My take is that the Bible is a bit like "Cliff Notes" in regards to religious faith.  It doesn't look to explain everything fully, or intended to be something that people used alone to get all truth.  It was formed in a religious community with a lot of things that were known when addressed (see Paul writing letters to different communities).  In this, without knowing the context of the community, you have gaps.  People end up plugging their own biases in the gaps and reach different conclusions.  Are the notes enough to get the basics down?  I think the command about loving neighbors and loving God are there and cover it from a Christian perspective.  But, the rest is not there.

Ok, let's look at cultural context and so on.  Understand the time period the text was written, and to whom.  Take 20th century sensibilities and apply them on there.  People wouldn't respond, and women wouldn't get any sense of liberation then at all.  It just wouldn't happen. 

Secondarily, you are very likely modern and western in your thinking, and you think in terms of people as individual agents and likely operate under the concept of rights, and think of personal freedom.  Well, that is just one mindset.  There is also a tribal mindset to, where people are judged by who they belong with, and everything is by group identity.  This is the mindset seen in the Old Testament, and things would seem to be barbaric to people now was how people thought then.  Now, the question is whether or not a tribal thinking is wrong.  Is it more wrong than people not thinking of themselves as belonging to any particularly group, and deciding they need to relate to others.  In that set, who cares for the least of those in a group? 

Beyond here, look at how things actually work.  Individuals do things, but nations tend to rise and fall as entities, not as individuals.  Communities suffere collectively, and you see families bear similar attributes and have similar values, and they all go through the same... just because they are members of the group.

I think what he meant to say was (and if he didn't it's a point worth making) that some considerably sized groups are that way, not just individuals. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRVm_TAE24A&feature=related

I'm cognizant to the fact that there were different mindsets at that time and applying our values and morals is useless. For instance take many modern day tragedies: women's status in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The UN promotes their values of equality with little progress. The UN, however, are not benevolent; nor are they a god.

I simply cannot imagine a benevolent entity 'giving' a woman to another man as punishment of her husband's deeds. Perhaps in the context of the time, where women were likely seen as property, it would have been seen as a justifible punishment delivered by a human authority, but surely not a benevolent god?

As to the second part of your post: I think that may be oversimplifying things. A tribal mindset, as you define it, is not wrong. However, if there is inequality in that group where both women and children are treated as property, then yes, I'd say it is wrong. Would it seem absurd for a benevolent being, claiming to love all equaly, to accomodate such a mindset? I think so.

I can certainly appreciate that punisments would have to be accomodated to match any particular culture or time period, but these are changes in core values (to the being as well as the society), it would seem. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I can understand the changing of punishments, however, I fail to how how one's values can simply be adjusted to the times, or the 'context.' I can't imagine a god's moral authority being sp thin and malleable.

Again, I hope I'm not coming off as abrasive or anything. It's not my intention.

-

-

Yes, but what I'm asking is: are God's values so fickle, that they change according to the culture and mindsets of the times?

First underlined - They weren't God's to take. If the women who he created equally, had committed no sin, regardless of the time, should not be punished for another person's sin. A benevolent being would not do that, for it simply isn't a benevolent act.

Second underlined - An omnipotent, benevolent being surely would have methods of dealing with such crises far beyond our understanding that wouldn't involve punishing or deciding the lives of innocents.

Third underlined - That irrelevant here though. Regardless of their ignorance to their mistreatment, they were mistreated. They were treated as property of men as is often the case. If this is against the values of a benevolent being, and I mean core values of a god, surely they wouldn't treat it as water under the bridge as a result of troubling times.

Edit:

Imagine these poor women when they had died:

They arrive at heaven and ask God, "to which man would we serve?" "Do not be foolish, my children. You are free. You belong to nobody, you are your own." Clearly the women would be baffled as God himself had traded them in life as if they were property. One of the women would speak up - "But you, yourself, had acknowledged us as property of men in our lifes" "Water under the bridge, my love" He responded, "water under the bridge."

Obviously the conversation wouldn't occur anything like that. But according to what I'm reading, it's essentially what had happened. I find it simply absurd.

I take my hat off to you for your efforts.  Yes, Christianity is NOT about deeds.  Simply put I do good works because I am saved, not to be saved.  That's the bottom line.  Example: If you do not like football, you're not going to follow or play the game unless there is some other ulterior motive.  But if you love football, you'll keep up with it for the love of the game, not because you have to ut because you WANT to.  The difference here is that NO ONE loves God because NO ONE want to live by a set of rules that "impose" on our lifestyles.  But when we actually understand how awesome he is, we'd want to "keep up" with his "game."  And this understanding only come when he reaches out to us.  Otherwise, we'd have nothing to do with him.  So I observe his law not to live a regimental strict live.  I observe his law because I'm understanding more and more how beautiful it is which allows me more freedom before I knew the Christ.  Jesus knew how to enjoy a smooth beer and a fine steak without getting drunk and being gluttonous.  Some of us here cannot help but to get drunk and to eat til we're sick.  Two of my favorite game genres are survival/horror and magic based RPG's.  The principles behind these genres are by no means Biblical, but because I keep what's fantasy in fantasy not allowing it to run my life is very acceptable in Christianity.  Some of us are so feuled by these games that life would be meaningless without them.  It's the spirit of the law that gives freedom, and the only way to understand this is to have the Holy Spirt in your lives through the accepting of the sacrifice of the Son.  Otherwise as long as you view Christianity as a set of oppressive laws, you do NOT understand Christianity.  From a humanist standpoint, you can blame that on those who have abused Christianity.  So don't criticize, but a constructive debate should always be welcomed.  For those of you who are curious, I tend to lean more toward a Calvinist/Reformed point fo view.

I think when humans can effectively, on their own, be moral and upright, and show mercy and compassion, and actually do what is right, then maybe there will be able to be in a place to try to say God of the Old Testament is evil, and question this and that.  Why do I say this?  Simply because the human mind, and all its schemes, has failed to produce any sort of system that cares for the weak and the powerless, and also doesn't become tyranical.  We can say that modern society is the pinacle of being moral, but is it?  Look at the STD rate in certain populations of American society.  Look at the state of discontent also about.  And you want me to give you some chuckles?  Check out the reactions to this video by the ICP:

It is called "Miracles".  And guess the backlash it generated by people out there, and the mock and ridicule it generated.  Pure bile, because of ONE line it says about scientists, and asked how magnets worked (saying we really don't know).  You see, in this modern and secular society, you are NOT to question the limitations of science.  You are NOT to be religions.  You are not to see wonder in the mundane.  You are also not to question the high priests who are the architects all around us, that being the scientists.  Nope, don't do it, you will be subject to ridicule.  And all along, no one can figure out why people can't be happy, and why the use of drugs for mood management is at an all-time high.  Nope, just reduce men to machines, and determinstic processes, and figure it out.  And then have it so that you have a welfare system that is less humane than the DMV clean up all the abandoned humanity and medicate them into silence.

Anyhow, once people figure this all out, and people then can understand how things work and do it in reality, then maybe one can begin to make sense out of what went on in the Old Testament.