Can you really not see the difference between that and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's"?

Really?

You are begging the question here.  Why must the commandments be universal?  Because that is what you already believe.

The fact that the OT in general describes a local and parochial deity, who even implicitly acknowledges in the commandments that there are other Gods which "his" people must avoid [Ex. 20:3], undermines the later interpretation of universality which has been applied to the entire narrative.  But it is this post hoc explanation which you use to confidently dismiss all semantic analysis of the text which might suggest the unwelcome possibility of error.

You remind me, I am sorry to say, of the narrow-minded mullahs of the Middle Ages, who the great Omar Khayyam was referring to when he wrote:

"And do you think, to such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well well, what matters it
Believe that too."

  What a spectacularly badly chosen example, since the Bill of Rights did originally include legal protection exclusively for land-owning white males.  The fact that it has now been amended to apply universally does not alter its original intent, which is exactly the same in the case of the Ten Commandments.  For you to appeal, as you do in both cases, to the current modern understanding of these documents in order to (in your own mind at least) refute speculation about their original meaning just shows that you are doing exactly what you have previously accused me of doing – seeing historical events through the prism of my 21st Century perspective.  It's been a good long while since I've seen anyone torpedo their own arguments so effectively.

It's not just a matter of overtones, it is a complete lack (as far as I can see) of verses specifically addressing women in the OT, but plenty which specifically address men.  You want to say that they are all universal (as if coveting your neighbour's wife was a gender-neutral preoccupation) and I am pointing out that some of them cannot be, and only your pre-conceived ideas about the Bible give any grounds for assuming that the rest are.

However, as I have said, I would be very happy to be shown the error of my ways in the shape of an OT verse which explicitly addresses (rather than just discusses) women.

I would think that an understanding of how disease actually works would have been very useful to them, or at least to all those throughout history who have been burned alive as alleged practitioners of the evil magic that was presumed to have caused the plague or famine which troubled people.

There is a rather large difference between an allegorical expression (biblically-derived, incidentally, and so representing just one of the many ways in which ancient Israelite mythology has infected modern thought) and the creator of the universe describing that universe to "his" chosen people.  A God who spoke in allegories and metaphors during such a communiqué would be willfully misleading.

I realize that you're simply recycling your habitual responses without much if any conscious thought required here, but I would think that even you might notice the rampant dishonesty of this statement.  You made a claim which was false on two counts; 1) that the Bible clearly describes the shape of the Earth, and 2) that this was "beyond the science of the time".  My pointing out that you were doubly in error provoked not an honest acceptance of having made a mistake, because I know you too well to expect any such thing, but the breathtakingly mendacious accusation that I am the one being dishonest in my arguments.  Having revealed yourself as being entirely closed off to rational or civilized argument on this point, it hardly makes sense to continue this section of the debate.

It is terribly obvious that you are groping around for any possible rationalization in order to resolve this issue to your desired conclusion.  Having previously admitted that the verse in question referred to a rape (something which I was not assuming a priori, if you look back at my first few posts on the subject), and having spent all your time since frantically defending the outcome of marriage on that basis – even going so far as to blatantly fabricate this patent nonsense about not living together – you have now apparently admitted to yourself that this is a losing battle and found yourself an alternative excuse in the form of an entirely different and contradictory interpretation of the verse.

Regarding the word translated as "seize" meaning rape, I agree with the author that it does not necessarily do so (despite the fact that you previously acknowledged in reply #23 that the verse discussed the punishment for a "crime", something I queried in reply #28, and you then spent the next X number of posts ridiculing my apparent PC liberal feminist sensitivity to the idea of punishing a rapist by marrying him off to his victim, but never mind about all that, eh?).

However, while it is not definitively discussing sexual assault, the word taphas in Hebrew doesn't imply a whole lot of consent being involved.  Possible synonyms listed here are arrest, capture, caught, grasp, handle, lay hold, occupy, overlaid, profane, seize, surely be captured, take, or took hold.  None of those suggest a lot of involvement on the part of the thing which is variously seized, grasped, occupied or profaned.  At best, the verse dismisses the woman as being any kind of active participant in the event, and still concludes by marrying her off to the man who has "spoiled" her, regardless of what she thinks about it.

So, having reversed yourself so abruptly, and with such obvious and desperate willingness to embrace any interpretation (in common with the author you cite in support) which doesn't paint God in a bad light, the best that you can say is that while the woman may not have been a rape victim, she still has no say in what happens to her.  She is an object, rather than a subject, of this unhappy little drama.  My point about the sexism inherent in this account still stands.

This makes absolutely no sense, since one of the aims of medicine is to cure or at least treat genetic diseases, not to punish people eternally for them.  You are continuing your dismal pattern of flailing desperately around for a response which, even if it is entirely irrelevant, at least sounds vaguely like a reasoned counter-argument.

Not even close to good enough I'm afraid.

Really?  This list of instructions which is immediately preceded by the words ""I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery"?  They would apply just as equally to the Egyptians, in your view?

You have previously said that the OT represents a record of the period of God's direct relationship with one group of people, and have used this explanation to dismiss any suggestion of the current relevance of prohibitions against eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and "suffering witches to live".  Now you want to say that the statements of God during this time period actually apply universally, both in time and space?  Or you just want to say that only specific statements, such as the commandments, apply universally, with no reasons presented other than "it's obvious!!!".  This is inconsistent and erratic behaviour, hypocritically buttressed with mean-spirited aspersions about my alleged inconsistency, evasiveness or lack of honesty.

Obviously, you will not think so.  I will have to leave it to other readers of our discussions to judge.

So you don't recognise the possibility of someone discussing the characteristics of a fictional person without implicitly assuming their existence?  This seems like more hopeless groping on the face of it.  Must I really believe that Sherlock Holmes existed in order to make any comment on his personality, habits or morality?

...who even implicitly acknowledges in the commandments that there are other Gods which "his" people must avoid...

You'll have to explain to me the difference between something being universal and universally applied - might it also be true of the ten commandments?

Assertions about my lack of historical knowledge are cheap and easily made, and appealing to the status quo interpretation is just plain lazy, and suggests an insecure unwillingness to engage with the actual issue.  I am fully aware of Christianity's history of opposing (and oppressing) homosexuality, which is derived more from the opinions of those who came before and after him than anything that Jesus is ever recorded as having said.  As such, analysis and discussion of his recorded words relating to the subject seems relevant unless you already have fixed and unalterable opinions derived from other sources than the spoken word of the alleged son of god.

I will charitably assume that this was written with humorous intent.

I have never once mentioned the gender-defaulted impersonal pronoun in our discussions of the male focus (or not) of the OT.  Glad to see that your ability to construe an opponents' argument in the stupidest and most simplistic way possible remains intact.  Again, you do nothing to make your own case other than to drearily repeat it with the prefix "I say that...".  I was already aware that you say that, I have not yet seen you offer any actual evidence in support of it however.

Passing over your habit of uncritically offering other people's apologetics in lieu of presenting any of your own thoughts (other than the irrevocable and tediously repeated conclusion) on the matter, I will give you my first responses to this, rather long, essay here:

Ex 22.16: "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."
Observations: In this case, notice that the violated virgin is still protected. She either gets a home, or, if the father deems it NOT a good idea, she doesn't have to marry the guy!

This is a representative example of the kind of biased analysis which characterises most of what I have read of this essay.  Presenting this verse as indicative of a positive feminist subtext to the OT as a whole requires a suppression of the intellect to a fairly radical extent.  Where is the feminine agency in this little morality tale?  It is an exclusively male transaction from start to finish.  What about if a woman seduces a male virgin?  What if she doesn't want to marry him?  Why does her father have the final word?

This exercise in wishful thinking also manages to construe Numbers 30:3-8 (in which a woman's father or husband can override a binding vow that she makes) as being protective and nurturing, suggests that proscriptions against even touching a menstruating woman are (bizarrely) to allow her "flexibility", and interprets Deuteronomy 21:11-14 ("if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife....") as demonstrating "God's concern for the protection of this captive female".  What?

The only thing that the author convincingly argues is that the OT laws were an improvement for women on some of the other legal codes in the same area at the time.  I have no problem with admitting that this might be the case.  They are, however, a massive step backwards for any woman benefitting from the hundreds of years of secular, not religious, progress which has gone some way to redressing the power imbalance between men and women in human society.  The idea that this was simply the best that an omnipotent God could do is foolish, and the idea that it ought to have some application in modern life is hugely retarding as far as women's autonomy and quality of life would go.

You are specialising in non-sequiturs today.  A knowledge about the causes of disease could have saved the lives of those who were blamed for it's incidence in lieu of the bacteria and viruses which were genuinely responsible, and might have saved innumerably more lives by hastening the human progress towards finding medical solutions for them.  This is knowledge that an omniscient God could have given us but apparently chose not to.

You mean the "current modern understanding" that you just discovered and now take as being entirely unarguable?  I am happy to acknowledge an ambiguity about the correct interpretation of the word in question, but you have found your brand new point of certainty and now are ready to be infallibly dogmatic all over again.  Reminds me of when the Vatican repudiated the doctrine of Limbo.

You just knew that I was wrong, regardless of the specific arguments as to why.  The arguments are interchangeable and ultimately unimportant to you, in other words, in pursuit of your predetermined conclusion. 

I rest my case.

Try to continue your epic learning curve by admitting, if only to yourself, that the woman has no autonomy granted to her in this story whatsoever.  The man at least makes a conscious choice to grab, seize, capture or rape her, and then pays the penalty of having to get married.  The woman who is grabbed, seized, captured or raped has no agency ascribed to her at any stage of the game.  Her life choices are irrelevant.

Christianity helpfully provides a solution to the problem that it has created - the concept of sin.  Somehow I think you'd be less forgiving of a doctor who went around slashing people with a knife so that he could stitch them back up and then claim the credit.  Christianity is convicted, not only by the implausibility of it's historical claims, but by the rampant immorality and incoherence of it's central metaphysical claims - for example the idea that the most unambiguous innocents, newborn babies, are inherently deserving of death as a part of the praiseworthy master plan of an omni-benevolent God - and people who embrace this horrible idea with the apparent relish that you do are convicted alongside it as moral and intellectual traitors to the human race.

You ought to be aware however that an ideology's "feel good factor" has no demonstrated correlation with how objectively likely it is to be true.

Happy new year