Hacker News Reader

Comment by speeder | Hacker News Reader

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian)

A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on.

For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone.

Or Paul in New Testament saying men should NOT cover their heads, make a lot of sense when you find out people at the time decided to adopt a fashion from some roman nobles that started to use robes with head covering during religious events, with the intention of appearing more spiritual.

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents and certainly not generic religious ones. Those are likely to start religious flamewars, which is exactly what happened in this case.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My experience exactly. I've been trying to read the bible with an eye for historical context (rather than the "biblical literalism" that has been so harmful over the past two centuries or so). It helps a lot in making sense of things.

The stuff about not eating shellfish or pork is a pretty straightforward example of this: avoiding certain foods would probably increase your group's lifespan, and so gives an edge over other groups.

A certain issue involving priests and children is controversial today. Would you say that this can be understood if you consider that historically powerful men have been doing whatever they wanted and gotten away with it and organized religion has been a safe haven for them?

The apple was clearly a clitoris.

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone.

This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny. If you want to be true to the statements made in historical sources (e.g., the bible), try to put yourself in their shoes -- in this case, imagine that you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people. The reason for the law is thus completely justified to such a person: to them, menstrual fluid is gross and just another example of why women clearly do not have the full rights of a "real person".

Now can you explain to me how the same idea apply to semen? Because it was also considered "unclean", in the same manner menstrual blood was.

They probably didn't want you spewing that near the water source in the center of the camp either. You know the type exists.

An obvious difference is that it's the semen that makes things unclean, while for menstruation it's the woman herself that is the unclean agent.

For semen, there is a clear distinction that it is anything it touches becomes dirty and needs washing. But for menstruation its whatever the woman touches that becomes unclean (and for seven days it seems!), not merely what the blood touches.

The original comment thus provides an explanation for why these two cases are treated separately, which is basically what you asked for.

I think it's a little bit of both. Scientific-type thinking is not restricted to modern times and a lot can be deduced simply from observation, given a large enough sample size.

On the other hand, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Calling reasonable inference pseudoscience while assuming to read the minds of men 2000 years ago and claim misogynic inspiration for their actions is such a fucking joke.

Menstrual blood is pretty gross though. It's not misogynistic to recognize that. Plenty of gender neutral bodily fluids are gross too. Another person's bodily fluids in general are gross.

However that was regularly used to prove that women are more wicked than men.

I generally don't want anyone's bodily fluids near me, regardless of gender.

> you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people

It is interesting that we hate cynicism when expressed by others yet we feel entitled to express it ourselves. Sometimes it is a good idea, when judging the behaviour of others, to consider options other than malice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com