[continued from previous message]   
      
   Of course, not all of the books with neutral titles in the Old Testament are   
   evenhanded in their treatment of women and men – quite the contrary. A   
   perfunctory search through the two books of “Chronicles” exposes the   
   patrilineal system of genealogy at    
   its worst. One might almost think that Miriam, Aaron's sister, was the only   
   baby girl to be born throughout the thousands of recorded years. [256] Reading   
   the begats one must wonder how it happened that a man begot another man   
   without taking any apparent    
   help from a woman. Although everyone knows about Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and   
   Rachel, the prominent wives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, these women do not   
   find a place in the Chronicles whereas, almost miraculously, a woman named   
   Keturah, Abraham's concubine    
   after Sarah's death, gets a double mention. [257] But then what to speak of   
   Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel – even Eve is somehow forgotten or omitted.   
   [258] From reading the Chronicles one would suspect that the real “children of   
   Israel” were all boys.   
      
   Another obvious sign of bias which stands forth after but a cursory study of   
   the Bible is the unjust grammatical system. To Jews and Christians alike, God   
   is without form, yet God is always referenced by use of the masculine pronoun.   
   [259] Because this    
   problem is tied to a grammatical defect still prevalent, some time will be   
   required to rectify the situation. [260] However, this reference is worthy of   
   our attention for the additional reason that the Judaeo-Christian Divinity was   
   not pictured as a “man”   
    by accident or incident of grammar, but rather as intentional propaganda to   
   deify the masculine form of our species.   
      
   According to the creation story recorded in Genesis, “God said, Let us make   
   man in our image, after our likeness .... so God created man in his own image,   
   in the image of God created he him.” [261] By simple inverse reasoning, one   
   may deduce that God    
   must look and be very much like a man. In other words, the formless   
   Judaeo-Christian God is not really formless after all – in fact S/he is a He,   
   a white haired, white bearded old gentleman sitting on some celestial throne.   
   This analysis is supported and    
   amplified when one notes that woman was created as an afterthought of God, in   
   order to give man a “help-meet”, after it was seen that none of the animals   
   could properly do that job. [262] Moreover, woman was not created out of the   
   dust of the earth as    
   were Adam and all the other creatures – no, woman was derived straight from   
   Adam's rib. [263] Ultimately, according to Genesis, man is the father of   
   woman, rather than woman the mother of man – woman is the wife of man and not   
   man the husband of woman. [   
   264] In subtle, yet precise ways, woman is portrayed as being inferior to man   
   – she is but his offshoot and his “help meet”, whereas he is the original   
   creation of God.   
      
   The whole story sounds absurd when put in this way. Nevertheless, a quite   
   remarkable number of men and even women believed every word. It was a simple   
   matter for Paul to apply exactly the same reasoning in order to establish   
   man's divine right to    
   dominate woman. With respect to head coverings, Paul preceded Mohammed in his   
   insistence that women must go under the veil. According to Paul, “If the woman   
   be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be   
   shorn or shaven,    
   let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as   
   he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For   
   the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man   
   created for the woman;    
   but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her   
   head because of the angels.” [265]   
      
   Jesus also made foul use of this segment of the creation story when he sought   
   to bar any possibility of divorce. [266] Divorce is certainly an undesirable   
   practice, but nevertheless it must be allowed to both women and men under   
   extraordinary    
   circumstances of cruelty, characterlessness or irresponsibility on the part of   
   one spouse. One might at first think that the right to secure a divorce   
   becomes especially critical in the case of the weaker and more vulnerable   
   woman. Moses, however, did    
   not see things that way. According to Mosaic law, a man could generally   
   divorce his wife almost at whim, but there is no evidence in the Old Testament   
   that a woman could ever legally divorce her husband. The only concession which   
   Moses made to women was    
   permission for the “divorcee” to go out and remarry, with only minimal moral   
   stigma against her. [267] If social codes had remained fixed as per the strict   
   suppression of women ordained in the Old Testament, then no one could blame   
   Jesus for declaring    
   that, when women are not entitled to divorce then neither should men be,   
   though this interpretation was not the real thrust of Jesus' words. But in   
   fact, by the time of Jesus and up to today, Jewish women were granted divorces   
   with relative ease. [268]    
   So it was that Jesus really enslaved women in the prison of yet another   
   man-biased dogma. Ultimately, it is far better that there be many unnecessary   
   divorces than that even one hapless woman be forced to pass all of her days in   
   tearful desperation as    
   plaything of a brutish husband.   
      
   Although the question of divorce does not relate directly to our subject, it   
   is interesting to examine why Jesus took such pains over it. Clearly there   
   were weighty political reasons behind his action. The reigning tetrarch of   
   Galilee, Herod Antipas, had    
   recently married Herodias, the divorced wife of his own half-brother, Philip.   
   [269] As Jesus was intent on supplanting Herod, he sought to discredit him   
   through a smear campaign directed at Herod's somewhat tawdry marital affairs.   
   Jesus was, of course, a    
   bit subtle – more so than John the Baptist, who was soon imprisoned and   
   executed for his vigorous character assassination of Herod and Herodias on   
   just the same point. [270] But it is certain that every Jew dwelling in   
   Jerusalem knew exactly what Jesus    
   was talking about when he said: “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away   
   his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that   
   whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,   
   causeth her to commit    
   adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”   
   [271] In plain language, both Herod and his new wife, Herodias, were (in the   
   words of Jesus) living in mortal sin.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)