Deuteronomy 25:11-12
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."
A wife would naturally wish to come to the aid of her husband in any way she could if he desperately struggled with an opponent, but the Hebrew law specifically forbade a wife to help her husband in distress if that support consisted of her grabbing the enemy's genitals in an effort to stifle his onslaught. The penalty? Amputation of the hand that fondled the genitals!
Only in an overly obsessive male dominated culture could men create such atrocious laws. As such, the penis ranked sacrosanct in the minds of men (as it still stands today). If a male lost his penis for any reason, he would lose the right to enter a congregation of God. (See Deuteronomy 23:1)
2007-05-19 00:53:01 · 6 answers · asked by Punter 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That is just 1 of MAAANY reasons I am an atheist! lol
2007-05-19 00:57:17 · answer #1 · answered by Joka B 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
To "smite" a man is to hit the man. We are not talking about desperately struggling in this passage. A man has hit a man. Where is the desperate struggle in that passage, where it is so bad that a woman must save her husband by crushing another's testicles? This is a "straw man" argument.
In this passage God wants justice to be fair. It is not fair punishment to crush a man who merely hits another man. It is not fair for a person to retaliate out of proportion to the crime.
That is why we scratch our heads when we read in the news about a teen returning to a home to shoot a person who argued with him. The person who fights back out of proportion to the offense is wrong. I believe the woman should let the fight run its course (or even call the police) and give opportunity for the men to settle their differences.
This is not evidence of an overly-obsessive male-dominated culture.
2007-05-19 02:43:11 · answer #2 · answered by Steve Husting 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The usa of Israel had strick regulations given to them to guard the reproductive organs. The judges could could desire to verify if the lady had cruel intentions or that it replaced right into a planned act on her area. Her reproductive organs does no longer be affected. Hand could be decrease off in the event that they got here across this to be the case of a planned act. it may be no longer undemanding to instruct. The usa of Israel additionally went previous the regulation God gave them. we aren't to any extent further below that regulation with the dying of Christ. Deut. 19:21 Hebrtews 10:a million Galatians 3:24
2017-01-10 08:25:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law of Moses was really very simple anD if followed brought inner freedom the problems really did not manifest until the Jewish Priests decided to add another 1300 bylaws which in reality no-one could be fully obedient to.
This is why Jesus was angry with them when He called them whited-sepulchers and full of dead mans bones, you heap burdens on the poor and do nothing to lift them.
2007-05-19 01:38:21 · answer #4 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
But is the bible part of the hebrew law or is the Torah...
2007-05-19 01:01:23 · answer #5 · answered by je 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, apparently this was enough of a problem that they had to make a law about it lol.
2007-05-19 01:02:54 · answer #6 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋