- She moves in, turns around and walks right back out again. He can't declare divorce and refuse support. Keep in mind that the society would be very sympathetic to the victim.
- There is no evidence that Bethsheba was aware of the plot to kill Uriah.
- I have no doubt that David was capable of a lie. The question is whether or not they could come up with a believable lie. If David had been seen as smearing an innocent man to steal his wife, it would have been a major scandle.
- Even if they had lied, she got the divorce, married David, and out pops baby 8 months later, David would have a scandle even bigger than he was trying to avoid in the first place. It would be obvious to everyone what had happened.
- David thought this was the plan that he would be most likely to get away with.
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
-
92
A religion with nothing to Celebrate
by eyeslice inhow sad that the witnesses have nothing to celebrate.
the more i think about it since i stopped going to the meetings, the more i feel that spirituality and religion are about opportunities to give thanks and to celebrate life with family and friends.
christenings or name giving ceremonies celebrate the gift of a new life to a family.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Thank you for your response, Ren, it is appreciated.
mad dawg did you actually miss my point misuse is not the issue, re-dedication of pagan practises from other gods to Jesus is the issue, ones that haven't gone out of practise but are still being dedicated to santa or to xmas itself instead of Jesus by many.
Baptism was originally a pagan ritual in honor of pagan gods. How is it ok to "re-dedicate this pagan practise from other gods to Jesus"? Why is this not an example of the Bible putting its stamp of approval on this?
cats are a created thing so is the sun they were around before they became objects of worship so having them isn't an issue, these are not pagan practises for worship but things that became a focus for worship that is a big difference.
I am afraid I don't understand you here. Would it be alright to bring a pine tree into my house and decorate it (as long as there are no pagan symbols) because it was "around before they became objects of worship so having them isn't an issue, these are not pagan practises for worship but things that became a focus for worship that is a big difference."?
Again having a Party is not the issue, these are specific rituals for specific gods redicated to Jesus. midnight mass was for mithra originally they made it over to Jesus would Jesus want a mass from another god made over to him?
What is your source for you claim about Mithra? Mass has always been the rememberance of the death of Jesus. Christmas was originally simply a mass said in remembrance of Jesus' birth. I have read many early documents (translated into English) and have never seen this claim before. If we can rededicate baptism, why not Christmas?
If we still did human sacrifices to various gods would they be okay if we did them in Jesus's name?
This is silly for two reasons: 1) We, as Christians have never done human sacrifices to various gods. 2) Murder is sin in and of itself.
You are mixing pagan practises with just using the same name or items like wedding rings. A ring on a finger it is not and never has been an object of worship.
So, what's wrong with a Christmas tree as long as it is not and has never been an object of worship? Cats were an object of worship in Egypt. How can you bring a pagan god into your home? If it is ok to use a pagan name for something, then why is it a problem with Christmas?
erm would christmas be christmas if you left out all the pagan rituals and lies that came with it?
ABSOLUTELY, YES! In fact, it would be a most pure expression of the holiday.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I am not a JW, but am trying to understand their thinking on things.
MD
-
92
A religion with nothing to Celebrate
by eyeslice inhow sad that the witnesses have nothing to celebrate.
the more i think about it since i stopped going to the meetings, the more i feel that spirituality and religion are about opportunities to give thanks and to celebrate life with family and friends.
christenings or name giving ceremonies celebrate the gift of a new life to a family.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Ren my dear, just hoping you can help me.
- If it is wrong because 90% misuse it, how can you baptize someone when 99.9% misuse it?
- How are JW's allowed to keep Egyptian gods (cats) in the house?
- How can you have a party at all?
- So many bad things happened at parties in the Bible, can you show me where we are commanded to have a party?
- If you have a party, what are you allowed to celebrate?
- Am I allowed to celebrate my anniversary 5 months later because it is a better time, or I just feel like it?
- Because Mazda is a pagan god, would you drive one?
- Would you drive a Taurus?
- Would you wear a wedding ring?
- Do you use the Gregorian (Catholic) calender?
- Do you honor pagan gods by using their names for the days (Saturn)and months (Mars)?
- Would Christmas be good if we left out Santa, Christmas trees and all that?
- Do you apply the same standards and reasonings to the rest of your life that you do Christmas?
- If not, why only Christmas?
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
Where in these verses or any in the Pentetuch that the Israelite man must pay 50 sheckles to the foreign woman's parents that he kidnapped? I guess he wouldn't because he had already killed the woman's family.
Different situation
You're missing though that the marriage process was public engagement then when they lived together is when the marriage was finalized. They were not suspended due to the participants being separated, however by the woman leaving the man she no longer had his support. Unless you can point to me a verse that shows the support a man gave to his wife that is not living with him while still married to him.
Show me where it says that if she doesn't live with him, that would relieve him of his obligations. The marriage was official following the ceremony, consumation was not necessary.
I agree that our country does do a poor job of compensating victims, however in this case of the Israelites can you point to the punishment the rapist received other than having to provide compensation?
This is an interesting question, I will have to look into it further. I will say that the social stigma that would be attached would be harsh. Also, these verses are about compensation, perhaps we are to look else where for punishement. He would have a very difficult time attracting a wife under these conditions. No wife means no sons or daughters. This would be a very harsh situation in the ANE. Even if he had a family already, he would have a hard time raising his own children in a proper fashion, which would affect the children's ability to support him in his later years.
I think it's a very good idea in theory...
The victim could be given the choice. DA's often confer with victims before recommending a sentence.
...isn't the word for man meant as humankind and the laws for divorce the word man is literally meant as man?
I don't know off hand. Will have to look into it.
It is also unimaginable that a man would release property that he still valued...
This presumes that he would have had all the rights that he would have had by marriage under normal circumstances, which he didn't.
The reason that David killed Uriah the Hittite was that Bethsheba was pregnant. David tried to cover this up by having Uriah spend some R&R with his wife. Uriah refused to enjoy time with her while his brothers in arms were in the field. David sent Uriah back carrying his own death sentence. With Uriah out of the way, David quickly married Bethsheba to make the child appear legitamate, thus avoiding a scandle. The thing to keep in mind is that just because the Bible records an event does not mean that it condones it. A number of verses later, David's actions are specifically condemned by Nathan the prophet.
Divorce by either party could only be granted for cause. Bethsheba had no cause to ask for a divorce. Uriah wasn't asking for a divorce either as he had no knowledge of the affair. A divorce simply wasn't going to happen at all. David took the course he did because he felt the need to marry her quickly. If he married her, say, 8 months before the baby arrived; it would have been a huge scandle.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
Conclusion
This paper has examined the Targumim and a number of post-biblical texts relevant to Deut. 21: 10-14, the beautiful captive woman. It has examined certain of the post-biblical texts in an attempt to trace the development of some of the relevant issues mentioned in the introduction. Some of the conclusions reached are as follows:
It is difficult to conceive of a war which the participants would consider non-obligatory. Such assessments have only been attributed in hindsight. Even obviously expansionary wars can be explained as "offence is the best defence". As the capture and subsequent marriage of an enemy woman to an Israelite is only permitted is a non-obligatory war, it can perhaps be construed that such a situation would not occur often. Yet the Talmud tells us that David had four hundred captive wives. One possible (non- traditional) explanation might lie in a concusion of source criticism - that Deuteronomy was later than David.
A biblical imperative is sacrosanct, but the sages were unhappy with the situation of a heathen captive woman attached to an Israelite soldier. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize.
As these women were heathens and by definition sexually desirable, the sages felt threatened by the possibility that the captive women's sexual power might entice men away from Judaism. This attitude can be seen in the way the laws applicable to the captive woman were developed.
Other than the compassion displayed by Maimonides, there was very little if any sympathy expended on the plight of the captive. The sages' major concern, given the inviolability of the biblical permission, was the conversion of the woman to Judaism. If that could not be done, then the absolute minimum was her conversion away from heathenism. Once the captive woman's heathenism could be obliterated, the effect of having a diverse and larger genetic pool could be accepted as beneficial.
There was no uniform opinion as to when the first intercourse was permitted. The timing varied from immediately after the battle, but in a private place, to not until after thirty days and conversion. Clearly, there was coercion in both cases, whether physical or psychological or both.
According to the Bavli, first intercourse could occur before the captive arrived at the man's home, perhaps as soon as the actual fighting stopped. The journey to his home could be lengthy, as she was taken from a city far away (Deut. 20: 15). It might occur that very shortly after she arrived at the man's home she would discover that she was pregnant. Even if she was not, her options were very limited. In order to simply survive, she might choose to be converted and remain in the household. It can be understood that a woman in these circumstances would be unhappy and resentful, and possibly full of hatred against the one she perceived to be the cause of her unfortunate circumstances. Possibly the sages were sensitive to this when they claimed that the marriage would not be a happy one.
When the man no longer wanted her, he had to let her go. Once he had intercourse with her, he could no longer enslave her. The captive woman was not a wife before conversion and not a captive after conversion. Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.
The post-biblical sources use the biblical term "woman of beautiful appearance," to describe the woman in Deut. 21: 10- 14. This paper has used the term "captive woman" instead. Sifrei pisqa 211 points out that her actual appearance is of no consequence. She merely has to be sexually desirable to a soldier at the time of her capture. As the term "beautiful woman" is used biblically, so it is used throughout the sources. It is interesting that in the post- biblical development of this section, a number of major changes were introduced by the sages. That they chose not to change or add to the term "beautiful woman" is an indication that they either did not find it inappropriate or it was not important enough to address.
Clearly, however, the operating principle in her description was not her appearance but her powerlessness. This may have been an issue the sages did not wish to confront. Perhaps they understood that if their perception of the captive woman changed from perpetrator to victim, it would be very difficult to set down the stringent rules of conversion. As theological pollution was their primary concern, it was easier to implement their goal if she were objectified.
Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.
- Nope, nothing here suggesting that the verses promote rape. Although Bavli wants to allow it, there is nothing in the verses it self that gives such permission. At best we have indirect quotes of Bavli, so we really don't know what his opinion is.
- Although Elman discusses what Bavli wishes, she rejects his writing as having any bearing on the intent of the verses in question.
- You still haven't clearly stated if you believe that said verses promote rape
- The 50 shekel is not limited to Jewish woman only. Please cite verse that says it is.
- Marriage is a legal status. I knew a woman who hadn't seen her husband for 30 years, but was still married to him, assuming he is still alive. One does not need to live with another to be married in a legal sense. Same was true back then. Marriages weren't suspended just because the man went on a military campaign for a couple of years. In fact the ancient nobility of the time frequently didn't live in the same house as their wives at all. There is a difference in marriage as a legal contract and that of societal expectations.
- Yes, the woman may forced to marry him from a practical perspective of the circumstances, but it is a choice that is made in the best interest of the woman and her family. If it were not in their best interest, they could refuse it.
- Compensation and punishment is not an either/or proposition. They both should happen, as well as any other help the victim may need. This country does a poor job of compensating victims.
- We could very easily institute this here and now. The victim of rape would be awarded $200K (5x the median U.S. income) and a monthly stipend. All to be paid by the perpetrator. The marriage was simply a mechanism to make the compensation happen. Therefore, is not important as long as the larger goal of compensation is achieved. Don't you agree that something along this line would be a good thing to do today? This would allow the victim the time and resources to get the help she will need to heal.
- From your source: The evident purpose was, as far as possible, to favor the wife, and to protect her against an unceremonious expulsion from her home and children. http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/isbe/ID/2755/Divorce-In-Old-Testament.htm
- Also from your source: ...marriage among the Hebrews, as among most Orientals, was more a legal contract than the result of love or affection. (It was a practical thing that could be done for purely practical reasons.
- Although the article you linked is generally well written, it overlooks that ancient writing is done in a manner that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Bible does not give licsence for a woman to steal an ox because it does not say that she can't. It says that a man can't steal an ox and it is understood that a woman can not either. Unless there is a distinct and separate handling of a situation stated, it is assumed that the same standards applied to both sexes. This would hold true of divorce.
- Your source also states: Divorces from the earliest times were common among the Hebrews. All rabbis agree that a separation, though not desirable, was quite lawful. The only source of dispute among them was as to what constituted a valid reason or just cause. It is unimaginable that she would be denied the right to a separation.
-
63
I had a discussion with a JW sister today about miscarriage and the new WT
by BonaFide inso this morning was the public talk and wt study.
after, we did our usual and went to eat.
the group was mixed ages.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Ren darling, here is the thing I don't understand: When you say refinement, it implies that it just need a little tweeking when it is flat out WRONG. You bring up Moses and David. Everyone agrees that they were not perfect as people. However, can you show us even one thing that they wrote that needed "refining?" I'm not talking about adding information to available information, I want to know where Moses ever said "Oooops! I blew that one, here believe this." Is the GB held to a lower standard than Moses, David, Paul, and John? Would you agree that the GB does not stand up in comparison to the Bible writers?
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
- Ooooh, I see. You need to see the verses in a particular way in order to hold a particular view on another subject.
- Your source states, "Clearly, immediate rape is not allowed." What part of clearly do you not understand?
- I don't care what point you are trying to make from this, your premise is way off.
- The Army has written commands forbidding the rape of local women on the battlefield. They also have regulations for bringing them over as wives. Does this mean that if a soldier rapes a woman and convinces her to marry him that the Army endorses raping women on the battlefield and dragging them home for marriage?
- The events as you describe them simply are not the conditions that are being addressed.
- As for the 50 shekels (from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html ) 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. :
Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.
The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of—a ‘well off’ husband. The fifty shekels bride-price is five years worth of average wages, and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem [ AI: 1:26]!
The girl’s future is now assured—she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her)—and she has a ‘big’ bride-price on deposit. The law has protected someone who was attempting to help the community, by preserving her virginity .
There is nothing that prevents the woman and her family from turning down the compensation.
While he cannot divorce her, there is nothing prohibiting her from divorcing him.
There is nothing that says she has to live with him or have sex with him.
Our own society is behind the times in failing to provide this level (five years wages) of compensation for a victim of crime.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
- Oh, I get it. You are allowed to make an assertion and if I challenge the premise of said assertion, I am moving the goal posts.
- I understand your need to run from your own source, but her conclusions are clear. Her conclusion is is serveral paragraphs long and refutes your claim that the verses somehow approve of raping them. She clearly states that the purpose is to provide a means of marriage.
- I can write an article on racial hygein and, at the end condemn it in my summary or conclusion. The length of my conclusion is irrelevant. It is dishonest for any one to use quotes from the article, severed from the conclusion, to claim that I support the practice of racial hygeine.
- I am familiar with the Numbers passage. It is a simalar situation, but is addressing a different issue. The issue is whether the women were to be brought into Jewish society or left in the desert to die.
- I did not say that they "were more than likely raped on the battlefield." I acknowledge that occurances likely happened, but that was in spite of these verses; not because of these verses. Just as the author of your source stated.
- If they were raped on the battlefield, that puts them in violation of other commandments and would be deserving of the penalties therein. So, we have a choice of where it is clearly condemned as a context or we can strain at a minor definition.
- English? I have a B.S. in industrial engineering from the State University of New York. I loved English, history, and sociology classes because they were so easy.
- For the sake of clarity, are you saying that the Bible promotes rape?
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
- Tuesday, you assume they were raped to prove that they were raped, that's a nice piece of circular reasoning. You make a lot of noise about the women being raped before they were brought back to camp. Nothing in the verses gives any such permission. Yes, it probably did happen. However it would have been in spite of, not because of these verses. The purpose of the entire book of Dueteronomy is to end such practices.
- Show me where the Bible condones raping women on the battle field.
- Quote mining? If you are the scholar you claim to be, you should know that quoting an author's own summary of their own work does not constitute quote mining. I simply repeated the author's own conclusions. It is odd that you would quote mine your own source then ignore her conclusions. If it will make you feel better, I could copy and paste the whole article.
- Context is more than showing that a word was used in some fashion in another place. If you understood ancient society as you seem to claim you do, you would understand that the Bible's treatment of women is quite good.
- It is apparent that you reject anything you disagree with. Hmmmm, pots and kettles.
- Numerous sources? What are you smoking? You have quoted exactly one source - and even in that one, the author disagrees with you.
- The reason I would reject the Provost of Harvard saying the same things, is that what you are saying is stupid, and coming from the mouth of the Provost doesn't make it any smarter.
- Just because a word may be understood as one thing, or has been in certain instances understood that way, doesn't mean that it must be understood that way. You have given no evidence that the word is to be understood this way - just that this is what you agree with.
- So, where do I give the benifit of the doubt to? The Bible and those who approach it in a serious manner, or some annonymous 'scholar' who claims to have fancy degrees but can do no more than conatantly repeat, "THEY WERE RAPED ON THE BATTLEFIELD" as if this somehow proves something.
- As for "moving the goal posts," are you agreeing that the Bible does not approve of rape?
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Scholar, I see that you are claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem was 70 years before the return in 537. I will grant that as your first step. Can you prove, using the Bible only, that the return was 537 years before the common era? Remember use only the Bible, nothing else. Instead of claiming over and over that it does prove it, cite the verses. I really want to know. Help me out here.