sorry to bring up this old chestnut, but?
have the jw?s changed their stance on blood transfusions?
i was talking to a lady at work that has jw relatives, and she said it was now a matter of conscience.
Chia,
No way! It's still most definitely a DFing offense if you take blood.
Technically, it's actually a disassociation offence. WT reasons that, by taking this action, you are renouncing your association with their organisation.
Of course, there's no real difference between disfellowshipping and disassociation...
Woodland (warm welcome, here, by the way ) may have heard about the Bulgaria scandal.
when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this
the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.
nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.
(Apologies for the interruption: I was away yesterday.)
I have no argument that, in the OT, women were viewed as possessions, their status being no better than that of a slave. They were also brutal times and life in general was cheap and expendable. WT's pathetic justification of such OT practices is demeaning and evidence of their lack of any scholarship and understanding of the background to the Hebrew scriptures.
I understand where tijkmo's coming from and have felt the same way myself.
However, in specific relation to Deuteronomy 21:14, I was responding to the suggestion that the expression "after you have humiliated her" referred to rape (or forced sex--not that I can see any distrinction myself).
When I said that, while 'humiliated' could refer to rape, I did not think it necessarily had to do so in this specific instance (based purely on reading the passage), Euphemism responded:
I would respectfully disagree. My point was that the phrase is an idiom, similar to 'sleeping with' in contemporary English.
I'm sure you could find plenty of uses of the term 'sleep' that had no sexual significance. And yet, if I wrote "John wanted to marry Susan, and so he slept with her", no one would reasonably argue that 'sleep' did not signify sex in this case.
The context will often indicate whether a word is being used idiomatically. However, it seems that 'humiliated' was not actually used idiomatically in this verse.
My Hebrew Interlinear Bible transliterates 'anah as 'abased,' with a Strong's Concordance number of 6031. The English translation to the side is "because you have humbled her."
According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the meaning of 6031 'anah is:
abase self, afflict(-ion, self), ... chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, ... submit self, weaken, X in any wise.
So, 'anah can mean to '(sexually) force... ravish.' This is evident in, for example, the translation of Lamentations 5:11:
They ravished 14 the women in Zion, [and] the maids in the cities of Judah. [KJ]
However, this meaning is not automatic and, getting back to Deuteronomy 21:14 again, while the translators obviously had the option of translating the word this way, they decided that 'humbled,' or 'abased' was more accurate.
Although this sounds like I'm defending the WT position, I would repeat what I said earlier:
While I have no interest in trying to defend, or support, the inspiration of the Bible, I equally feel we shouldn't make it out to be worse than it already is!
when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this
the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.
nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.
tijkmo,
i just think its a bit rich making a big deal about not being like pagan nations who did rape.....and then offering this as an alternative
There's no denying they were brutal times. It's debatable which was the worse fate: being spared for forced marriage (which still happens today) or being slaughtered with the rest of the city...
when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this
the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.
nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.
Euphemism,
While what you say is a not unreasonable interpretation of the words, my only point is that it's not an essential one.
The verses you quoted are significant in that they reference one 'euphemistic' use of the word. However, there are dozens of verses which use the plain meaning of the word, e.g.:
Gen 16:6: Then Sarai began to humiliate [Hagar] so that she ran away from her.
Num 12:14: Then Jehovah said to Moses: "Were her father to spit directly in [Miriam's] face, would she not be humiliated seven days?
Ruth 1:21: Why should YOU call me Naomi, when it is Jehovah that has humiliated me and the Almighty that has caused me calamity?"
Going back to Deuteronomy, it seems that the humiliation referred to was possibly that of the captive woman's subsequent rejection by her captor, in that he had "found no delight in her."
And if she was sent away, it had to be in a manner " agreeably to her own soul." (A ccording to the NWT footnote: "Or "agreeably to (for) herself; where she wishes." LXXVg, "free."") In other words, not as a slave.
While I have no interest in trying to defend, or support, the inspiration of the Bible, I equally feel we shouldn't make it out to be worse than it already is!
when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this
the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.
nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.
Good point.
On the other hand, it still might not be rape...
when i was df i decided to use the time wisely and read the insight books which is how i came across this
the armies of pagan nations often raped the women of conquered cities, but not so the victorious soldiers of israel.
nor were they permitted for a month to marry a captive woman.
Just a thought, but might the verses have a slightly different meaning?
When verse 14 says:
And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.
I'm not saying this is so, but might this verse be referring to the end of the month's 'period of mourning,' before the Israelite 'had relations with her'?
as everyone had guessed, the election has been set for may 5th.
personally, this is my first opportunity 'post wt mind-control' to vote for our next government.
i don't suppose that i will - 40 years of 'neutrality' and non-involvement have rather flattened my desire to take part in political change.. how about you?
Hey, City Fan,
Tory it is then!
Voting Tory?? Are you sure you're still not a Dub, then??
(Just kidding. )
after i read coc and left the dubs for a short while i considered myself christian.
the way franz explained it, all that is required is to have faith in jesus and to love your neighbor as yourself and then you will be 'saved'.
the more i started pealing away at the onion though the dumber the premise of someone dying for my 'sins' seemed, and i just lost faith in it altogether.
I'm now studying to be an athiest.
Why? Logic and reason seem to require it.
a few years ago my brother - law admitted that at 14 he had a sexual relationship for 5 years with the wife of an elder in his congo.. he was at 19 dfed for an affair he had with a fellow student.. he never told any one about the affair with the married sister, but now 10 years later, this sister and her unsufferable husband are planning to become assistant co. .
my mother - law, who is still in the"lie" now knows about this affair and has made the statement that she has probable asked for forgiveness in her heart therefore the elders do not need to know of the affair.. my brother - law is going through his own issues and because of the way he has been treated ie.. shunned, basically disowned by most of his family, he wants to expose her and her husband who he believes knew about the affair.. i've recommended that he discuss this with his therapist and that he should think about why he feels the need to expose her now.
by the way this sister is 2 year younger than his mom.
I think that there's a golden rule when you learn of such issues:
Report it to the police and let them decide whether it's child abuse or not.
alright.
it is done.. last night during the announcements a new ministerial servant was appointed along with a new elder.
yippee!!.
Congratulations!
How about a party?!
