Its obvious that Jews don't live their lives in accordance to their religious documents. I'm not saying that they do.
Then what are they doing? They are treating their religious documents as what they are: the record of what human beings understood long ago as the
revelation of God in history. Most of the Jewish book is about what humans later decide that they are going to do about the revelation, especially
when the conditions in which the revelation occurred no longer hold.
As seems to be a revelation of its own to you in every one of your threads about non-Muslims' religious beliefs and practices, it isn't obvious that
the correct reaction to such a text is to grovel in the dirt and do whatever the text says, from now until the end of the world. That that is your way
is peachy, but it is not a basis for criticizing what other people think is the right thing to do.
Jews read their whole scripture, not cherry-picking the bits that help a Gentile grind his axe. When you read the whole thing, the Law turns out to be
the constitution for a Bronze Age tribal state that God is telling the Jews to establish in greater Canaan. That constitution is pretty much par for
the course among Bronze Age states advanced enough to have had the rule of law.
The day after that state ceased to exist, then the question arose "What is the status of the Law for a people without a state for the Law to be its
constitution?" The text doesn't say. Whether or not a living person believes that God said the words attributed to him in the text, the circumstances
in which the divine command was given no longer hold.
Many people who believe that God did say the words also believe that God gave each man and woman intelligence and the possibility of discernment. So,
it is a possible, if not obligatory, inference that God started his people on a course of dveelopment, with the expectation that they would use their
endowment to adapt his instructions to secular changes. The Law may be, then, the suit of animal skins in Genesis
3, God's gift to get the
First Couple started, but with the expectation that later clothing would be their responsibility.
It's fine and dandy if you disagree with that approach, and prefer to have a Seventh Century society because that's the last time God spoke, according
to your reckoning. But, Jews don't believe that. So,
If people don't believe Jews put into practice every single misogynistic teaching in their texts, why should they not use the same reasoning
Because it wouldn't occur to most educated living Jews to do in the modern age what was permissible, some of it even progressive, in the Bronze Age,
but no longer in modern society. Demonstrably, it does occur to many Muslims, as some of their religious advisers tell their listeners, to do things
that were pemissible, some of it even progressive, in the late ancient Iron Age, but no longer in modern society.
The Jewish and the Muslim texts could be identical, but the different peoples differ in their understanding of the proper relationship between what
any text says and how they should behave. Thus, a fair observer looks upon the two groups differently, even while realizing that there is much
diversity of thought and behavior within both groups.
edit on 6-4-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)