such times and the resulting conflict between the ancient Jews and their heading neighbors.

My point is BOTH Herding and Farming seem to develop at the same time, for the same condition i.e. the world had become less hospitable to hunters and gathers so most hunters and gathering adopted which technique (Farming or herding) brought the most food and wealth to them. In areas where farming could be done, it was farming and that conversion started with the Women, men would NOT join in for generations (For example Native Americans in the Eastern US were all dominated by female farming, men did NOT farm, they did burn down trees etc but never touched a hoe. All Farming Society went through this stage, and it was the stage where women had the most power for their produced the most food. Thus Native American traced themselves through their mother's family and it was the women who decided which female was able to farm what land (in this regard the Native Americans were weak, for such land did NOT go to the best farmer (All of whom were female), but the farmer married to the best warrior. This was a major weakness of Native American society in what is now the Eastern US and even acknowledged by the Native Americans as a major weakness by the 1700s, but a weakness they never overcame, losing out to the white farmers who were willing to do heavy farm work and when that was done then go hunting).

Now you did have some societies that switched from farming to herding, the Navajos are the best known. The main reason for the conversion was the Navajos had nothing to herd till Sheep was introduced to them by the Spanish, and once introduced the Navajos maintained those herds to this day (Some problems during the US Civil War, i.e. the Navajos were gathered up into concentration camps but afterward returning to a herding society with some farming).In fact the Navajos show what most herding Societies were, emphases on the herd but farming was still done.

In most of the world farming and Herding Societies lived side by side for thousands of years. Farming communities were able to support larger populations and generally able to force out herders when the two came into conflict, but even today they are areas where herding is more profitable to farming. The Scottish highlands is one such area. In the Middle ages and until about 1700 the Highlands were a mixed farming and herding society, but the main animal herded being Cattle. Sheep were introduced in the 1600s and slowly replaced cattle (The main opposition was the Sheep needed few people to guard them for they were only profitable in the spring when their hair was cut off, Cattle had value all year round and thus had to be constantly guarded. This need for guards was the backbone of the Scottish Clans, but once the Highland converted to sheep the clans were broken and most highlanders were driven off lands their families had been on for centuries. Till the conversion to Sheep lowland Scotland was the Farming area, the Highlands the Herding areas. These two areas often came into conflict but survived for centuries as one country.

Side note: At the same time Scotland was destroying their clans by introducing sheep into the highlands, England was doing the same for sheep were more profitable then crops. While the Hundred year war between France and England had many causes, the main reason it was fought was over control over the textile mills of Flanders. England and Spain raised Sheep and exported the Wool to Flanders for weaving starting about 1100. The Kings of England main source of revenue was wool, he taxed the wool as it was exported to Flanders for Processing, he then taxed the imported fabrics when it came back. The King of France wanted to control this trade so England invaded to defend those mills. Now other factors came into play but over the time period of the 100 year war the textile mills of Flanders slowly moved to what is now the Netherlands and Belgium. When that move was complete England no longer had an economic interest in France and most support for the war ended (Even as late as Elizabeth England made serious claims to the throne of France, but an invasion of France to take that throne had almost no support by that time for there was no economic gain in such an invasion for any in a position of power in England).

Back to the main subject, herding and farming societies interaction. The first rule in such interaction is who benefited? If both sides benefited, both sides would work together. The Herders of Germany supported the Roman Empire even while technically NOT under that empire. The support was in the forms of supplying slaves, horses, metals and troops that Rome wanted. Rome supplied the Germans with high end trade goods in return. When the Western Empire collapsed around 450 AD, it was the Germans that provided the troops to keep the Empire together (The last Western Empire was removed from office in 476 AD, but the Emperors had had no real power since 450 AD when the German head of the Army took over and made the Emperor nothing but his puppet). With the Slavic Invasion the Germans were pushed Westward, by 900 AD the Slavs were the dominate people as far west as cold War era East Germany (The Germans then pushed back, but as a farming society not a herding society taking over much of what had been East Germany and reaching into what is now Poland but that was stopped while before the Teutonic knights were crushed at Tannenburg in 1415). The Germans like showing this as a Farming Society beating out a Herding Society, but in truth both were farming societies using slavic farming techniques develop around the Heavy Iron Plow.

The main change between the Ancient world and the Middle ages was the introduction of the Iron Plow. The Iron Plow opened up huge areas of what had previously been herding areas. While China invented the advance Iron making techniques that made the Iron Plow to become a common device, the Iron plow itself seems to go from Europe to China in response to the introduction of advance Iron making techniques that hit Europe around 700 AD. Thus it is after Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire of the 1200s that you see the Chinese Farming communities moving even further into what is now Northern China and Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia (Marked on most maps as simply Mongolia) is a little to far north for wheat, even with the iron plow. and as such still a herding area. Inner Mongolia, on the other hand, was just far enough south for the Han Chinese to move in and using the Heavy Plow plant and grow wheat. Outer Mongolia was the Second Communist Country in the World, but that was because since about the 1700s it has been a satellite of Moscow, while inner Mongolia was either part of China or a satellite of China (Yes, Wheat China took over that part of Mongolia that could grow wheat while Russia, as the successor to the Mongol Empire, took over that part of Mongolia outside the reach of farming).

Yes, much of the above is rambling (it is late at night and I need to go to sleep) but I am trying to show examples of when and how herding and farming societies worked together and sometimes replaced each other. Both seem to develop out of the general drying up of the planet as the planet recovered from the Ice Age. When that drying out occurred, many land animals died out (For various reasons including hunting by humans) and people had to find some other way to live. In those areas were farming could occur, women (the traditional gathers of most tribes) decided to plant the crops they had been gathering so she would have more of that crop then anyone else (and easier to collect). This slowly built up till it became the dominate means of food gathering. In areas where no such crops could be farmed, then the men of the tribe tried to control the animals in their area and tried to collect them together so other tribes would not get to them first. This lead to moving the animals to other grazing areas and picking animals that would stay together as a herd (Cattle and sheep soon became the dominate animals, horses came in later).

As you can see BOTH societies could start about the same time do to the same economic pressure (And maybe even in the same tribe, just look at the Woodland Sioux and the Plains Sioux, the Woodland retains maternal parentage and farming, while the Plain Sioux adopted the horse and "Returned" to a male dominated hunting tradition, but with the horse the Sioux were more following the herd then truly hunting, and killing the bison as needed, thus more herding in nature then true hunting and probably how most herding societies started).

Anyway, as the two techniques became more and more refined, one or the other came to dominate. The method that dominated was the method that worked the best in that area, herding in northern Europe till the introduction of the Iron Plow, then farming for example. Herding is still the dominate rural occupation in Arabia (Most citizens of Saudi Arabia live in Cities do to their oil wealth, so I have to exclude them) for it is the best use of such land given the lack of water for crops. Farming works best in areas where water exists, where water is rare herding dominates. The other great area of herding in ancient times (Eurasia) was forced to far north when the Iron Plow made much of Northern Europe farm-able. Thus Eurasian herders are NOT a serious factor today, but were in the days before and during the Roman Empire. Herding appears to develop at the same time as farming but most societies converted to herding or farming as the world dried out about 6-8 thousand years ago. Which came first is unknown and once you look at the history of both unimportant, the adoption of BOTH appears to be about the same time.

Again I am rambling, it is time for me to go to sleep. I hope I made my point but I am to tied to re-write the above to make it more understandable, so I am ending this here. It is NOT a good ending but I have to end this rambling.

Agriculture produced war-fare quite as certainly as herding, and very quickly.

Agriculture increases the population quickly, and produces surplus food, capital, so to speak, which enables the existence of persons who do not labor on the fields. This results in societies of layered complexity, in which the food in excess of what is required to keep the field workers going is concentrated centrally, and used to support a governing class. A portion of this is armed, to enable the extraction of produce from the people working the fields, and keep it secure from them, as well as from outsiders.

The wealth of this armed governing class is determined by the number of field workers it controls, and from which it can extract produce for its maintainance. Thus, the incentive for conquest is not seizing and transporting a harvest, but seizing land and attendant inhabitants who work it to produce subsequent harvests. This is as attractive, and as easily done, as stealing a herd of beasts, and can certainly be embarked on at any season of the year in which a number of armed men can be moved over the ground. In most of the areas where agriculture first appeared, weather allowed cropping two or three times in a year, so that between green grain in fields and stored produce, an army would be readily able to feed itself by seizure in territory it invaded. The native governing strata, if invasion is successful, is killed off or enslaved, and the peasantry simply pays the usual exactions to a new set of overlords.

It is true that in early agricultural societies, the great bulk of the population is not particularly war-like: the peasants are kept in cowed condition by an armed nobility, and generally stunted by malnutrition. But this is far from an indication the society itself is not war-like, and lacks a substantial body of armed men. Given the much greater number of persons over-all in agricultural societies, their warfare potential exceeds that of herding societies, even though in the latter, it will be true that just about every male, and in some even every female, is part of the fighting force of the group.

Nomadic herding societies gained a reputation for greater military power through some over-generalization of the experience of the Eurasian Steppe. The key to the success of these tribes in raiding and on occasion dominating settled agricultural areas did not owe to inherent qualities of herding society as opposed to agricultural society producing war-like features in one and not the other, but rather to two technical elements. First, the animal herded was the horse, which could bear a rider, and so gave speed and range to fighters, and second, cultural specialization on the bow, which was developed into a very sophisticated weapon able to project a lethal missile to a range of several hundred yards with some accuracy. Mounted archers in open country have a tremendous tactical superiority over infantry, even of the best quality the ancient world produced, and at least when well-directed, have an almost equal strategic superiority unless operating in thickly forested or mountainous regions.

The status of women in these various societies does not fit into a particular pattern dividing by herding or agriculture. It is true that agriculture seems to have been an invention by women, which can be seen in some survivals of earlier patterned societies, and is easy to read in the roster of deities, it being a fair assumption that if the deity of the business is a goddess, the thing can be credited to women in its origin. But this sort of sacral status does not necessarily translate into social status, at least not once agriculture has created large and complexly layered societies, and there are many signs that it did not do so in either early Mesopotamia or Egypt. Matters seem to have been otherwise in Anatolia and Crete.

The largely herding society complex located north of the Middle East and west of the central Eurasian steppe, which seems to have been the center from which the people we know as Celts in Europe arose, but who spread also to the east a considerable distance, on present archeological evidence, as well as some ancient testimony, seems to have accorded women a high social standing, marked by participation under arms in battle.

When the Europeans first hit what is now the US, the most Native Americans were maternalistic, i.e. followed their blood lines through their mother's families NOT their fathers. And while the meetings of warriors of most Eastern US tribes were technically all male, women had two powerful tools, first the women controlled the food and the weapons, if the woman did not what her mate to go she would just deny him food and weapons. Second, if a woman wanted to speak at the meeting of the warriors all she had to do was pick up a male baby and said she will speak for that baby for he can not and thus had the right to speak even in an all male meeting. These two tools came out of the fact that the women did the farming in those Native American Societies. With most of the food reflective of what the women were doing the status of women in those societies went up.

In contrast the Plain Indians had been women dominated societies before the introduction of the Horse. With the Horse these tribes went back to hunting and with that switch most women lost status. Yes you still had female warriors even at the time of the Battle of the Little Big Horn, but as a whole the status of women had gone DOWN as the tribes reverted to hunting. Previous such tribe had been maternal for most of the food of the tribe came from the framing done by women. When the tribes returned to hunting (when the horse was introduced to them) the power of women in those tribes went down. This reflected the fact that the men were now the main food providers, this time via hunting buffalo. Women tend to follow their men so Native American Indians accepted this change, just like men accepted the change when women became the main food providers as those tribes first became farmers around 500 AD (With the introduction of Corn, some farming seems to have occurred before then but the introductions of the "Three Sisters" Corn, Peas and Pumpkins made farming the best way to feed the tribe. Farming was "woman's work" and thus NOT done by makes (as least in the eastern US from bout 1600-1800). Who produced the most food was the same as who has the most money today, and with that control that sex dominated (with farming it was women, with hunting it was males).

However interesting they may be in abstract.

Neither of the Amerind cultures you are describing made such progress in agriculture as to approach the state of complex urban societies which marked early Mesopotamia and Egypt. Those societies may have passed through a stage of similarly mixed power, but were long past it by the time we encounter these societies in history, instead of paleo-archeology. We cannot even say for certain that the systematic cropping that was the foundation of these societies was ever 'women's work' in the sense that it was among the Iroquois and Algonquin, though it certainly may well have been initially.

Obama's new healthcare plan requires a new tax, and everyone to travel to the town of their birth (preferably with pregnant women traveling on donkeys) to be counted?

The squirm when presented with conveniently ignored bible versus that expose how they "pick and choose" from the bible to support their prejudices.

AWESOME.

You do know that Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament and was the Law for the Jews, right? Gentiles ie. non Jews are not bound by these laws but are subject to the new covenant set by Jesus in the New Testament.

I would taunt "so Sarah, will it be Bristol or Bible?", but I'd expect to get the wrong answer depressingly often.