Who's Sin is it Anyway?

[muhammad_isa]

But what if the 'commander' is an adulterous, wife beater?

Good men are for good women, and good women are for good men.
Bad men are for bad women, and bad women are for bad men.

There should be no compulsion for a person to marry or stay married to somebody against their will.

 

[RabbiO]

That's what atheists say about the worship of God Almighty.
Do you really think that the Christian marriage vow "to honour and obey" was just cultural,
and has no basis in theology?
You can't have 2 commanders .. just as you can't have 2 'gods'

I can't speak to Christian marriage vows and a Jewish wedding ceremony has no such vows. I should note the Tanakh indicates that Eve was to be Adam's equal. According to Genesis 2:18, Eve was created to be an עזר כנגדו, a force opposite to Adam.

 

[Thomas]

Indeed, Genesis 1:27 is even more explicit in the sense that the life ordained to them was done so equally, there is no distinction of direction.

The telling verse is 3:16: "I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." My emphasis. Interestingly the text then says: "Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil" (v22) not Eve? "And he cast out Adam... " (v24). In fact from here Eve plays no further part in the story other than to bring forth Seth.

But I was not making a theological point, as this is a thread of secular philosophy. Rather a sociological one. As a general rule, in societal cultures, women do not share the same freedoms as men, and 'it's a man's world' is very much the operative norm.

Frankly, I would have that that was obvious.

 

[RabbiO]

The telling verse is 3:16: "I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." My emphasis. Interestingly the text then says: "Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil" (v22) not Eve? "And he cast out Adam... " (v24). In fact from here Eve plays no further part in the story other than to bring forth Seth.

I apologize if I have derailed the thread. I should mention, however, that neither of the two verses you cite name Adam in the Hebrew text.

 

[RJM]

The meerkats in 'Meerkat Manor' are led by a female. I believe wolf packs are led by a female. There are probably many other species led by the female.

But with apes the males are usually physically stronger than the females, and so they dominate. A male polar bear is often twice heavier than the female. We know that lions are dominated by the males -- whose main cause of death is in fights with other male lions.

In tribal African societies the female walks behind the man carrying everything, and leaving the man with his hands free to fight off wild animals or whatever. The man chops wood and hunts -- or fights in wars against other tribes -- and the woman carries water and cultivates the crops, often with a baby on her back wrapped in a towel.

The marriage customs are/were strict. A man in most southern African tribes can marry as many wives as he can afford to support but adultery was traditionally punishable by death of both parties. Tribes could not afford to become infected by sexual diseases or weakened by inbreeding, etc.

These are ancient traditions.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Down here, traditional native tribes are often viewed as a patriarchal, which is true to a point, but rest assured, any decision made by a man, was done so with a woman's blessing. The older gals in particular, take no guff off anybody. Theirs is a society where men and women are of equal importance, but where each has a very different role in the community.

Now outside the tribe, all bets are off. Modern societal mores has made a right cockup of things for many native peoples. Now, alcoholism, spousal abuse and other violent acts, almost unheard of in traditional tribal society, are all on the rise.

 

[Thomas]

None of which addresses the points raised in my post #125, but much of which reinforces the fact that most of our historical narratives are written from the male perspective and, either subtly or directly, reinforce male values. Aussie's comment above, for example, regarding traditional cultures, makes just that point that where there were coequal gender relations, these were soon undermined by imported and opposed western values.

Those values are the legacy of feudalism.

The 'Code of Chivalry' emerged around the c10AD in France as the Christian church tried to regulate the violence endemic to Frankish society. Here emerged the knight, the man equipped for war is the central concept of chivalry; peasants need not apply.

From here a martial elite arose with the view that warfare was its hereditary profession.

Chivalry relegated the female aristocracy to an ambiguous position in society. Outwardly held as objects of reverence, they were relegated to the position of appendage in a hyper-masculine martial society. As chivalry became more stylized, women were increasingly constrained within the ideal of the passive, beautiful female. Any deviation from this, any expression of independence, was regarded as suspect and sinful.

Women were not the only victim. While the Code of Chivalry expected knights to be Christian in conduct, the Biblical prohibitions were not applied to those outside the church, thus knight were guilty of terrible atrocities, allowed by various concessions, such as killing Jews, Moslems or heretics, as these were outside the cover of Christendom.

And while chivalric charity extended to the enemy knight (when advantageous), these dispensations did not extend to the peasantry who were often slaughtered wholesale whenever they were deemed in the way or stepped out of line.

The 'gentlemanly' (chivalric) values of today are entirely anachronistic. A fallacy that came about with the "re-discovery" of chivalry in the Romance Movement of the Victorian Era by authors who wanted to spin creative tales of pageantry and adventure. As such our impression of knights — and ladies — derive from highly stylized fantasies of art and literature generated in pursuit of a mythic ideal.

+++

Interestingly, the Code of Bushido is likewise a much later invention. The popular image in the west derives from the book published by Nitobe Inazo in 1905, himself a Christian, and his book was a presentation of the samurai ethos in Christian terms. The reality of Bushido is drawn from materials from almost a thousand years earlier that show a similar 'Code' formed around a martial elite bound by obligation and allegiance to their superiors.

Interestingly also is, with the emergence of this particularly Japanese form of feudalism, is the manner in which the female is similarly relegated, where once she was central to the affairs of the Imperial Court, in the military households she was confined to the womans' quarters — she lost her right to inherit wealth, land and titles. She lost her voice. Where the formidable female Tomoe Gozen (C1157-1247) fought and won battles, and was renown as an onna-bugeisha, she was as capable a warrior as she was a military leader:

Tomoe was especially beautiful, with white skin, long hair, and charming features. She was also a remarkably strong archer, and as a swordswoman she was a warrior worth a thousand, ready to confront a demon or a god, mounted or on foot. She handled unbroken horses with superb skill; she rode unscathed down perilous descents. Whenever a battle was imminent, Yoshinaka sent her out as his first captain, equipped with strong armour, an oversized sword, and a mighty bow; and she performed more deeds of valour than any of his other warriors. (The Tale of the Heike)

In later years women would simply be excluded from the possibility of making a career as a warrior.

The exceptions are of course there: Of the three unifiers who eventually brought peace to Japan, all of them had women in their close council — but this does not detract from the over-arching marginalisation of the female. These women emerged only because of their proximity to men of power, as mothers or mistresses, and so were close to the top, while those of a similar or even superior capability did not have the access to the men who could enable them to emerge.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

For the native peoples of Australia, the cockup came when the western notion of sexual equality was forced upon them and the lines between traditional male/female roles became blurred. Suddenly, where once a harmony had existed with one sex fully dependent on the other, discord took it's place.

Of course the powers that be refuse to recognize this, instead blaming Aboriginal men for wanting to control their women. Thankfully, there's still a number of native tribes that have not suffered the same negative influence.

Now here on the farm things are a little different. The native people here have for the most part, adapted well to modern life. I think the difference is, we've never tried to interfere with their way of life. That is, the men still work the fields and the women still provide for their support, while instilling traditional core values in upcoming generations and keeping the men folk inline. - It works.

 

[RJM]

None of which addresses the points raised in my post #125, but much of which reinforces the fact that most of our historical narratives are written from the male perspective and, either subtly or directly, reinforce male values. Aussie's comment above, for example, regarding traditional cultures, makes just that point that where there were coequal gender relations, these were soon undermined by imported and opposed western values.

Those values are the legacy of feudalism.

The 'Code of Chivalry' emerged around the c10AD in France as the Christian church tried to regulate the violence endemic to Frankish society. Here emerged the knight, the man equipped for war is the central concept of chivalry; peasants need not apply.

From here a martial elite arose with the view that warfare was its hereditary profession.

Chivalry relegated the female aristocracy to an ambiguous position in society. Outwardly held as objects of reverence, they were relegated to the position of appendage in a hyper-masculine martial society. As chivalry became more stylized, women were increasingly constrained within the ideal of the passive, beautiful female. Any deviation from this, any expression of independence, was regarded as suspect and sinful.

Women were not the only victim. While the Code of Chivalry expected knights to be Christian in conduct, the Biblical prohibitions were not applied to those outside the church, thus knight were guilty of terrible atrocities, allowed by various concessions, such as killing Jews, Moslems or heretics, as these were outside the cover of Christendom.

And while chivalric charity extended to the enemy knight (when advantageous), these dispensations did not extend to the peasantry who were often slaughtered wholesale whenever they were deemed in the way or stepped out of line.

The 'gentlemanly' (chivalric) values of today are entirely anachronistic. A fallacy that came about with the "re-discovery" of chivalry in the Romance Movement of the Victorian Era by authors who wanted to spin creative tales of pageantry and adventure. As such our impression of knights — and ladies — derive from highly stylized fantasies of art and literature generated in pursuit of a mythic ideal.

+++

Interestingly, the Code of Bushido is likewise a much later invention. The popular image in the west derives from the book published by Nitobe Inazo in 1905, himself a Christian, and his book was a presentation of the samurai ethos in Christian terms. The reality of Bushido is drawn from materials from almost a thousand years earlier that show a similar 'Code' formed around a martial elite bound by obligation and allegiance to their superiors.

Interestingly also is, with the emergence of this particularly Japanese form of feudalism, is the manner in which the female is similarly relegated, where once she was central to the affairs of the Imperial Court, in the military households she was confined to the womans' quarters — she lost her right to inherit wealth, land and titles. She lost her voice. Where the formidable female Tomoe Gozen (C1157-1247) fought and won battles, and was renown as an onna-bugeisha, she was as capable a warrior as she was a military leader:

In later years women would simply be excluded from the possibility of making a career as a warrior.

The exceptions are of course there: Of the three unifiers who eventually brought peace to Japan, all of them had women in their close council — but this does not detract from the over-arching marginalisation of the female. These women emerged only because of their proximity to men of power, as mothers or mistresses, and so were close to the top, while those of a similar or even superior capability did not have the access to the men who could enable them to emerge.

Everything you say is probably true. Woman's rights movements have made big gains in the last half century or so, along with gender rights. The problem is that legitimate movements for change are invaded by extremists, which turns a large part of the sympathy away that the movement has been getting. Legitimate movements for change become derailed when the lunatic or criminal fringe get involved, and 'freedom of expression' quickly becomes a one-way street.

For the native peoples of Australia, the cockup came when the western notion of sexual equality was forced upon them and the lines between traditional male/female roles became blurred. Suddenly, where once a harmony had existed with one sex fully dependent on the other, discord took it's place.

Of course the powers that be refuse to recognize this, instead blaming Aboriginal men for wanting to control their women. Thankfully, there's still a number of native tribes that have not suffered the same negative influence.

Now here on the farm things are a little different. The native people here have for the most part, adapted well to modern life. I think the difference is, we've never tried to interfere with their way of life. That is, the men still work the fields and the women still provide for their support, while instilling traditional core values in upcoming generations and keeping the men folk inline. - It works.

Africa is different from America or Australia because African countries are now governed by Africans, and not by 'white' colonial powers. Tribal ways are mostly gone from the cities. But I was really using the tribal reference as an explanation for how the male/female roles derive from ancient cultural ways? And of course Thoreau's 'noble savage' was plagued by tribal raids and crippling diseases and starvation. I quite understand that living on an Australian farm you suffer no romantic illusions about that!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you really think that the Christian marriage vow "to honour and obey" was just cultural, and has no basis in theology?
You can't have 2 commanders .. just as you can't have 2 'gods'

Hindus have the most complete set of vows to be undertaken at the time of marriage, before the Gods, elders and community, and of course, the Fire God, who is the priest of all Gods and Goddesses. It takes a few hours to go through the process, stepping on the seven stones (your vows should be as firm as them), and going around the sacrificial fire three times with the groom leading and four times the bride leading. Only then the father of the bride ceremonially hands over the responsibility of welfare and provisioning of the bride to the groom. It is an act of 'charity' from his side, daana, gift - Kanya daana - gving away his daughter in marriage to the groom. It is most serious business. The rituals may span over a few days, three days for our community. More for anyone interested at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivaah

Well, with us, you can have as many Gods and as many Goddesses as you desire, on one condition, they must be Gods or Goddesses of our own land.

But what if the 'commander' is an adulterous, wife beater?

That is 'a-dharma', the opposite of what should be done, i.e., 'dharma', duty. The elders and the society will not appreciate it, and you have to live with them.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Very well written, Thomas.

Chivalry relegated the female aristocracy to an ambiguous position in society. Outwardly held as objects of reverence, they were relegated to the position of appendage in a hyper-masculine martial society. As chivalry became more stylized, women were increasingly constrained within the ideal of the passive, beautiful female. Any deviation from this, any expression of independence, was regarded as suspect and sinful.

As a uncited fun-fact, there are some indications that feudal chivalry and the concept of fair maids were borrowed from Islamic literature from that time. Not being well versed in either, I can speak to how fair that adoption was.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Verses from RigVeda chanted at all Hindu weddinga:

"42. Be ye not parted; dwell ye here reach the full time of human life.
With sons and grandsons sport and play, rejoicing in your own abode.
43. So may Prajāpati bring children forth to us; may Aryaman adorn us till old age come nigh.
Not inauspicious enter thou thy husband's house: bring blessing to our bipeds and our quadrupeds.
44. Not evil-eyed, no slayer of thy husband, bring weal to cattle, radiant, gentle-hearted;
Loving the Gods, delightful, bearing heroes, bring blessing to our quadrupeds and bipeds.
45. O Bounteous Indra, make this bride blest in her sons and fortunate.
Vouchsafe to her ten sons, and make her husband the eleventh man.
46. Over thy husband's father and thy husband's mother bear full sway.
Over the sister of thy lord, over his brothers rule supreme.
47. So may the Universal Gods, so may the Waters join our hearts.
May Mātariśvan, Dhātar, and Destri together bind us close."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10085.htm (Surya's Bridal)

 

[Thomas]

The problem is that legitimate movements for change are invaded by extremists, which turns a large part of the sympathy away that the movement has been getting.

Indeed. Add to that the legitimate movements are also opposed by those against any form of change from the comfort of the status-quo, so the odds are always stacked against 'change' as such.

Legitimate movements for change become derailed when the lunatic or criminal fringe get involved, and 'freedom of expression' quickly becomes a one-way street.

'Freedom of expression' has taken on a bizarre front in these days of social media.

It was an epiphany for me when someone pointed out that there are those who post to social media platforms not what they actually believe — many tend not to actually think about the memes they endorse — but rather they post because they delight in the fact that it outrages the other side.

But I was really using the tribal reference as an explanation for how the male/female roles derive from ancient cultural ways?

Well ancient or traditional does not necessarily a validate cultural practice. Racism is as old as the hills. Sexism. Look at the resistance to banning FGM, or marrying 14-year-old daughters off ...

 

[RJM]

Indeed. Add to that the legitimate movements are also opposed by those against any form of change from the comfort of the status-quo, so the odds are always stacked against 'change' as such.


'Freedom of expression' has taken on a bizarre front in these days of social media.

It was an epiphany for me when someone pointed out that there are those who post to social media platforms not what they actually believe — many tend not to actually think about the memes they endorse — but rather they post because they delight in the fact that it outrages the other side.


Well ancient or traditional does not necessarily a validate cultural practice. Racism is as old as the hills. Sexism. Look at the resistance to banning FGM, or marrying 14-year-old daughters off ...

I agree with everything you say. Especially the last paragraph. 'The noble primitive' can be a wrong idea, imo.

The elders and the society will not appreciate it, and you have to live with them.

But do you have to live with them? In modern cities people don't even know their next door neighbours?

 

[Thomas]

As a uncited fun-fact, there are some indications that feudal chivalry and the concept of fair maids were borrowed from Islamic literature from that time...

I had heard that, and that the origins of the 'troubadour' and the school of 'romance lyrical poetry' in which the deeds of noble warriors and the purity of fair maidens derived from Sufism. spreading up through Spain/Southern France into Europe.

There's a lot more evidence coming out now, apparently, about this, and generally about how rubbing shoulders with the Islamic world kick-started the first Renaissance that brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

Also, as a complete aside, the Moslem doctors had very 'strange' ideas about communicable diseases, including isolations wards in hospitals, the need for personal hygiene, and the benefits of fresh air! The conduct of a 19thc British hospital physician would have horrified a 9thc Moslem doctor.

So it goes ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

But do you have to live with them? In modern cities people don't even know their next door neighbours?

Well, in spite of all changes and the necessity of living far from home, for Indians home remains where the elders live. And they will flock whenever possible, even if they may have their households in US, Australia or Timbuktoo. I supported my son till he was 30. Now he takes care of the expenses. Of course, I will leave what I have to my grandchildren. I never spend even a cent of that money, only sometimes from the interest on my deposits. That money is sacrosanct.

My mother is 98, what will she think if my son and myself live separately? It would be a shock to her. She lives half the time with me and another half with my brother who live just about 5 kms from my place. We start new house-hold only when children grow up and need more space which the old house cannot provide.* Even then, religious ceremonies are held at the place of elder brother, till the charge is given to the other house-hold.

* By mutual consent and pressure of circumstances. The apartments and condos in metros that we occupy now cannot be extended. In ancestral homes, one could always add new rooms or floors. Where it is possible, people still do that.

 

[RJM]

Well, in spite of all changes and the necessity of living far from home, for Indians home remains where the elders live. And they will flock whenever possible, even if they may have their households in US, Australia or Timbuktoo. I supported my son till he was 30. Now he takes care of the expenses. Of course, I will leave what I have to my grandchildren. I never spend even a cent of that money, only sometimes from the interest on my deposits. That money is sacrosanct.

My mother is 98, what will she think if my son and myself live separately? It would be a shock to her. She lives half the time with me and another half with my brother who live just about 5 kms from my place. We start new house-hold only when children grow up and need more space which the old house cannot provide.* Even then, religious ceremonies are held at the place of elder brother, till the charge is given to the other house-hold.

* By mutual consent and pressure of circumstances. The apartments and condos in metros that we occupy now cannot be extended. In ancestral homes, one could always add new rooms or floors. Where it is possible, people still do that.

This is good to know

 

[thomasmariel]

Hey Steve, I wasn't sure where to put this. If you think it would fit better somewhere else, feel free to bump.

Ok, bear with me for a moment. This is a bit difficult to explain. There are times when we view our works as purely innocent, while others view them as wrong or even sinful. For example. As a photographer, a lot of my work falls into question. Especially if it involves a young lady in a state of undress. I don't shoot pornography by the way. I'm talking something along the lines of an open blouse or a raised skirt. Still, there are those who will automatically view it as such.

So my question is: Who's in the wrong here? The one who produced the work or the one who automatically viewed it as sinful?

I'm the current bridge between two different worlds. Classic society, of The Cream Wall along main street, in sunlight, and its subtextual association with your rumination on photography. Then, there's the Equilibrium (2002) non-irony, starring John Preston, Brandt, Dupont, Mary O'Brien, Partridge and Lisa.

Metaphysically, what's happened is that the latter absence of proof system has been given an opportunity, to create meta from nothing. And yet it has the citation, the conventional logic of power.

John Hartigan, from Sin City, is the moral support to the antithesis, of the Equilibrium reality. However, his reality of citation is much more unforgiving.



Is there the potential: that the symmetry language of the words classic and wall and street is in fact the real intelligence, inasmuch as being the supporter of the Equilibrium darkness.

 

[RabbiO]

@thomasmariel -

Don’t expect a reply from the OP. That’s always a risk when responding to an original post from 8 years ago. Much can happen.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Especially when the OP passed away November last....