Bob Debates Keeping the Sabbath

[Flipper]

Jefferson:

It's merciful to that woman's future potential victims.

Riiiight. Going by that logic then Islamic law is much more merciful to the victims of thievery than mere restitution. That's a panty-waist liberal slap on the wrist in comparison to amputation.

Face it. It's a ludicrous law and invites all sorts of Pharisaical shenanigans.

 

[Flipper]

Jefferson:

Just as you don't have the right to kill someone for stealing your car, you also don't have the right to disable a man from having children and grandchildren just because he hit someone you care about.

So you're at odds with the voguish trend of opinion in right wing circles that it's OK to shoot someone inside your house who attacks you? What's the point of having a gun then if you can't shoot someone who is fighting with you inside your house? Or you can, but your wife can't, is that it? Or is it "it's OK for her to shoot the attacker in the face with a shotgun but heaven forfend she crushes his sack with her hand to disable him". Is that it?

This is fascinating jurisprudence. I can't wait.

 

[Flipper]

And another thing...

It's merciful to that woman's future potential victims.

Yeah, you know how once a woman gets a taste for testicular crushage the chance of reoffence goes up dramatically. She starts to provoke fights between men and her husband just so she can wade in with two bricks and a rubber band. This law makes the streets safer for everybody.

 

[Granite]

I'm repeating myself from post 45, just for the record. And because Jefferson didn't address any of this, so now's the time:

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume the woman is married to a real schmuck who's picking on somebody. Let's further assume that the victim of this bully gets the upper hand and out of nowhere, the wife hits him in the junk. Her hand gets mangled (or just chopped off, as opposed to your further squirming and "guess" that her hand is merely to be mangled beyond use).

But let's say it's NOT a fair fight, the husband is losing and getting beaten on. Heck. Let's say it's YOU, although for your bachelor self I know this might be a stretch imagining. Your wife's your only hope. She helps. She nails this guy right in the crotch, fight over. You win. But she still loses use of the offending hand. FOR WHAT?

Thus endeth the post 45 excerpt...

Jeff has said it's because the woman used "excessive force." Umm, sorry? Where's "excessive force" CONDEMNED in scripture? Don't buy that for a minute. Jeff is in an uncomfortable position: he has to either justify the mutilation of a defensive wife, or admit that theonomy--precious as it is to him, despite his premil cherrypicking--has a hole in it. Tough call. Eh, well...stroke your chin...to hell with the wife.

I'm very glad bachelors like Jeff don't have (and probably won't have) power to make law any time soon.

I asked Jeff what crime the wife committed. He said "excessive force." Well, strike that. She played dirty, technically. Sorry, that ain't a biblical crime, either. And it's a double standard: if a man does this to another male opponent, he gets a free ride. Boys will be boys. A woman does this standing by her man, she gets amputated. This strikes me as a little bogus.

 

[Flipper]

More to the point, what Bibilical strictures are there against assault and battery? I know there's something that stipulates you must pay medical bills and for lost time if you really punch someone out.

Are there any others?

 

[jeremiah]

This is what the ancient sages and commentators said of this verse, according to Stone's Chumash. In other words this is what the most learned and respected teachers of the Book, told their Jewish disciples concerning Deut 25 - 11,12
PENALTY FOR EMBARRASING ANOTHER. In the above case of chalitzah [vs8-10], a widow is justified in humiliating the brother who disdained her husband's honor, but now the Torah hastens to state that generally it is wrong to shame another person. If a woman tries to help her husband by embarrasing someone else, she must pay a financial penalty to the victim (Sforno]. This is the source of the rule that assailants are fined for the embarrasment that they cause, in addition to damages and other costs.
The case is that a woman seeking to save her husband, grabs the private parts of his opponent. If she had no other recourse, and her husband was in mortal danger, she would have been justified in doing anything necessary to save him. This penalty applies only if what she did was uncalled for. [OrHaChaim].
YOU SHALL CUT OFF HER HAND. The sages derive exegetically that this is a figurative expression for a financial penalty [Rashi] Since the funds for this payment would come from money she had earned by working, it is as if the "HAND" that brought her the money had been cut off. [Haameek Davar]


jeremiah:
Since we know that self defense or defending someone else's life is permitted by God in His word. This is a case of deliberate embarrasment on the woman's part. The cutting off of her hand was apparently a figure of speech in the ancient Hebrew of that time and culture.
For example a "good eye" meant to be generous, and a "bad eye" meant to be stingy. By saying that a man has a good eye, you are saying he is a generous person. To say, "cut off that woman's hand," means to make her "pay" dearly, through the work of her hands, for the embarresment that she caused, besides any other financial restitution required for "damages".
I think that is in keeping with the Character of God.

 

[Granite]

Very interesting observations...

 

[Flipper]

Now that sounds a bit more practical and a bit less randomly crazy. Of course, then one becomes reliant on interpretation, and I probably need not remind anyone here that there are exegeses that exonerate homosexuality from Leviticus.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Flipper

Now that sounds a bit more practical and a bit less randomly crazy. Of course, then one becomes reliant on interpretation, and I probably need not remind anyone here that there are exegeses that exonerate homosexuality from Leviticus.

Well...that's part of the reason Jeff has to fight, tool and nail, for a literal interpretation of this verse and its modern application. Despite the implications and the grotesque punishment, as well as its inherent injustice, he'll have to support this. Admitting theonomy has a flaw once opens the door to everything else.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
And BTW, I raised two questions you only attempted to answer part of the second one...

You asked:

1. Christians are no longer under the supervision or control of the law. So why are women judged under the mitzvot in your theonomy?

I don't see how this passage has anything to do with a man not being able to keep his vow to God based on the woman's actions.

 

[Granite]

So, let's take bets. Will Jeff continue to dodge and pretend I'm not here? That tactic always works wonders...maybe he'll just sniff his nose up and stop casting pearls before swine.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

You asked:I don't see how this passage has anything to do with a man not being able to keep his vow to God based on the woman's actions.

It was a separate point. I'll reiterate it here:

If Christians are not under control or supervision of the law, then why are women judged under the law (mitzvot) in your theonomy?

What is the basis for such a double-standard?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Flipper

Jefferson:



So you're at odds with the voguish trend of opinion in right wing circles that it's OK to shoot someone inside your house who attacks you?

Yes.

What's the point of having a gun then if you can't shoot someone who is fighting with you inside your house? Or you can, but your wife can't, is that it? Or is it "it's OK for her to shoot the attacker in the face with a shotgun but heaven forfend she crushes his sack with her hand to disable him". Is that it?

This is fascinating jurisprudence. I can't wait.

Either one of you can shoot him if it is a stranger attacking at night or someone clearly attacking with the intent to murder during the daytime.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
Jeff has said it's because the woman used "excessive force." Umm, sorry? Where's "excessive force" CONDEMNED in scripture?

Exodus 21:18,19 - "And if men strive together, and one strikes another with a stone, or with his fist, and he does not die, but keeps his bed; if he rises again and walks abroad upon his staff, then he that struck him shall be set free. Only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be completely healed."

In the above verse the man who won the fight only has to pay for the other man's loss of wages it appears. The words I highlighted in bold are "and he does not die." This obviously implies that if the man did die, then he would be accused of using excessive use of force and his punishment would be, shall we say, quite different.

Don't buy that for a minute.

Do you buy it now?

Jeff is in an uncomfortable position: he has to either justify the mutilation of a defensive wife, or admit that theonomy--precious as it is to him, despite his premil cherrypicking--has a hole in it. Tough call.

What tough call? I've already given a clear answer. Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of God's morality in the Bible whenever it doesn't comport with 21st century liberal, God-hating sensibilities.

And it's a double standard: if a man does this to another male opponent, he gets a free ride.

He would not get a free ride. Since he has testicles, unlike the woman, the eye for an eye principle would apply.

 

[Granite]

The Exodus verse says that you have to recompense someone you temporarily immobilize in a fight. Nothing to do with hand chopping, interestingly enough.

"What tough call? I've already given a clear answer. Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of God's morality in the Bible whenever it doesn't comport with 21st century liberal, God-hating sensibilities."

Blah, blah, blah. Jeff? Newsflash: disagreeing with you doesn't make me a liberal (which I'm not), and being a theonomist doesn't make you a mind reader (which you're not). Stick to a grown up discussion and quit throwing names. Gets old and wastes time. I'm not ashamed of God's morality. But based on what me, Zak, and Jeremiah have posted, I'd say you have to deal with the possibility that a) your exegesis is incorrect, or b) this law is outdated, barbaric, and not to be applied today. Not unless you happen to worship Allah, anyway. Look at the kind of people you're lining up with.

This law, and your defense of it, represents everything wrong with theonomy: misapplication, sadism, and dismissal of mercy. Boys will be boys; whack a guy around and pay a fine. A wife defends her husband and she loses a hand. Nice. Real cute.

"He would not get a free ride. Since he has testicles, unlike the woman, the eye for an eye principle would apply."

Oh? And where's this case law to be found? Mutilation of women at least has an explicit mention, correct?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
The Exodus verse says that you have to recompense someone you temporarily immobilize in a fight. Nothing to do with hand chopping, interestingly enough.

But it shows that if he hit him hard enough to cause the man to die, the law would consider that to be "excessive use of force" and the man would be executed which is quite a bit more severe than having his hand chopped off. In fact, even by hitting him hard enough to only cause him to miss a few days of work was considered excessive force since the law punished him by requiring him to pay restitution. So my point is proven. You falsely claimed the Bible no where condemns excessive use of force. You now stand corrected.

I'm not ashamed of God's morality.

Prove it. Please explain why it was so moral of God to command Deuteronomy 25:11,12 and please do so without wading through the slime of situational ethics.

"He would not get a free ride. Since he has testicles, unlike the woman, the eye for an eye principle would apply."

Oh? And where's this case law to be found? Mutilation of women at least has an explicit mention, correct?

The case law is Deuteronomy 25:11,12.

 

[Granite]

"In fact, even by hitting him hard enough to only cause him to miss a few days of work was considered excessive force since the law punished him by requiring him to pay restitution. So my point is proven. You falsely claimed the Bible no where condemns excessive use of force. You now stand corrected."

Absolutely. I was wrong.

"Prove it."

How exactly do you propose I go about "proving" via posts on the Internet what I do or don't believe? My words speak for themselves; other than that you or anyone else can draw their own conclusions. Want me to walk around with a sandwich board around my neck? I AM NOT ASHAMED OF GOD'S MORALITY. Give me a break, Jeff. I've got nothing to prove to you or anyone else here. We're talking. Take a deep breath and stop taking everything said at TOL so personally.

If opposing the mutilation of a defensive wife somehow makes me "ashamed" of God's morality, I'm not the one with the problem.

The case law of Deuteronomy 25:11-12 does not deal with excessive force; this is found elsewhere in the Exodus passage you cite. The Deuteronomy passage deals with something else altogether: the penalization of a woman who dares wade into a fight between her husband and an opponent.

And, since you've kept ignoring these questions, I'll pose them again hoping for an answer:

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume the woman is married to a real schmuck who's picking on somebody. Let's further assume that the victim of this bully gets the upper hand and out of nowhere, the wife hits him in the junk. Her hand gets mangled (or just chopped off, as opposed to your further squirming and "guess" that her hand is merely to be mangled beyond use).

But let's say it's NOT a fair fight, the husband is losing and getting beaten on. Heck. Let's say it's YOU, although for your bachelor self I know this might be a stretch imagining. Your wife's your only hope. She helps. She nails this guy right in the crotch, fight over. You win. But she still loses use of the offending hand. FOR WHAT?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
The Deuteronomy passage deals with something else altogether: the penalization of a woman who dares wade into a fight between her husband and an opponent.

Wrong. She's not punished for simply daring to wade into a fight between her husband and an opponent. Rather she's punished for HOW she waded into the fight. By grabbing the other man's privates she used excessive force.

And, since you've kept ignoring these questions . . .

You are the one who is ingoring my questions. I'll try it again: Please explain why it was so moral of God to command Deuteronomy 25:11,12 and please do so without wading through the slime of situational ethics.

You still haven't answered that question.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Wrong. She's not punished for simply daring to wade into a fight between her husband and an opponent. Rather she's punished for HOW she waded into the fight. By grabbing the other man's privates she used excessive force.

There is more than one reason the proscription exists Jefferson and none of them have to do with excessive force. For instance she could have rendered the fellow unconscious with a rock and not been penalized as harshly as touching the genitals of a man who was not her husband.

I think your "excessive force" argument fails because the text does not say that the woman injured the other fellow, merely that she grabbed him. :think:

One has to ask oneself why the fixation on male genitals? I think you probably know what point I'm heading for, right?

 

[Granite]

"She's not punished for simply daring to wade into a fight between her husband and an opponent. Rather she's punished for HOW she waded into the fight. By grabbing the other man's privates she used excessive force."

So this is off limits for men too, right? In that case why isn't there a prohibition against men grabbing one another's "secrets"? There's only one instance where this kind of attack is described: when women do it. Boys will be boys. Just make sure GIRLS don't fight dirty.

Would a woman be justified in knocking a potential rapist (or any other kind of attacker) in his family jewels? Or is this punishment reserved only for wives defending their husbands? Kind of crummy either way.

There's no indication that in this scenario the attacker's genitals are destroyed, damaged, or anything else other than swollen for a little while. Let's assume, in the words of Darth Vader, that "he will not be permanently damaged." Would you still say the hand-chop/cripple penalty would still be justified?

"Please explain why it was so moral of God to command Deuteronomy 25:11,12 and please do so without wading through the slime of situational ethics."

Because crushed or maimed testes (deliberate or otherwise) kept one from entering the assembly (Deut. 23:1). No eunuchs allowed. The implication is that the woman's attack COULD lead to this, although the text doesn't say specifically that this happened. While we're on the subject, theonomists would--to be consistent--also keep anyone having a wet dream (23:10-11) out of the assembly, as well as illegitimate children (23:2). You want to keep out dreaming teenagers and kids born out of wedlock? Your call. Be consistent.

Enforcing this "law" today opens a can of worms and implications, namely sadism and barbarism, that don't have a place, reason, or need. Unless you worship Allah.