Hand cutting law

[agnosticatheist]

***Mature content warning***


Topic: The Hand cutting law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12


Deuteronomy 25:11-12, ESV: "11 When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

Is this evil?

Christians: Think about that being done to your wife, daughters, or mother.

The Punishment

Who would have been responsible for cutting the woman's hand off? The priests? The husband of the wife? Members of the community? Some combination of those three?

How would the punishment administers have carried out the punishment? Slice it off? Hack it off?

Would the woman have been conscious or unconscious while the punishment was being administered?

If she was conscious, think about her screaming out in pain, especially if it was sliced off.....Think about the psychological trauma this could have caused. Think about the flashbacks and nightmares she potentially could have dealt with.

What if her children were present while she was being punished? Can you imagine what that would do to a child, to see their mother having her hand cut off?

The worst part of this whole passage may not even be the hand cutting, but rather the phrase "Your eye shall have no pity." Seriously? What is wrong with the Christian God???

Does the punishment even fit the crime?

If she had simply grabbed him by the private parts without any damage to his private parts, how is cutting her hand off an appropriate and fitting punishment?

If she had grabbed him by the private parts and caused damage, and there just HAD to be a punishment, wouldn't a more appropriate and fitting punishment have been to cut off her breasts (externally, the breasts are somewhat, if not exactly, analogous to the testicles) and/or to cut out her womb? But, that's even more horrific and brutal than the punishment that is in Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

Post-punishment life

I think some of us, especially some Christians (who, unlike secularists on this board, see men and women as vastly different creatures, and with inherently separate roles and genetic makeup), would agree that females are much more delicate and fragile creatures than males, and so they are much more prone to being traumatized and suffering lifelong afteraffects of an event like having their friggin hand cut off.

The woman is now missing a hand. The woman and/or her husband would have to explain to their children why their mom is missing a hand...

I was sad and depressed enough as a kid when my mom was in the hospital birthing my siblings...I can't imagine what it would have been like for her to come home one day missing a hand...

My mother is one of the most beautiful women I have ever known, especially for her age these days, and let me tell you sorry, pathetic cowards who are going to try to defend this crap, if I had found out some community members had mutilated her like that, and in that manner, I would feel compelled to "go postal" on them...I wouldn't, because that would just make an already bad situation worse, but I hope that gives you an idea of how messed up this is to me. I hope you would feel the same way if it was your wife, daughter, or mother.

This command creates all kinds of problems; it affects the woman's ability to be a homemaker (super important back then), care for her children, and participate in sex with her husband. Not to mention the fact that for her personally, her everyday life is made more difficult, she has to look daily at her mutilation, and will be reminded daily, by the mutilation, of the traumatic punishment event itself...

Concluding remarks

Christians, if it has never been apparent in your life before, it hopefully is now: Your god, if it is real and the Bible is accurate, IS NOT GOOD.

If the Christian God is real, I REFUSE to submit and bow to it, let alone love it and worship it.

I would die before I would let this happen to my wife, daughter, or mother.

If I were the male who's private parts had been grabbed, I would not want the woman to be punished in this manner, regardless of whether or not my private parts had been damaged. Like in the above sentence, I would die before I would let this happen to her.

If people actually read and comprehend this post, this post may be the death knell for the religion of many people on this post. If that is the case, I am truly sorry, but you need to be made aware of this. This evil garbage needs to be brought to light.

Yes, I am appealing to a moral standard by talking about evil and this being horrific. Yes, there may indeed be a good god, but I can tell you right now, Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is not from a good god.

[agnosticatheist]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

Christians are silent and nowhere to be found. How surprising....

[bluethread]

This thread is yet another thread that argues for arbitrary laws based on emotional appeal. It presumes the best case scenario for the victim and the worst case scenario for the prep. Your only alternatives are, in your own words, "even more horrific and brutal".

[bluethread]

This thread is yet another thread that argues for arbitrary laws based on emotional appeal. It presumes the best case scenario for the victim and the worst case scenario for the prep. Your only alternatives are, in your own words, "even more horrific and brutal".

What???

You quoted my post accurately, so according to the TOS, more than a one word response is warranted, if you do not understand what I posted.

[agnosticatheist]

This thread is yet another thread that argues for arbitrary laws based on emotional appeal.

What arbitrary laws based on emotional appeal was I arguing for?

It presumes the best case scenario for the victim and the worst case scenario for the prep.

I have no idea what you were going for here...

Your only alternatives are, in your own words, "even more horrific and brutal".

What I was saying is that it would be more appropriate and fitting of the crime IF she had damaged the man's private parts when she grabbed his private parts. I still don't think it would be good/moral even if she had damaged the man's private parts, I'm just saying that it would make more sense than the punishment your genius god prescribed (or your genius leader Moses prescribed and then your genius god approved of).

Here's a suggestion bluethread: How about we not physically punish the woman in any way, especially if she did NOT damage the man's private parts. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

Would you be ok with your wife, daughter, or mother being submitted to such brutality? Would you cut your wife's hand off?

[JehovahsWitness]

Deuteronomy 25:11-12, ESV: "11 When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

Is this evil?

No, I don't believe the law is evil at all.

# Why does the bible propose such a severe penalty for a woman who grabs a man's genitals during a conflict (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) ?

Two against one, in a fight to the death (even by today's standards) is considered a criminal act.

Attacking a man's genitals should ONLY be in self defence as a last resort which is NOT the case in the situation*. Deuteronomy stipulatates in this particular law that the woman BECAME involved in a fight rather than it being an attempting to ward off personal attack*. Since her "going for the groin" could well cost the life of a man, it would come down to her and her husband effectively establishing guilt and executing who they considered an offender (grabbing a mans genitals can quickly incapacitate him, leaving him vulnerable to his second attacker - the husband - ending the conflict with likely loss of life).

The Mosaic law did not allow for individuals to kill others, since there was a due process by which, once guilt has been established by the court system, captital crimes were duly punished*. It should be noted, the law does not stipulate which of the two men is the guilty party in the conflict only that the woman sided with her husband - in short, we don't know if she joined in "defence" or joined in "attack". This law would therefore protect innocent man being set on by two (a violent man and his equally violent wife) as well as discouraged the spiral effect of taking the law into one's own hands if one is the wronged party.


In the lesser case of a local brawl over a minor issue where loss of life is unlikely the wife (who would more wisely get help or stand back) would have either the option of joining in without attacking the opponents genitals (clocking him over the head with a pot or biting his ear off Tyson style) or using any other means of helping her husband which did not involve such extreme measures. Why? Because grabbing a man's genitals could result in injury that could effect his reproductive capacity (It should be noted that the Hebrew word her translated "grab" does not denote involentary brushing against or hitting but taking a firm grip on - so the prohibition does not stem from a misguided prudery with regard to sexual organs but a regard for sustaining serious and permenent injury). This would not only be emotionally (and physically) devastating but would mean cutting off his name and heritage and denying him sustainance in his old age sending him into poverty there being no social security system then and a man's children being his only sourse of long term security.

CONCLUSION: Deuteronomy 25 is not a law prohibiting self defense, it is not a law prohibiting a man defending his home, property or family, it is not even a law prohibiting a woman getting involved in her husband's physical conflicts, it is a law governing excessively violent behaviour which could result in either loss of life without guilt having been been established or long term injury that would impact both the victim and his family.








*There was a seperate law which allowed for a person to kill an attacker that entered into his home at night without bloodguilt being incurred. And of course a lone woman, Under attack would have the right to fight off her assailent by whatever means possible.



RELATED POSTS

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit ALL sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

Was the "Jealousy curse" that was part of the Mosaic Law comparable to
"trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p836096

Why did the bible authorize bloodsheet testimony?
viewtopic.php?p=1081153#p1081153

# Why did the Mosaic Law propose punishing women with having her hand cut off
if she'd grabbed a man's genitals during a conflict (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p822599

Why, then is there no law that explicity states "You must not have sex before marriage"?
viewtopic.php?p=780257#p780257

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SEXUAL IMMORALITY and ... MARRIAGE

[agnosticatheist]

Two against one, in a fight to the death (even by today's standards) is considered a criminal act.

The law says nothing about the man who got his junk grabbed dying...It only says that if she grabs him, her hand is to be cut off. So, regardless of whether or not the man died, her hand has to be cut off.

Since her "going for the groin" could well cost the life of a man, it would come down to her and her husband effectively establishing guilt and executing who they considered an offender (grabbing a mans genitals can quickly incapacitate him, leaving him vulnerable to his second attacker - the husband - ending the conflict with likely loss of life).

What are you talking about here with effectively establishing guilt?

If loss of the life of the man who had his junk grabbed is the outcome, wouldn't a more appropriate and fitting punishment be the death penalty? Take her out into the field and slit her throat, or at best, simply behead her.

It should be noted, the law does not stipulate which of the two men is the guilty party in the conflict only that the woman sided with her husband - in short, we don't know if she joined in "defence" or joined in "attack". This law would therefore protect innocent man being set on by two (a violent man and his equally violent wife) as well as discouraged the spiral effect of taking the law into one's own hands if one is the wronged party.

There should be a law in place to prevent a man from being jumped on by two or more people anyways, should there not?

Even if Man A is getting beat badly by Man B, the wife of Man A is supposed to just stand there and let her husband get severely injured, or "run and get help" (by the time help arrives, her husband might be crippled or dead), otherwise she will get her hand cut off? Nah bro. Forget that.

grabbing a man's genitals could result in injury that could effect his reproductive capacity

I already addressed this in the OP, so you must have missed it, ignored it, or read it and it didn't sink in. If this is about a man's reproductive capacity being taken away, then a more appropriate and fitting punishment for the woman would have been to cut her womb out or had a procedure conducted similar to the one in Numbers 5:11-31. But, that's even more horrific than the hand cutting punishment...

This would not only be emotionally (and physically) devastating but would mean cutting off his name and heritage and denying him sustainance in his old age sending him into poverty there being no social security system then and a man's children being his only sourse of long term security.

So?? That still doesn't make it ok to cut the woman's hand off!!!

If emotional and physical devastation was a reason for the punishment to be valid in the Israelite community, then it is a reason for it to still be in place today. Why don't we have this law on the books? Why do we have Christians trying to minimize this, pull the "That is the Old Testament card", or try to make the passage say something that it is not?

You know why? Because we as a species have come to realize that such a punishment is brutal, irrational, and ultimately immoral and unjust.

Ever heard of financial compensation? Perhaps Man A and his wife would have to make a lump sum payment to Man B, or make payments to Man B for the rest of Man B's life.

I mentioned this in the OP, but if I were the man who had been grabbed by the genitals, yeah it would suck if they had gotten damaged, yes it would be emotionally and physically devastating, yes my name and heritage would be cut off, and yes i would be denied sustenance in my old age, but that doesn't make it ok to cut the woman's hand off. I said in the OP even if I was the one who had been assaulted, i would die before I would let the woman's hand be cut off.

Also, I could be wrong, and I will stand corrected if I am, but I think there was at least some measure of welfare system in place then. If there wasn't, that's yet another brilliant mistake by your genius god...

If the man's private parts had been damaged, cutting her hand off is not going to fix an already tragic situation. Let's not make it any more tragic by cutting her hand off.

I posed this question in the OP and both you and bluethread have not answered it (I wonder why?): Would you be ok with this punishment being carried out on your wife, daughter, or mother? Would you cut your wife's, daughter's, or mother's hand off?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 2 by agnosticatheist]


Moderator Comment

Hello agnosticatheist! Your comment is a one liner, but I would also like to remind you that it isn't mandatory for people to comment on a thread, regardless of their stance on religion.

Do have a beautiful day!

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JLB32168]

Deuteronomy 25:11-12, ESV: "11 When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity. Is this evil?

No " its quite good in fact. Do you take issue with it?

Who would have been responsible for cutting the woman's hand off? The priests? The husband of the wife? Members of the community? Some combination of those three?

I would imagine that someone would be appointed to do it since clearly its supposed to happen. It would seem then that it would be in a womans best interest to let the boys duke it out.

The worst part of this whole passage may not even be the hand cutting, but rather the phrase "Your eye shall have no pity." Seriously? What is wrong with the Christian God?

Youre still presupposing that this was a bad thing. Why should we conclude it was?

If the Christian God is real, I REFUSE to submit and bow to it, let alone love it and worship it.

Well " the Christian God no longer teaches these things. He teaches to love ones neighbor by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, housing the homeless, championing the causes of the exploited " such as orphans and widows.

Hes changed his mind on those things.

If you have a problem with feeding people who are hungry while hating a person who tells you to do that then I suppose theres nothing I can do about it. Oh well.

[bluethread]

This thread is yet another thread that argues for arbitrary laws based on emotional appeal.

What arbitrary laws based on emotional appeal was I arguing for?

"If she had grabbed him by the private parts and caused damage, and there just HAD to be a punishment, wouldn't a more appropriate and fitting punishment have been to cut off her breasts (externally, the breasts are somewhat, if not exactly, analogous to the testicles) and/or to cut out her womb?"

What is it that you actually should be done with one who endangers a man's posterity?

It presumes the best case scenario for the victim and the worst case scenario for the prep.

I have no idea what you were going for here...

I'm not going for anything. You make the argument that the man is not harmed and the woman is devastated. This is like saying that sexual assault by men against women should not be punished, because it is possible that the woman was not harmed and the man's life could be devastated by having to register as a sexual predator.

Your only alternatives are, in your own words, "even more horrific and brutal".

What I was saying is that it would be more appropriate and fitting of the crime IF she had damaged the man's private parts when she grabbed his private parts. I still don't think it would be good/moral even if she had damaged the man's private parts, I'm just saying that it would make more sense than the punishment your genius god prescribed (or your genius leader Moses prescribed and then your genius god approved of).

Here's a suggestion bluethread: How about we not physically punish the woman in any way, especially if she did NOT damage the man's private parts. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

Would you be ok with your wife, daughter, or mother being submitted to such brutality? Would you cut your wife's hand off?

Since you are so familiar with the jurisprudence of my "genius" deity (or my "genius" leader Moshe' prescribed and then my "genius" deity approved of) please answer your own questions. What must take place before the hand is cut off and who cuts off the hand?