Bible logic

[Lacewing]

Rape

Deuteronomy 22:22-23

“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife."

If a man rapes a married woman within a town, the woman is put to death alongside the perpetrator of the crime. She is spared only if the rape occurs out in the countryside, where she cannot call out for help.

What if he threatened to kill her family if she cried out? What if he had his fingers shoved down her throat? What if he had a knife to her throat? Do men have any awareness of how men actually treat and threaten women?

[Lacewing]

Abortion

"Given the certitude of abortion opponents that abortion violates God’s Word, it might come as a surprise that neither the Old Testament nor the New mentions abortion—not one word.

It’s not that the Old Testament is reticent about women’s bodies, either. Menstruation gets a lot of attention. So do child- birth, infertility, sexual desire, prostitution (death penalty), infidelity (more death penalty), and rape (if the woman is within earshot of others and doesn’t cry out . . . death penalty). How can it be that the authors (or Author) set down what should happen to a woman who seeks to help her husband in a fight by grabbing the other man’s testicles (her hand should be cut off) but did not feel abortion deserved so much as a word? Given the penalties for nonmarital sex and being a rape victim, it’s hard to believe that women never needed desperately to end a pregnancy."

https://time.com/3582434/6-abortion-myths/

[Lacewing]

The Bible showing: Culture making up God as they go

"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Ex. 20:5-6)

"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." (Ezekiel 18:19-20)

[Age]

Could your OWN personal views here be skewed in some way "lacewing"?

And, OF COURSE, you will NEVER respond and clarify here.

[attofishpi]

Abortion

"Given the certitude of abortion opponents that abortion violates God’s Word, it might come as a surprise that neither the Old Testament nor the New mentions abortion—not one word.

It’s not that the Old Testament is reticent about women’s bodies, either. Menstruation gets a lot of attention. So do child- birth, infertility, sexual desire, prostitution (death penalty), infidelity (more death penalty), and rape (if the woman is within earshot of others and doesn’t cry out . . . death penalty). How can it be that the authors (or Author) set down what should happen to a woman who seeks to help her husband in a fight by grabbing the other man’s testicles (her hand should be cut off) but did not feel abortion deserved so much as a word? Given the penalties for nonmarital sex and being a rape victim, it’s hard to believe that women never needed desperately to end a pregnancy."

https://time.com/3582434/6-abortion-myths/

I wonder whether whether medically they had any idea of how to perform abortions back then (1500 BC)?

Good thread btw.

[Lacewing]

A wife must be careful how she assists her husband in a fight

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

'If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.'

So... here's my question: How often did this occur, such that it needed to be included in the Holy Bible?

Somehow this was more important to include than, say, talking about abortion.

Also, I'm guessing that a man grabbing another man by the genitals under the same circumstances would not result in the same punishment.

[attofishpi]

A wife must be careful how she assists her husband in a fight

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

'If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.'

So... here's my question: How often did this occur, such that it needed to be included in the Holy Bible?

Somehow this was more important to include than, say, talking about abortion.

Also, I'm guessing that a man grabbing another man by the genitals under the same circumstances would not result in the same punishment.

It's rather funny, if people weren't to take it seriously. Apparently Moses wrote the Deuteronomy but many theologians believe it has been added to and edited through time.

I think this one was probably put in by someone of Harbal's ilk

[Lacewing]

God doesn't want these people

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken." (Leviticus 21:18-21)

"A bitched [bastard] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)

[attofishpi]

lol.

[LuckyR]

What's suprising about Iron age cultural traditions being out of step with Modern sensibilities? Do you use Iron age hygiene? Or Iron age food preservation? Use Iron age advice on behavioral choices today at your peril.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: the real and actual origin of Yahweh is as a tribal god of a specific people, and not as a revelation of a universal god or a god of transcendence. That god accompanied his people into battles and represented very human intentions.

Slowly, the god-concept evolved, and then Yahweh became — was transformed — into the sole god (ie the real god) who created the entire world and indeed the universe. None of that was part if the original conception however.

Yahweh has always been, and still substantially remains, the god of the specific people who molded him.

With that said, the ethics of the specific people (Hebrews) is still notable and valuable. But the ethical injunctions in Hosea and Amos were directed exclusively to that community. Only later, when Yahweh was universalized, were the ethics then presented as also universalized to all humankind.

We do not have a point of counter-comparison with another ethical system since, in fact, we have been subsumed in Jewish-Christian (ie Greek) ethics for centuries.

However, Greco-Christian ethics are not the same as Jewish-Hebrew ethics. And Greco-Christian ethics depart substantially from the cultural specificity of Jewish-Hebrew ethics, still so bound up with Law (mitzvoth). Recognition of the difference, and how ethics evolved in the Occident, is important.

It is curious to consider that Jesus Christ when associated with Yahweh shows a terrible, forbidding aspect. But when Jesus Christ is associated with a rebellion against that former god-concept, and a deliberate turn against it, Yahweh is associated with a demoniac figure or symbol-set.

Greco-Christian ethics, philosophy, worldview and especially the transcendent divine concept are unique and in many ways are a substantial departure from the Jewish-Hebrew mindset and worldview.

Strangely, today, the Christian god-concept is being subsumed back into a more Jewish-Hebrew conceptual order with obvious bases in political, indeed geo-political power-groupings.

The Christian concept as opposition to the Hebrew concept is given precedence and the break-away god-image (Jesus, transcendent value, universal ethics associated with “fuller life”) is re-associated with the tribal god of Israel.

[phyllo]

Also to be noted is that current ethics(Western? American?) are not universal. Lots of cultures, religions and nations find parts which they consider absurd.

And future generations may find the current ethics laughable.

[LuckyR]

Also to be noted is that current ethics(Western? American?) are not universal. Lots of cultures, religions and nations find parts which they consider absurd.

And future generations may find the current ethics laughable.

Yet more evidence that ethics and also morality is subjective.