|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:14:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:31:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:31:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:31:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:33:24 GMT -5
CIVIL PROHIBITIONS CIVILITY LAWS - Anti-discrimination laws ageism [Lev 19:32, 33]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:33:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 18:33:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 19:36:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 19:39:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 20:06:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2021 20:07:47 GMT -5
# 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.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2021 1:25:24 GMT -5
|
|