02 Oct 08
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdthis is just another proof that god didn't wrote deuteronomy and he didn't inspire it.
"If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity."
Deuteronomy 25:11,12
no supreme being can write this crap.
15 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI disagree. In an age when the progenity of the Israelites was crucial for such things as the continued inheritance of the good land, the prohibition makes sense.
this is just another proof that god didn't wrote deuteronomy and he didn't inspire it.
no supreme being can write this crap.
There was a limit to how much she should do to save the man. Damaging the ability to pass future offspring to continue the possession of God's promised land was going too far.
But we can take this on in another thread as this one is reserved for quotations.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillthat means that she wasnt allowed to kill him either. or if 5 israelis attacked 1, the victim was forbidden to kill any of the five because it would disrupt the ability of the tribe to grow.
I disagree. In an age when the progenity of the Israelites was crucial for such things as the continued inheritance of the good land, the prohibition makes sense.
There was a limit to how much she should do to save the man. Damaging the ability to pass future offspring to continue the possession of God's promised land was going too far.
But we can take this on in another thread as this one is reserved for quotations.
you seem a little confused. it is many women that are needed, not men for the survival of the tribe. and in the above example a woman was just killed. please reason harder the next time you attempt an argument.
23 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi===========================
that means that she wasnt allowed to kill him either. or if 5 israelis attacked 1, the victim was forbidden to kill any of the five because it would disrupt the ability of the tribe to grow.
you seem a little confused. it is many women that are needed, not men for the survival of the tribe. and in the above example a woman was just killed. please reason harder the next time you attempt an argument.
that means that she wasnt allowed to kill him either.
====================================
Where is the Levitical law stating that ? You are speaking as if you can point to another ordinance in the law proclaiming that.
Where ?
=============================================
or if 5 israelis attacked 1, the victim was forbidden to kill any of the five because it would disrupt the ability of the tribe to grow.
===========================================
Where is the statute proclaiming that ?
==================
you seem a little confused.
===========================
I gave you my reason for disagreeing. The implication of your post was that the divine instruction indicates some kind of frivolous male chauvinism on behalf of God.
I don't think this is ever the case. And many things related to the furtherance of the seed are highlighted in the Old Testament. Women were able to convince the Moses to amend the law of God to protect their ability to keep the inheritance of the good land (Numbers 27:1-11)
I suspect that the statute taught about that rather than what was and was not permitted in street fighting, for its own sake.
==========================================
it is many women that are needed, not men for the survival of the tribe. and in the above example a woman was just killed. please reason harder the next time you attempt an argument.
========================================
I'll look at it again carefully however -
No women can be born if the man cannot pass on seed. And there were prohibitions against murder generally.
There is nothing wrong with my reasoning except I reason including God and God's purposes.
Perhaps you exclude God from your reasoning process and just get hung up seemingly perculiar externals with not adaquate thought to the larger context.
Besides this, there were also included in the law all the sin offerings and trespass offerings and peace offerings and orther offerings for those who broke the law.
God knew of the impossibility of fully fulfilling the commandments. So the atoning offerings were there for those who could not comply. And many many times they just could not.
Man must live by grace and faith rather than by law keeping of the Mosiac statutes and ordinances.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillyou gave a stupid reason for allowing a woman to be killed when all she did was seizing another man by the balls and telling him not to lay a hand on her husband. i did not say that women could perpetuate the tribe by themselves, i just said that few men are enough for the tribe to survive, which is obvious as the men constantly went to war and got themselves killed.
[b]===========================
that means that she wasnt allowed to kill him either.
====================================
Where is the Levitical law stating that ? You are speaking as if you can point to another ordinance in the law proclaiming that.
Where ?
=============================================
or if 5 israelis attacked 1, t ...[text shortened]... ust live by grace and faith rather than by law keeping of the Mosiac statutes and ordinances.
so the perpetuation of the species doesn't fly in this case. in fact, your law hurts it.
now getting back to the stupid law, you stated that i think that divine instruction indicates chauvinism coming from god. i flat out tell you that god was sleeping at the time this law was invented or saying "i can't believe those psychos actually did that. can't these idiots do anything without me setting a bush on fire?" it was the idiotic elders who probably thought that every time a woman grabs a penis, god cries.
and what sin offerings? she was to be killed and shown no mercy. she shown mercy by not whacking the man attacking her husband over the head and killing him. she shown backbone by defending her husband.
26 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhere is the passage ?
you gave a stupid reason for allowing a woman to be killed when all she did was seizing another man by the balls and telling him not to lay a hand on her husband. i did not say that women could perpetuate the tribe by themselves, i just said that few men are enough for the tribe to survive, which is obvious as the men constantly went to war and got themselv ing her husband over the head and killing him. she shown backbone by defending her husband.
It seems very harsh. However, you overlook that the ANE had civil courts also where appeals could be made which may not have been enumerated in Leviticus. I do not jump to the conclusion that such a case would always have no other conclusion except the death of the woman. The Levitical laws were not the only customs that they lived by.
There does not seem to be any other prohabition. She can bite the guy, scratch the guy, womp him over the head with a board or stone, pull his limbs, kick his legs, sink her teeth into his buttocks or neck, pull his hair, yank his ears, etc.
In other words I don't see in the statute God leaving the woman with no choice but to see her husband harmed.
For some reason there was this limit to what she could do. I think it was related to the importance of passing on the seed for the inheritance of the land.
At any rate, today on this side of the New Testament - "Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes."
27 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillhow will whacking the guy's head with a board and killing him improve his chance to spreading the seed? and what do you understand by "seizing the tenders"? do you think the women have superman iron grip and once the privates grabbed, they shall be squeezed into manly juice?
Where is the passage ?
EDIT: Deuteronomy 25:11,12
It seems very harsh. However, you overlook that the ANE had civil courts also where appeals could be made which may not have been enumerated in Leviticus. I do not jump to the conclusion that such a case would always have no other conclusion except the death of the woman. The Levitical laws were not the ...[text shortened]... s side of the New Testament - [b]"Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes."[/b]
this was just a law passed by stupid old men who thought that women grabbing other tenders than their husbands are filthy hoe's and deserve to be killed to wash away their filth. you admitted it yourself when you said there were appeals which means other old men who were not as crazy came and said, god may not have said this, let's hear the woman first before cracking her skull open.
27 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziThanks for the reference. I knew it was there. I've read it before.
how will whacking the guy's head with a board and killing him improve his chance to spreading the seed? and what do you understand by "seizing the tenders"? do you think the women have superman iron grip and once the privates grabbed, they shall be squeezed into manly juice?
this was just a law passed by stupid old men who thought that women grabbing ot aid, god may not have said this, let's hear the woman first before cracking her skull open.
The conext is very interesting. The previous case, 25:5-10 concerns the duty of the brother of a widowed woman to preserve the inheritance of the dead man.
My Rcv has this discription of verses 5 - 10:
Concerning the Government among he People - cont'd
The Ordinance concerning a Brother Who is Not Willing to Do the Duty of a Husband's Brothers.
Keeping the inheritance in the family of the woman's dead husband through his brother. If the widow has no son "the wife of the deceased man shall not become the wife of a stranger outside [the family]; her husband's brother shall go in unto her and take her as his wife, and he shall do the duty of a husband's brother for her." (v.5b).
Now he may prefer not to perform this duty. In that case she is to spit in his face in public and render him the official disgrace of removing one sandel from his feet before the elders. And the reluctant brother to the deceased husband has a negative stigma attached to him because of his neglect of the duty.
This illustrates, I think, the importance of having a national and collective concern for keeping the inheritance of the good land in the family of the dead brother.
Following this we have the case which is in dispute:
My RcV has this heading over verses 11,12:
The Ordinance concerning a Wife Who Heps a FIghting Husband Immorally
When two men fight together, a man and his brother, and the wife of the one comes near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and she puts forth her hand and takes hold of his private parts; Then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity.
The context of the passage suggests that it is like the previous case. It concerns the preciousness of the seed of the man to keep the inheritance of the good land.
There is nothing I see prohibiting the wife from assisting her husband. And hypothetically we can always imagine that her assistance might result in the death of the opponent. But there is not enough attention given to specifics or hypotheticals to cover every possible outcome that we might imagine.
Therefore I think it is the principle of the thing which was intended. The wife can defend her husband. But she should not go so far to do so that the reproducing ability of the attacker is destroyed.
I think in context the people who heard this law understood that God was showing them the highest priority to the sacred national unity and national inheritance. Their actions and reactions were not to be so wild that they lost conciousness of their sacred national destiny.
If you want to imagine that she cut the attackers throat with a knife, who can stop you from speculating? All in all though, I think that the listeners and the priests who heard the law understood the principle that was being taught.
"My husband is important. Our family is important. But the inheritance of the Good Land which God gave to us as His chosen nation Israel , transcends these. This Good Land is related to God's purpose. And our needs must be seen in relation to the greater need of the purpose and will of Yahweh.
I also include in my reasoning about this statute the daily preservation and blessing of God on families which walked in His ways to shield them from much of these calamities. I do not simply rip the statue out of all context, superimpose it on today's culture, and blow it up to make it look ridiculous.
The whole Bible is a rich feast of wisdom.
But, hey, if you want to find bones to choke on when you sit down to a turkey dinner, who can stop you?
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillwhen you put it like that, i can only respond that if you look hard enough and interpret it enough, you can find wisdom in Mein Kampf as well.
Thanks for the reference. I knew it was there. I've read it before.
The conext is very interesting. The previous case, [b]25:5-10 concerns the duty of the brother of a widowed woman to preserve the inheritance of the dead man.
My Rcv has this discription of verses 5 - 10:
Concerning the Government among he People - cont'd
The Ordinance ...[text shortened]... ant to find bones to choke on when you sit down to a turkey dinner, who can stop you?
suppose in a fight the woman could kill the attacker of her husband(doesn't say anything about that, it's self defence, she is allowed to defend her husband and accidents can happen). how does that destroy the reproducing ability of the attacker? why is a dead israeli more important than a castrated one, someone who could still work and go to war?
oh and sorry i thought the wife is going to be murdered. yet i see now that only her hand should be cut off. she is unimportant anyway, a wife's sole purpose is only to have children. and if she cannot, she could always be sent back to her parents.
look i am not judging the jews for these atrocities of laws. i am judging all those that can stop to think that god inspired these laws. i find them... reduced intellectually.
12 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzitestng 1,2,3
when you put it like that, i can only respond that if you look hard enough and interpret it enough, you can find wisdom in Mein Kampf as well.
suppose in a fight the woman could kill the attacker of her husband(doesn't say anything about that, it's self defence, she is allowed to defend her husband and accidents can happen). how does that destroy the rep e that can stop to think that god inspired these laws. i find them... reduced intellectually.
13 Nov 08
Being thankful, smile a greeting. I have eliminated criticism from my system. I give appreciation and praise now instead of condemnation. I have stopped talking about what I want, I am now trying to see the other person's view point. "(a worthy goal whistle at work)"