Amputation Of Degradation

[RugMatic]

Greetings brethren, grace and peace be multiplied.


Holy scripture commands us to show no pity to a woman whose hand grasps a man's scrotum in an aggressive manner, Deuteronomy 25:11,12.

Topic For Debate: Are we Biblically required to stop the bleeding after we sever the profligate's hand?

I had the misfortune of witnessing two men slugging it out in the church parking lot. The little guy's wife grapped his opponent's junk in an attempt to save him from a particularly severe beating.

We immediately obeyed the straightforward verse: thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
We showed no pity and removed the scoundrel's hand with haste.

Conundrum: Are we required to stop the bleeding? Seems like that would violate the injunction about showing no pity. Also her husband informed us that her monthly menses were upon her, further complicating our duty. We are forbidden to touch a woman with menses, but we're obligated to remove her hand.


We Take Doctrine And Dogma Very Seriously In My Church And The Police Take Our Church Seriously As Well

[JehovahsWitness]

# Why does the bible propose such a severe penalty for a woman who grabs a man's genitals during a conflict (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) ?

Two against one, in a fight to the death (even by today's standards) is considered a criminal act.

Attacking a man's genitals should ONLY be in self defence as a last resort which is NOT the case in the situation*. Deuteronomy stipulatates in this particular law that the woman BECAME involved in a fight rather than it being an attempting to ward off personal attack*. Since her "going for the groin" could well cost the life of a man, it would come down to her and her husband effectively establishing guilt and executing who they considered an offender (grabbing a mans genitals can quickly incapacitate him, leaving him vulnerable to his second attacker - the husband - ending the conflict with likely loss of life).

The Mosaic law did not allow for individuals to kill others, since there was a due process by which, once guilt has been established by the court system, captital crimes were duly punished*. It should be noted, the law does not stipulate which of the two men is the guilty party in the conflict only that the woman sided with her husband - in short, we don't know if she joined in "defence" or joined in "attack". This law would therefore protect innocent man being set on by two (a violent man and his equally violent wife) as well as discouraged the spiral effect of taking the law into one's own hands if one is the wronged party.


In the lesser case of a local brawl over a minor issue where loss of life is unlikely the wife (who would more wisely get help or stand back) would have either the option of joining in without attacking the opponents genitals (clocking him over the head with a pot or biting his ear off Tyson style) or using any other means of helping her husband which did not involve such extreme measures. Why? Because grabbing a man's genitals could result in injury that could effect his reproductive capacity (It should be noted that the Hebrew word her translated "grab" does not denote involentary brushing against or hitting but taking a firm grip on - so the prohibition does not stem from a misguided prudery with regard to sexual organs but a regard for sustaining serious and permenent injury). This would not only be emotionally (and physically) devastating but would mean cutting off his name and heritage and denying him sustainance in his old age sending him into poverty there being no social security system then and a man's children being his only sourse of long term security.

CONCLUSION: Deuteronomy 25 is not a law prohibiting self defense, it is not a law prohibiting a man defending his home, property or family, it is not even a law prohibiting a woman getting involved in her husband's physical conflicts, it is a law governing excessively violent behaviour which could result in either loss of life without guilt having been been established or long term injury that would impact both the victim and his family.








*There was a seperate law which allowed for a person to kill an attacker that entered into his home at night without bloodguilt being incurred. And of course a lone woman, Under attack would have the right to fight off her assailent by whatever means possible.



RELATED POSTS

Was the "Jealousy curse" that was part of the Mosaic Law comparable to
"trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p836096

Why did the bible authorize bloodsheet testimony?
viewtopic.php?p=1081153#p1081153

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SEXUAL IMMORALITY and ... MARRIAGE

[RugMatic]

So we're not obligated to stop the bleeding? Whew, what a relief.

[JehovahsWitness]

So we're not obligated to stop the bleeding? Whew, what a relief.

Who does the above post address? Since I am as yet the only person that has responded , am I to presume you are talking to me?

[RugMatic]

So we're not obligated to stop the bleeding? Whew, what a relief.

Who does the above post address? Since I am as yet the only person that has responded , am I to presume you are talking to me?

That would be a correct presumption. Thanks for the help. I rejoice to know I am not required to stop the bleeding. Jehovah and Michael, currently known as Jesus, send you peace.

[JehovahsWitness]

So we're not obligated to stop the bleeding? Whew, what a relief.

Who does the above post address? Since I am as yet the only person that has responded , am I to presume you are talking to me?

That would be a correct presumption. ....

The what has your comment got to do with anything I wrote? Can you explain?

# Why does the bible propose such a severe penalty for a woman who grabs a man's genitals during a conflict (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) ?

Two against one, in a fight to the death (even by today's standards) is considered a criminal act.

Attacking a man's genitals should ONLY be in self defence as a last resort which is NOT the case in the situation*. Deuteronomy stipulatates in this particular law that the woman BECAME involved in a fight rather than it being an attempting to ward off personal attack*. Since her "going for the groin" could well cost the life of a man, it would come down to her and her husband effectively establishing guilt and executing who they considered an offender (grabbing a mans genitals can quickly incapacitate him, leaving him vulnerable to his second attacker - the husband - ending the conflict with likely loss of life).

The Mosaic law did not allow for individuals to kill others, since there was a due process by which, once guilt has been established by the court system, captital crimes were duly punished*. It should be noted, the law does not stipulate which of the two men is the guilty party in the conflict only that the woman sided with her husband - in short, we don't know if she joined in "defence" or joined in "attack". This law would therefore protect innocent man being set on by two (a violent man and his equally violent wife) as well as discouraged the spiral effect of taking the law into one's own hands if one is the wronged party.


In the lesser case of a local brawl over a minor issue where loss of life is unlikely the wife (who would more wisely get help or stand back) would have either the option of joining in without attacking the opponents genitals (clocking him over the head with a pot or biting his ear off Tyson style) or using any other means of helping her husband which did not involve such extreme measures. Why? Because grabbing a man's genitals could result in injury that could effect his reproductive capacity (It should be noted that the Hebrew word her translated "grab" does not denote involentary brushing against or hitting but taking a firm grip on - so the prohibition does not stem from a misguided prudery with regard to sexual organs but a regard for sustaining serious and permenent injury). This would not only be emotionally (and physically) devastating but would mean cutting off his name and heritage and denying him sustainance in his old age sending him into poverty there being no social security system then and a man's children being his only sourse of long term security.

CONCLUSION: Deuteronomy 25 is not a law prohibiting self defense, it is not a law prohibiting a man defending his home, property or family, it is not even a law prohibiting a woman getting involved in her husband's physical conflicts, it is a law governing excessively violent behaviour which could result in either loss of life without guilt having been been established or long term injury that would impact both the victim and his family.








*There was a seperate law which allowed for a person to kill an attacker that entered into his home at night without bloodguilt being incurred. And of course a lone woman, Under attack would have the right to fight off her assailent by whatever means possible.



RELATED POSTS

Was the "Jealousy curse" that was part of the Mosaic Law comparable to
"trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p836096

Why did the bible authorize bloodsheet testimony?
viewtopic.php?p=1081153#p1081153

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SEXUAL IMMORALITY and ... MARRIAGE

[1213]

Are we required to stop the bleeding? Seems like that would violate the injunction about showing no pity. Also her husband informed us that her monthly menses were upon her, further complicating our duty. We are forbidden to touch a woman with menses, but we're obligated to remove her hand.

Obviously, if you can't touch her, you can't remove the hand.

Are you a Jew, or do you just like cutting hands?

[RugMatic]

Are we required to stop the bleeding? Seems like that would violate the injunction about showing no pity. Also her husband informed us that her monthly menses were upon her, further complicating our duty. We are forbidden to touch a woman with menses, but we're obligated to remove her hand.

Obviously, if you can't touch her, you can't remove the hand.

Are you a Jew, or do you just like cutting hands?

You're saying Jews like to chop off hands? Clarify.

[JehovahsWitness]

You're saying Jews like to chop off hands? Clarify.

I don't think that is the case at all!

It was however seen as an appropriate deterrant under the ancient Mosaic laws for a particularly serious offense. Its unlikely that this particular sanction ever needed to be employed since the offense was something entirely avoidable


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[1213]

Are we required to stop the bleeding? Seems like that would violate the injunction about showing no pity. Also her husband informed us that her monthly menses were upon her, further complicating our duty. We are forbidden to touch a woman with menses, but we're obligated to remove her hand.

Obviously, if you can't touch her, you can't remove the hand.

Are you a Jew, or do you just like cutting hands?

You're saying Jews like to chop off hands? Clarify.

No, I was asking from you, are you a Jew, or do you just like cutting hands? If you can't answer that, then you should not cut anyone's hands.