Theology III

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Again, I think you're judging the situation in terms of today's society, which isn't right.

As far as a parallel situation in today's society - If I sincerely thought that the man next door was molesting children, would I just "not judge" him, or would I do what was the norm in the society of my time?


and random thought - "Robin Hood - Men in Tights" is just a hysterical movie! My son and 2 nephews are watching it as I type

I'm not at all judging it in terms of today's society. You are. I'm judging it according to an absolute standard of morality. Thou shalt not kill. It don't get more absolute than that.

What would you say was the modern standard for child molesters? IME there's a whole lot more "crossing to the other side of the street" than any other reaction. We're all very sorry later, of course.

[Rían]

I think it's extremely clear, if one reads even a few of the chapters surrounding the 10 Commandments, that the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment refers to killing for personal gain - i.e., what we would call murder - esp. given that God himself commanded the Israelites to kill some people for certain offenses, and provides for safe refuge for people who accidentally (i.e., do NOT kill for gain) kill people.

We need Radagast here - our resident Israeli - I miss him! I think he's serving in the Israeli army now. He was very clear that the Hebrew was read that way, and seriously, I don't think any other reading is reasonable unless you take it entirely out of context of the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by sis

I'm not at all judging it in terms of today's society. You are.

How am I doing this?

As far as modern standards for child molestors, I agree with you that it's often overlooked, but I'd say the modern standard is to turn the investigation and consequences over to the authorities.

[Count Comfect]

I am reminded, don't know why I wasn't before, of what my history tutor said in tutorial today, roughly: If you look at what the witchhunters in late 16th century Scotland were doing, it approaches parody. The specific example instanced was Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "If she weighs as much as a duck...she must be a witch!"

I really think it's important to remember that people could go completely crazy with it and start coming up with random things like that in the name of "protecting themselves."

That said, Rian IS right that it was the equivalent of living next to Charles Manson; someone you believe is actively out to kill and working with the Devil. And a lot of people DID turn the "witches" over to the proper authorities - it was those very authorities doing the burnings and other forms of judicial murder. Disgusting, yes. Misogynistic, yes (after all, why were there warlock scares?). But not quite just people seizing on any pretext to attack women, either.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I am reminded, don't know why I wasn't before, of what my history tutor said in tutorial today, roughly: If you look at what the witchhunters in late 16th century Scotland were doing, it approaches parody.

Again, I think that's looking backwards with what we know today. I think you have to work with what you think THEY knew, to the best possible approximation.

The specific example instanced was Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "If she weighs as much as a duck...she must be a witch!"

I just don't think that a wholesale stupid attitude like that would fly for long *shrug* I think a lot of people must have truly believed these women were harmful, don't you?

BTW, my sister, a Jr. High school science teacher and a Christian, uses the Monty Python example every year at the start of her science class as an example of improper deductions and poor scientific method

I really think it's important to remember that people could go completely crazy with it and start coming up with random things like that in the name of "protecting themselves."

Oh, I definitely agree with you.

That said, Rian IS right that it was the equivalent of living next to Charles Manson; someone you believe is actively out to kill and working with the Devil. And a lot of people DID turn the "witches" over to the proper authorities - it was those very authorities doing the burnings and other forms of judicial murder. Disgusting, yes. Misogynistic, yes (after all, why were there warlock scares?). But not quite just people seizing on any pretext to attack women, either.

I think that's a good summation, and an interesting question on why there weren't warlock hunts. I have some ideas on that ... but anyway ...


Hey, Count, you're Jewish, right? Whether you are or not (oh, my memory! ), what's your opinion on the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing that Sis brought up?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Er, how do you concile the two bolded statements? They seem a bit contradictory. Women are only valuable or skilled when they stick to households and raising children?

One might just as well ask, "so men were only valuable while working in the field?" Because that's what most of the male serfs did most of the time. They did a lot of heavy, hands on labor. The division of labor makes a good deal of sense when one considers that men tend to be physically stronger than women. And men usually, if I recall my history correctly, stayed near their family holdings as well.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief -

Look into James I more. He was quite centrist, actually. His persecution of "Puritans" was primarily directed only at those who desired to abolish episcopacy entirely, a small minority of the church. He actually fostered a broad Calvinist consensus in England, along the lines of what would have been called "Puritan" under either Elizabeth I or Charles I.

I should study James I more. There are just so many to study, I'm not quite sure where to start . . .

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One might just as well ask, "so men were only valuable while working in the field?" Because that's what most of the male serfs did most of the time. They did a lot of heavy, hands on labor. The division of labor makes a good deal of sense when one considers that men tend to be physically stronger than women. And men usually, if I recall my history correctly, stayed near their family holdings as well.

But men still had more ways to go in aside from the field than women, both in position and skill. I still don't see how you can concile saying man and woman are equal with saying you think an archaic system of rigid gender roles is better.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hey, Count, you're Jewish, right? Whether you are or not (oh, my memory! ), what's your opinion on the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing that Sis brought up?

I am (good memory). I think that Rad is generally right - it's thou shalt not kill, as a private citizen, not thy government shall not kill. There are far too many death sentences fixed in the Bible (pretty much anything that's an "abomination") to argue that Thou Shalt Not Kill is a blanket injunction. That said, other than self-defense, I like to think we should treat it as such. Nothing wrong with being a little safe

Oh, and I meant to thank you for the nice compliment about being open-minded. Thanks. I like debating with you, too.

Lief, I know I keep saying "you ought to learn more about X" at the end of my arguments, and I know you intend to do so. I'm not trying to be frustrating. It's just that when we're talking medieval/Renaissance/etc church history, you've kinda stumbled on the topic I've been studying for the last couple years, including right now. So I know a LOT of detail.

[Butterbeer]

God knows i never thought i'd be the one saying this - but what about a seperate thread about the renaissance? - i was really enjoying that aspect of the debate.

[The Gaffer]

Hey Renaissance Man, your inbox is full.

Good idea for a thread, by the way.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But men still had more ways to go in aside from the field than women, both in position and skill.

Not if they grew up as a field worker. You do what you're trained to do, and there wasn't much social mobility under feudalism. But there were seamstresses, nuns, and midwives (who worked to cure diseases as well as helping in child-birth) in Medieval society. I'm sure there were other occupations too, outside of the nobility, that I can't think of at the moment.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I still don't see how you can concile saying man and woman are equal with saying you think an archaic system of rigid gender roles is better.

Men and women are equally valuable and have equally important skills. Those skills tend to be rather different, and divided along gender lines (though exceptions to the general rule always exist) while those different skills are equally valuable. I think that our species developed those complementary skills and mindsets because they help our race to thrive.

But "feminine" skills, like nurturing, are very undervalued in modern society, which is unfair to women. In fact, the feminist movement tends to expect women to act like men, and seeks to tear down all identification of differences in law and culture. I find this to be very unfair to both genders, considering the different biologies. A system that takes those differences into account, acclaims the virtues of both, and then divides the labor accordingly makes more sense to me.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief, I know I keep saying "you ought to learn more about X" at the end of my arguments, and I know you intend to do so. I'm not trying to be frustrating. It's just that when we're talking medieval/Renaissance/etc church history, you've kinda stumbled on the topic I've been studying for the last couple years, including right now. So I know a LOT of detail.

Well that's cool . I like to learn.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In fact, the feminist movement tends to expect women to act like men, and seeks to tear down all identification of differences in law and culture.

This is not true. It's something people who distrust feminism say about feminism, but it is not factual. What you are saying (about the differences between men and women) is the POV of 'cultural feminism', a well-known branch of the women's movement. Here, from your favorite source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_feminism Note that even among cultural feminists, there's a wide range of attitudes towards men, individually or collectively. Some Cultural feminists believe 'female characteristics' are inherently superior to male ones, some feel they are more complementary.

The people who are caricatured as "Feminists", if they are recognisable at all, belong mostly to the "liberal" branch of feminism. Their aims are focused on political and economic barriers to equality, being active in issues of educational access, equal opportunity in sports and equal pay in work. Ms. magazine and the NOW organization were predominantly "liberal feminist".

More things in Heaven and Earth, Lief.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

God knows i never thought i'd be the one saying this - but what about a seperate thread about the renaissance? - i was really enjoying that aspect of the debate.

I'm afraid I can only support this idea if it means I get to spam the thread with baroque music references.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with you, Sis, that my general statement did not take into account the variety of different kinds of feminists.

I was talking about cultural feminists and liberal feminists, as you say, and those are two of the biggest parts of the feminist movement. There are, of course, all kinds of variety of opinion within those groups. And there's one feminist variety I know of that I very much approve of, actually. I wasn't trying to take into account the variety in my post, but was rather pointing out the general purposes of the big groups.

I think that your post mainly supports what I said. And I don't disagree with your post at all .

[Lief Erikson]

It's so nice to have this thread really feeling calm, at the moment .

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

God knows i never thought i'd be the one saying this - but what about a seperate thread about the renaissance? - i was really enjoying that aspect of the debate.

The Renaissance certainly is fascinating. I like how they lived in small villages and worked as communities that were like big families. All the people in the village knew one another, many of them knowing each other very well, and worked together in a really cool body. So often people who got married had known one another for a long time already and had a lot of support from the rest of the village to rely on. And the work was all done together, women in the village and men in the fields. It was a pretty cool arrangement, I think.

Our debate was for the most part just about dates. :/ And I don't think that we actually disagreed about very much, when going over that history. Our main disagreement, as far as I can remember, was on whether or not the 17th century should be called the Age of Reason or considered to be a part of the Renaissance, but that's purely an organizational issue. It doesn't affect the events that happened.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I am (good memory). I think that Rad is generally right - it's thou shalt not kill, as a private citizen, not thy government shall not kill. There are far too many death sentences fixed in the Bible (pretty much anything that's an "abomination") to argue that Thou Shalt Not Kill is a blanket injunction. That said, other than self-defense, I like to think we should treat it as such. Nothing wrong with being a little safe

What if it was a blanket injunction against "immoral" killing? And occasionally a society or an individual might morally kill (i.e. self defense)?

[Lief Erikson]

-Pointless, contentless, deletable post.-

I need to increase my post count! *Sweats.*

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What if it was a blanket injunction against "immoral" killing? And occasionally a society or an individual might morally kill (i.e. self defense)?

I think that it makes no sense to say "my moral rule is no immoral killing." It's circular. By contrast, "my moral rule is no private killing" makes sense. Although I will concede self-defense is clearly Biblically acceptable.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Although I will concede self-defense is clearly Biblically acceptable.

How so?

[Count Comfect]

The book of Esther, dear BJ.

"But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives..."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The book of Esther, dear BJ.

"But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives..."

That's a description of making war, Count, and thus would fall within Lief's "righteous murder" stricture. It's murder as public policy.

[Count Comfect]

I disagree - these Jews are acting as private citizens, defending themselves against a royal writ that authorized their extermination. They aren't acting as part of the polity, because this is Persia, not Israel.