What's the deal? (page 2)

euripides

I think of the issue of circumcision, and I am in the process of looking deeper into the roots of this practice, besides being a form of mutilation of distinction.

Gill

Well, I think the deal is that all men are obsessed with their willys and that's all there is to it.

And a little respect here... if it wasn't for willys non of us would be here anyway so they are sort of important in the grand scheme of things.

Let's hear it for willys...hip, hip...hooray!

Happy Guy :)

(Deuteronomy 25:11-12) 11"In case men struggle together with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the hand of the one striking him, and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of him by his privates, 12 you must then amputate her hand. Your eye must feel no sorrow

This seems so barbaric. There are many parts of the bible which are like this: promoting violence, sadistic etc. but this is the first time I read this one. Thanks for pointing it out Kwin.

The Insight book quotation (thanks Blondie) strikes me as incredibly ignorant of the very nature and logic of a ritual law. Such a law is not moral in the least sense (not anymore than the law on the ceremonial "uncleanness" or "sin" related to sex, menstruation, childbirth, leprosy, mixing two kind of threads or seeds, boiling a goat kid in its mother's milk, and so on). These are ceremonial taboos: any connection with the sacred (which is potentially dangerous, cf. Uzzah and the frequent Leviticus-Numbers phrase "so that they will not die") requests submitting to a number of rules which lack any moral or other motivation and are to be taken literally. This is the priestly mindset, and this can be combined with a quite permissive moral attitude (no matter what you do outside of the temple provided when you are there you follow the ceremonial rules). Maybe the first ones to moralise the ritual prescriptions were the Pharisees, who changed the whole meaning of the ritual system by disconnecting it from temple worship and making it a permanent obligation to any Jew anywhere -- which of course required a number of adaptations which are precisely the origin and necessity of the "oral tradition".

Swan

If you believe in the Bible and Jehovah, this is no longer the case. This was the Mosaic Law and Jesus replaced it with a new law. As evidence of that consider the case of the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by Philip, I believe. Paul later wrote about "men kept for unnatural purposes" not inheriting the Kingdom. The Society said that the original Greek words used literally translated to "soft men." In other words, catamites, or in the words of a famous governor "girly men." But the book of Acts said that God is not partial, and the eunuch was specifically mentioned in the same book. So was Paul all wet? Or was he speaking specifically of male temple prostitutes that were part of the pagan religious worship common in Roman times?

So maybe Paul is all wet, but maybe he meant something else. Either way, the Watchtower Bible translators are made to look foolish because I never found "soft men" in any other translation.

Tammy

Narkissos

Swan,

According to the NRSV:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

It's about clear that Paul is no longer in a ritual but in a moral code of rules: nobody is barred from entering -- provided s/he changes! But what if s/he doesn't? Then the segregation, shunning and shame resulting from moral prejudice has far more social consequences than the mere ceremonial inability resulting from a ritual taboo.

Bonnie_Clyde

That scripture in Deuteronomy 25:11,12 has been used to prove that it is wrong for a man to have a vasectomy. They used it over thirty years ago, and the witnesses that I knew were very strict about following the rule. Over the years I noticed that gradually it was forgotten until a Questions from Readers brought it up three or four years ago. Don't have time to research the article right now, but I remember that there were some exceptions.

Bonnie

kwintestal

*** w99 6/15 pp. 27-28 Questions From Readers ***
Consequently, it is unrealistic to treat male or female sterilization lightly, as if it were temporary birth control. And for the sincere Christian, there are other aspects to consider.
A central point is that reproductive powers are a gift from our Creator. His original purpose included procreation by perfect humans, who would "fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:28) After the Flood cut earth?s population to eight, God repeated those basic instructions. (Genesis 9:1) God did not repeat that command to the nation of Israel, but Israelites viewed having offspring as something very desirable.?1 Samuel 1:1-11; Psalm 128:3.
God?s Law to Israel contained indications of his regard for human procreation. For example, if a married man died before producing a son to carry on his lineage, his brother was to father a son by brother-in-law marriage. (Deuteronomy 25:5) More to the point was the law about a wife who tried to help her husband in a fight. If she grasped the privates of her husband?s opponent, her hand was to be amputated; significantly, God did not require eye-for-eye damage to her or her husband?s reproductive organs. (Deuteronomy 25:11, 12) This law would clearly engender respect for reproductive organs; these were not to be destroyed needlessly.

Eye-for-eye would have seemed much more reasonable. Mind you, if the woman wasn't getting any she may just go around grabbing guys for the "discipline".

Another law that might seem relevant said that no man whose genitals were severely damaged could come into God?s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:1) However, Insight on the Scriptures notes that this evidently "had to do with deliberate emasculation for immoral purposes, such as homosexuality." Hence, that law did not involve castration or the equivalent for birth control. Insight also says: "Jehovah comfortingly foretold the time when eunuchs would be accepted by him as his servants and, if obedient, would have a name better than sons and daughters. With the abolition of the Law by Jesus Christ, all persons exercising faith, regardless of their former status or condition, could become spiritual sons of God. Fleshly distinctions were removed.?Isa 56:4, 5; Joh 1:1

Funny example of "this is right because remember, we said it here in this book over here, so it must be right!

Kwin

roybatty

Here's another one. Why did there have to be a law for this? Did it happen often back then? Was there many one-handed Isrealitesses?

It shouldn't but the mental image of a bunch of one-handed Israelite women walking aruond made me chuckle.

kwintestal

If she grasped the privates of her husband?s opponent, her hand was to be amputated; significantly, God did not require eye-for-eye damage to her or her husband?s reproductive organs

Cutting off the hand...that's crazy! They should have just given her a purple-nurple to make it even.

Kwin

What's the deal?

Share this