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]

I find it hilarious that both bluethread and JW have refused to tell me if they would allow their wife, daughter, or mother to be subjected to the punishment in deuteronomy 25:11-12. Either they wouldnt, which means they are disobeying their god (we all know what happens when you disobey their god), or they would, but dont want to say they would because saying they would, would reveal each of them to be a scumbag and a coward

Bluethread and JW: i am probably going to get banned for this, but both of you are scumbags. I will not be responding to either one of you any further in this thread nor in any other thread.

[Elijah John]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complementing or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[bluethread]

I find it hilarious that both bluethread and JW have refused to tell me if they would allow their wife, daughter, or mother to be subjected to the punishment in deuteronomy 25:11-12. Either they wouldnt, which means they are disobeying their god (we all know what happens when you disobey their god), or they would, but dont want to say they would because saying they would, would reveal each of them to be a scumbag and a coward

Bluethread and JW: i am probably going to get banned for this, but both of you are scumbags. I will not be responding to either one of you any further in this thread nor in any other thread.

No problem, I was just addressing the principles being asserted. Of course, I would not want any of my relatives, male or female to endure bodily harm. I would not "let" her hand be cut off. I would make sure she was well aware of this law long before any such altercation took place. I would also see that there was a thorough examination of the witnesses, who would loose a hand if they were found to have committed perjury. It is too bad that you chose to engage in hyperbole rather than address the nature of the law. I would truly have been interested in finding out what you would do. By the way, does anyone know the modern secular law on such things?

[tam]

Peace to you agnosticatheist!

I understand what you are saying with regard to that particular law (and perhaps others as well).

There are a couple of options that you might keep in mind.

Some of the law was mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes.

How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of the LORD', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely. (Jeremiah 8:8).

Some of the laws given were not what was true from the beginning.

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," [Jesus] replied. Mark 10:5

(that is concerning the law on divorce, but if Moses had to do that once, then why not more than once? And if you want an example of what could have been borne of harder hearts than cutting off her hand, taking her life - or perhaps even irreparable damage to her own private parts)



Christ is the One who reveals the truth of God and who did/does what God wants. And Christ emphasized that God desires mercy, and not sacrifice; and also forgiveness, love, truth, and faith.




Peace to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[agnosticatheist]

I understand what you are saying with regard to that particular law (and perhaps others as well).

Glad that you do. Thank you. It's interesting that, to my memory, the only Christian to see where I am coming from, is female...

Some of the law was mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes.

How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of the LORD', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely. (Jeremiah 8:8).

Unfortunately, this verse does not tell us which part of the law is true and which part is false.

Some of the laws given were not what was true from the beginning.

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," [Jesus] replied. Mark 10:5

The hand cutting law came from God, not Moses.

And if you want an example of what could have been borne of harder hearts than cutting off her hand, taking her life - or perhaps even irreparable damage to her own private parts

As I said, the hand cutting law came from God, so does that mean God's heart was hard?

Christ is the One who reveals the truth of God and who did/does what God wants. And Christ emphasized that God desires mercy, and not sacrifice; and also forgiveness, love, truth, and faith.

Well, God also said for a woman's hand to be cut off in Deuteronomy 25, so.....

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by 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".

The emotional appeal is on the side of Judeo-Christians, however. I am dispassionate about the topic, but can understand the repugnance felt by followers of the religion about the religion.

We should all note: The treatment of women in this mien is consistent with the rest of the Bible, it is how you might treat an Olive tree, a mule, or any other one of your rebellious possessions - if you are a Jew from before the 1st century.

It's a good thing nobody takes the OT seriously anymore. Isn't it? Dead adulterers, one armed women, dead homosexuals... all those people working on the Sabbath...

[Replying to post 11 by agnosticatheist]

I find it hilarious...

You are being unfair. JW specifically stated he did not find the law to be evil, and otherwise endorses it, therefore even though it would mortify 'him' as a good human being, accordance with the God's law is good.
I wouldn't have said it either, as you say, it is a mature and graphic topic. But I believe JW is faithful to the religion, and understands the sacrifice - nothing true is ever easy - AND if he lived in a country whose HUMAN laws allowed accordance with these laws, he would agree with the amputation (assuming proof of guilt), though he would naturally be emotionally distraught, even writing about it in implied agreement is rather terrifying.
Give him that, without forcing him to say it.

[postroad]

The law reads "rescue" her husband. This indicates that this particular man was losing badly.

[benchwarmer]

The law reads "rescue" her husband. This indicates that this particular man was losing badly.

Personally, I think the law was written by a man that felt belittled after having lost a fight with a woman.

If I'm in a fight for my life, my respect for my wife goes through the roof if she steps into harms way and helps me survive the encounter.

Perhaps some men would rather die than accept help from a female. Perhaps others feel the need to punish females for stepping in and dropping them when they attack the female's loved ones.

It all boils down to the ridiculous way women have been (and still are in many places) treated. The OT seems to portray women as property or at least lesser beings in many places. A continual reminder that the Bible is nothing more than the stories and myths of people of their times and not the musing of an all wise God.

[ttruscott]

...

Laws were given to convict us of sin Romans 3:20 ...rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 7:7... I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

We cleared of our sin not by the law being given but by our inability to keep it. Whatever HIS reason for instituting this law, it also has the purpose of convicting those who will not keep it of their sin before HIM.

cnorman's reminder seems to apply here also:

I thought this list might be useful to some of my old friends here.

Bully Bingo: 52 Signs Someone Will Say Anything to Win an Argument

Fake pity, morality policing and mock interrogation are just a few tell-tale indicators. By Jeremy Sherman / AlterNet

31. Over-reactive shaming:

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

I think it important to note that the writers (and later editors) worked on a book of stories with little to no historical facts, no scientific facts whatsoever and lacking common sense to the point it surpasses myth and borders on lunacy. Taking things literally will, ultimately, be the (most likely mental and societal) demise of the individual that does so.
Beyond the apparent fact that writers of these stories were looking for political scapegoats a lot of the time and probably 'high' most of the rest of the time, putting too much emphasis on it is erroneous as far as I can see. What we need to be concerned with it all is how it's acted on. And for that, we stop looking at the words and start looking at the individuals and their mental state.
In most modern societies, even Christians (generally) amend the literal definition to meet their current state of mind and need. We should all be thankful for this even though there are more than a few zealots in the world.
Expecting a clear thinking, modern Christian to defend such bull-pie should be worthy only of a laugh.
Even IF one were to defend the actions and/or words of their god, what would be the point other understanding the person more? If that's the goal, we shouldn't expect much honesty at least publically. And that is probably the most telling.