An Insult to the Ladies

[Servetus]

harrumph. you see, this is where i would advise you to watch a few of the tv dramas set in ancient rome; dramatic impact apart, what an awful, corrupt, violent, sadistic and immoral society it emerges as by comparison with contemporary jewish society.

really, because women were *sooo* emancipated in both ancient greece and rome. there was nothing sexist about pagan society, was there? sheesh.

Your response here leads me to assume that you read my post as if I was promoting the glories of Greek pederasty, i.e., "ancient pagan norms," over and against Jewish patriarchal "oppression" of women. If my assumption is correct, I would suggest that you read my post again. I was, in this case, defending neither the Jews nor the Greeks.

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

what? of course it was different. all the agricultural laws and the Temple sacrifices were in operation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Why do you have to contradict just for the sake of controversy? We are not talking about agricultural laws and Temple services but marriage customs and the Pauline policy to advise single people not to marry. Besides, I am discussing with someone else about this issue.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

It seems to me that, far from "Hellenizing" the Jews or others, St. Paul "Judaized" the Hellenes, including the Romans, and the poor, hapless Europeans, who were the victims of his successful evangelizing efforts, are only now, after 2,000 pitiful years, crawling out from beneath the man's influence and are returning to some of the norms of their glorious, pagan past.

To preach that Jesus was the son of God is hardly a judaizing message. It is more akin to the hellenistic message of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

P.S. Parts of this post are written with my tongue still in cheek because, most of the time, it is stuck there anyway and these provocative posts of yours are especially inspiring in that regard. Plus, my mouth is dry -I have cotton mouth (not a reference to a snake).

The intent is not to provoke but rather to open people's eyes to a new perspective of the truth which is hardly seen from the inside of the fence.

St. Paul might, I emphasize might, have been better advised to take Barnabas as his catamite than to invite a menstruating woman to dinner at Spago's (to say nothing of getting too close to her under an apple tree with a talking snake entwined in its branches)? That, and although it would be a bit of a stretch, I could do.

To reject women because of their nature to menstruate is hardly a sane reason to prefer "those" who don't.

Ben

 

[bananabrain]

Your response here leads me to assume that you read my post as if I was promoting the glories of Greek pederasty, i.e., "ancient pagan norms," over and against Jewish patriarchal "oppression" of women. If my assumption is correct, I would suggest that you read my post again. I was, in this case, defending neither the Jews nor the Greeks.

perhaps i was misled by your use of the word "glorious". i cannot imagine that life was that much fun as either a hetaira or a breeding machine, sorry, wife. by contrast, jewish women were and are, by both biblical and rabbinic law, both able to inherit, own property and transact business in their own right, emancipate themselves from their fathers from the age of maturity, initiate or refuse divorce, demand or refuse sexual satisfaction; the list goes on. i cannot see that this in any way constitutes "patriarchal oppression" even nowadays, let alone by contrast with the situation of women in antiquity. even a non-jewish female slave (and, here, these are not chattels/property as in the graeco-roman model, but rather an indentured servant with rights) could emancipate herself by law. i'm sorry, serv, but you really don't seem to know the small print here on the jewish side.

Why do you have to contradict just for the sake of controversy?

i am contradicting for the sake of correctness and precision, because the view you are presenting of judaism both here and elsewhere is paranoid, chauvinistic, shrill and you appear to be obsessed with finger-pointing. if that is what you call controversial, then fair enough.

We are not talking about agricultural laws and Temple services but marriage customs and the Pauline policy to advise single people not to marry.

then next time, draft more carefully.

Besides, I am discussing with someone else about this issue.

well, pardon me, but this is a public forum. if you want to talk privately with someone, PM them. that is what that is for. however, if you do not believe your statements can be defended in public, then you should probably not make them.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

perhaps i was misled by your use of the word "glorious".

That word, the dramatic sentence in which it was found, was followed immediately by my saying that I was writing partly tongue-in-cheek. I think you're still speaking English as a Brit and I as a Yank and, as usual, neither the twain is meeting. Something about these posts of Ben's makes me a bit punch-drunk, as by now you will certainly have noticed, which is why I suggested that you plug your ears when I respond. You are a gentleman who, though personable and informal, nevertheless speaks the language of diplomacy; Ben likes to kick box a bit. When I am sparring with Ben, I do not intend to mistakenly kick you.

i'm sorry, serv, but you really don't seem to know the small print here on the jewish side.

That is absolutely true. I don't at all mind your having said that, but please do recall that I clarified, at the top, that I no longer personally consider Judaism oppressive to women. I once did, in my youth, when I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and was exposed not only to radical feminism but was, for a time, an honorary member of radical feminism's reductio ad absurdum, lesbian separatism: I was, politically not biologically speaking, for about a fortnight, a lesbian separatist!

But seriously, with that said, and even though I have both read and appreciated what I would call your beautiful theory (at the link provided), I think I shall revert to my old ways, become a sympathizer with lesbian separatism, and argue against some of your theory's less attractive practices when I am able to return to this discussion, which I hope will be soon.

Standby, then, to hear some Talmudic quotations which are so bad and spiteful toward women that, had he heard them, St. Paul himself would have blushed. Please keep in mind, as well, that I am doing this mainly to (in a good, sportive sense) match kicks with Ben Masada.


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

fair enough - it would also be dishonest of me to maintain that everyone thinks the way i do, or that judaism is entirely free of misogyny in popular practice and thought. i am, whatever else i may be, progressive in intent despite my many hidebound affiliations. there is of course no shortage of rudery in the Talmud about pretty much everyone, so women are not excluded. you should hear what it has to say about the 'amei ha-aretz, which more or less translates as "the hoi-polloi". that's kind of what i like about it - it's knockabout stuff, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners debating, but it is rarely the last word on anything in judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

Hi bananabrain,

... there is of course no shortage of rudery in the Talmud about pretty much everyone, so women are not excluded ...

Aye. That is enough said. I have no need to dredge up insults to women in any text, ancient or modern. I will now excuse my sometimes hot-headed and temperamental self from this thread. By the way, that, your above-provided link, is an interesting theory. I am quite sure that I caught a brief but clear glimpse of the flow of energy and of those polarities in constructive action at that synagogue in Safed and I have no doubt that, depending upon the participants, the theory can be as lovely and remarkable when put into practice.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

i am contradicting for the sake of correctness and precision, because the view you are presenting of judaism both here and elsewhere is paranoid, chauvinistic, shrill and you appear to be obsessed with finger-pointing. if that is what you call controversial, then fair enough.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Well, why don't you use the Scriptures to refute me? Use it to tell me where I am wrong and we are in business.

Ben

 

[Servetus]

To preach that Jesus was the son of God is hardly a judaizing message ...

"I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High."

It seems to me that if St. Paul did not preach a Judaizing message, neither did the Psalmist sing a Judaizing song. I don't doubt that there are many Graecophiles out there who would argue that the Jews, in this case the Psalmist, got their best stuff from the Greeks and not vice versa.

Serv

 

[bananabrain]

Well, why don't you use the Scriptures to refute me? Use it to tell me where I am wrong and we are in business.

because it is massively evident that you don't know how the "scriptures" are used - your yardstick appears to be "does this interpretation make sense to me?", not "how is this contextualised through the tradition?" virtually nothing you say makes sense within normative rabbinic judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

"I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High."

It seems to me that if St. Paul did not preach a Judaizing message, neither did the Psalmist sing a Judaizing song. I don't doubt that there are many Graecophiles out there who would argue that the Jews, in this case the Psalmist, got their best stuff from the Greeks and not vice versa.

Serv

There is nothing Graecophile at all about Psalm 82:6,7. "Godlike beings" here is as different from the Christian concept of son of God with reference to Jesus, as the night is from the day. This yes, it is absolutely graecophile. Just like the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

because it is massively evident that you don't know how the "scriptures" are used - your yardstick appears to be "does this interpretation make sense to me?", not "how is this contextualised through the tradition?" virtually nothing you say makes sense within normative rabbinic judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

That's the reason why Christians laugh at some of us for labouring under "old wives' tales" that still mutilate the Truth of the Scriptures. Judaism is expected to be progressive and midrashim should be looked at from a rational point of view. Wake up Bananabrain and smell the sodium. Too much banana disturbs the level of potassium and too much potassium is not good for the brain. You have got to balance it with the sodium of the Truth.

Ben

 

[bananabrain]

That's the reason why Christians laugh at some of us for labouring under "old wives' tales" that still mutilate the Truth of the Scriptures.

firstly, i hardly think that such objections could not equally well be aimed at numerous christian equivalents. secondly, that's precisely the argument used against nahmanides by the inquisition at the disputations - and he made mincemeat of it. midrash serves numerous purposes, some rational, some mythic, some anagogical, some legal. in taking issue with this approach, however, you're taking issue with pretty much every figure in jewish history from the Talmud on, in particular rashi, ramban, the gaonim and of course every halakhic approach. that, my friend, makes you a karaite - and we all know how successful that particular approach has been.

Judaism is expected to be progressive and midrashim should be looked at from a rational point of view.

if that is so, then why are your views on homosexuality and the arab-israeli conflict so entirely neanderthal?

as usual, you are identifying sense, rationality and normative judaism with your own opinion and comfort zone, rather than finding it within the tradition.

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

firstly, i hardly think that such objections could not equally well be aimed at numerous christian equivalents. secondly, that's precisely the argument used against nahmanides by the inquisition at the disputations - and he made mincemeat of it. midrash serves numerous purposes, some rational, some mythic, some anagogical, some legal. in taking issue with this approach, however, you're taking issue with pretty much every figure in jewish history from the Talmud on, in particular rashi, ramban, the gaonim and of course every halakhic approach. that, my friend, makes you a karaite - and we all know how successful that particular approach has been.


if that is so, then why are your views on homosexuality and the arab-israeli conflict so entirely neanderthal?

as usual, you are identifying sense, rationality and normative judaism with your own opinion and comfort zone, rather than finding it within the tradition.

bananabrain

I am sorry, but you are not thinking. Why? Because you set up the traditions as high as the Scriptures and ask me why my views about homosexuality and the Arab-Israeli conflict are so neanderthal. What is the Biblical tradition about homosexuality? What is the Biblical tradition about self-deffense and the laws of survival in a hostile environment? Even the Talmud itself says that, "If someone comes to kill you, kill him first." Sorry my friend but we are not ready to let the Holocaust happen again. That kind of conformism is no longer Jewish.

Ben

 

[radarmark]

I believe you are wrong (see Torah, which forbids taking anoother's life or the teachings of Rabbi Kook, Baeck or Sheersohn). Homosexuality? Try Rebbis Lamm, Greenberg, Riskin, Weiss, Sacks, let alone the Coservative, Reform or Reconstructionist Rebbis. Look their views up. Judaism is not as intolerant as you make it seem.

 

[bananabrain]

you set up the traditions as high as the Scriptures

this is the source of all our disagreements, i would suggest. as i have told you any number of times, the Torah ITSELF sets up the tradition as high as the "scriptures" - look in deuteronomy 30. your approach is not only ahistorical but frankly heretical - you are, effectively, a karaite, as i have also said before. i suppose we have the way they teach "bible" at israeli schools and the utter alienation of hilonim from datiim and vice-versa to thank for this. also, what radarmark said. it is you that is not thinking.

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

There is nothing Graecophile at all about Psalm 82:6,7. "Godlike beings" here is as different from the Christian concept of son of God with reference to Jesus, as the night is from the day. This yes, it is absolutely graecophile. Just like the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

Whether you like it or not, the reference to "sons of the Most High" appears in Psalms. Brace yourself: Jesus was one such son. I am not in a very healing mood today and, in any case, am always such a piss-poor Christian that I lack sufficient faith, so, if you want to cure yourself of spiritual deafness, I suggest that the next time you sneeze, you plug your nose and blow the cotton balls out of your ears. When your ears are finally unstopped, then note that the author of St. John's Gospel has Jesus address not only your complaints but also those of your progenitors, the Pharisees and Sadducees who preceded you. And he did so not by quoting either Homer or Hesiod, as one would expect of a Hellenist, but rather by quoting Psalms. Deal with it.

Serv

 

[fadded blue jeans]

Paul was as homosexual as most of this worlds Fathers are .
HE warned congregations against such sins.

And he only recommended not being married to women so one could devout their time to God not other men. Which most of us men know is sinful. Ben Masada CLEARLY IS AGAINST CHRISTIANS CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE .

HE SEEMS TO BE JEWISH PERSON WITH A CHIP ON HIS SOLDER.,. AND HE IS GONNA HAVE A HECK OF A TIME WITH THIS LUTHERAN WHO BELONGS TO A GERMAN LUTHERAN SYNOD.
I HEARD IT ALL ALL THE INSULTS ALL THE ACCUSING OF BEING ANTI SEMETIC THE WHOLE 9 YARDS .I GREW UP IN THE LARGEST JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE WORLD AND HAD MANY FRIENDS AND ALSO ENEMYS THAT WERE JEWISH.

 

[fadded blue jeans]

I am sorry, but you are not thinking. Why? Because you set up the traditions as high as the Scriptures and ask me why my views about homosexuality and the Arab-Israeli conflict are so neanderthal. What is the Biblical tradition about homosexuality? What is the Biblical tradition about self-deffense and the laws of survival in a hostile environment? Even the Talmud itself says that, "If someone comes to kill you, kill him first." Sorry my friend but we are not ready to let the Holocaust happen again. That kind of conformism is no longer Jewish.

Ben

BEN ISARAEL been a friend of the united states for over 60 years.

us presidents come us presidents go .. but most americans remember who their friends have been. its not the israel government that hates us
most of us know that . Some of us even know the talmud but we dont like that. Israel yes talmud no its not nearly as friendly to us gentiles as israel is..

 

[fadded blue jeans]

Ben Masada
WROTE

If someone comes to kill you, kill him first."


NOTE the above DOESNT INCLUDE A THREAT TO KILL ..

SO FAR ITS ONLY BEEN THREATS aginst israel - OF developing ATOMIC BOMBS and using them ..

So what do you want to do Ben------- drop israel atomic bomb on them --now? bomb them now with conventional weapons killem all that way right now..

i dont think you will have much sympathy for those posistions.








.