FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2001, 02:14 AM   #51
Posts: n/a

Hmmm, we seem to have two entirely separate discussions going on here. And, to add to the confusion, Nomad appears to be "talking past" me (deliberately, I think).
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You are still thinking like a modern Jack. The nation this woman belonged to is now gone, and her options are limited. She is a captive of the people of Israel, and for all I know, you would see it as her only acceptable option to marry a warrior from the victorious side.
Here is the relevant Biblical quote (KJV):
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
So the man sees her among the captives and chooses her on the spot, because she is "beautiful". There is no time for the woman to develop a relationship with this man, no time to recover from the shock of bereavement first, no time to consider her options properly and decide her own fate.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Jews had specific mourning rituals, and these applied to anyone that lived within Israel and Judah. This principle is common in the world, so I do not know what your objection happens to be.</font>
I am not aware of ANY nation in the world that has binding laws dictating how everyone must mourn their dead: customs, yes, but not laws. Can you give examples of this?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for being free to not mourn her family, I do not know many that would wish to exercise that right.
Again you're missing the point. There is no mention of any "freedom" to mourn her family: instead, she MUST shave her head. If you were captured in war and your family slaughtered, and somebody shaved your head or forced you to do it, would you be grateful that they "gave you the freedom to mourn your family"? How can they dictate the fashion in which you mourn your dead?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No, misogyny has only one definition that I am aware of:

From Webster'

Main Entry: mi·sog·y·ny
Function: noun
: a hatred of women
OK, substitute "sexism" if you prefer. My point stands.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Jack: What's to explain? This does not promote hatred towards women.


That is what misogyny is, and this is not a misogynist rule or law.

Right again.
Talking to yourself, Nomad? I didn't say those things: YOU did. Now please answer my question:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And how do you explain Leviticus 12, where the birth of a boy makes the mother "unclean" for one week, but the birth of a girl makes her unclean for two weeks?

{snip "not a misogynist rule or law" reply}

Please explain why this is NOT motivated by the belief that women are "more impure" than men. Such a belief is misogynist in nature, just as a belief that blacks are less intelligent is racist in nature.
If this needs any further clarification (I don't see why, but you're being extremely evasive here): Can you provide any reason, other than hatred or contempt for women, why girls are twice as "unclean" as boys, or any other reason why a woman who gives birth to a girl is "unclean" for longer?
Old 04-12-2001, 10:13 AM   #52
Posts: n/a

Wow. I can't even keep track of this anymore...

Nomad, I am really sorry, but you seem to have facts messed up and are believing what boils down to propaganda no worse than the Wiccan idea that the 'burning times' was persectution of Wiccans.

I sincerly have no clue how to discuss this with you, although many knowlegeable people here are attempting...

Thus, I am going to sink back into the shadows and watch--- although this topic exploded when the 'modern laws were based on the 10 commandments came out...

One point, before I slip away---

You made the statement that the Jews were the first to not treat the King as above the law. (although there seems to be some confusion as to if we are discussing 'god's' laws or man's laws...) You need to defend it. I do not need to disprove it until you have defended it well. If you do, I will be happy to continue our discussion.

Best of luck on the thread.


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 PM.


This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.