You Can't Trust People Who Are Circumcised

[StuartJ]

Women don't often get named in the biblical writings unless they are to be involved in some sort of sex crime, or they are to have the privilege of giving birth to an important man (or god-man). Only one daughter to Jacob is named. And she was involved in a sex crime.

This sex crime looks like another of those nasty little bits of political slander we have been reading in the "Word of God".

Shechem the Hivite and Dinah the daughter got to know each other biblically. His soul clave to her and wanted to marry her, but Jacob and his sons were really ticked about the carnal knowledge business, and Shechem had done the deed while still in possession of a foreskin.

So, because of the fait accompli, they agreed to the marriage if ALL the male Hivites lined up to have their foreskins cut off. Which they did.

However, the tricky Israelites had a plan. When the blokes were recovering from the painful procedure, Simeon and Levi took their swords and killed them all.

There is more to this charming tale - but that will do for the moment.

I suggest this tale is to add Simeon and Levi to the lists of sons of Israel who were not fit to inherit the promised land ...

... and to decry the practice of circumcision.

It is VERY significant to note that the booklet of Deuteronomy does NOT require physical circumcision.

Not a peep has come from anyone here to suggest that ANY of these nasty tales came from the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh.

But there have been a few specious attempts to try and show that they are not nasty political slander designed to defame all but one of Jacob's sons.

Is it possible to show that THIS tale is. well, shall we say, kosher ...?

[JehovahsWitness]

It is VERY significant to note that the booklet of Deuteronomy does NOT require physical circumcision.

What is significant about this?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

But there have been a few specious attempts to try and show that they are not nasty political slander designed to defame all but one of Jacob's sons.

It is not up to anyone here to prove that these claims are not slanderous. You are making the accusation that these claims are slanderous; it is up to you to provide evidence to us.

Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Slander has to be a statement that is FALSE. Can you prove that these statements are FALSE?

Otherwise, all we have are ACTUAL deeds that caused Reuben, Simeon and Levi to lose the birthright/inheritance of the firstborn (in the same way that Esau sold his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of stew).


Reuben, because he defiled his father's bed. Simeon and Levi because of the deeds that you are speaking about in this thread. Leaving Judah (the fourth son of Jacob) next in line. Hence, Jacob's blessings before he died, beginning with his first four sons:


Reuben, you are my firstborn,
my might, the first sign of my strength,
excelling in honor, excelling in power.

Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel,
for you went up onto your fathers bed,
onto my couch and defiled it.


Simeon and Levi are brothers"
their swords[a] are weapons of violence.

Let me not enter their council,
let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger
and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.

Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel.


Judah, your brothers will praise you;
your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;
your fathers sons will bow down to you.

You are a lions cub, Judah;
you return from the prey, my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness"who dares to rouse him?

The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the rulers staff from between his feet,
until he to whom it belongs shall come
and the obedience of the nations shall be his.

He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.

His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk.





The deeds you are speaking about in this thread have nothing to do with circumcision being wrong. It was about the violence that Simeon and Levi committed, breaking their word, and putting all those people to death.




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

[bluethread]

Women don't often get named in the biblical writings unless they are to be involved in some sort of sex crime, or they are to have the privilege of giving birth to an important man (or god-man). Only one daughter to Jacob is named. And she was involved in a sex crime.

This is a deceptive claim. The fact that many of the women mentioned in the Tanakh gave birth to important men does not mean that they did not do other important things. Many of the men in the Tanakh fathered important men. That is what men and women do. Also, it is demonstrably not true, the children of Devorah and Jeal are not mentioned, and neither of them was involved in a sex crime. Havah(eve) was not involved in a sex crime, nor were Sarah, Hagar, Rivchah, Leah, Rachel or Ruth, just to name a few.

This sex crime looks like another of those nasty little bits of political slander we have been reading in the "Word of God".

Just a not, one does not read slander, one reads libel.

Shechem the Hivite and Dinah the daughter got to know each other biblically. His soul clave to her and wanted to marry her, but Jacob and his sons were really ticked about the carnal knowledge business, and Shechem had done the deed while still in possession of a foreskin.

They were not upset because he was not circumcised, they were upset because he raped her.

So, because of the fait accompli, they agreed to the marriage if ALL the male Hivites lined up to have their foreskins cut off. Which they did.

However, the tricky Israelites had a plan. When the blokes were recovering from the painful procedure, Simeon and Levi took their swords and killed them all.

There is more to this charming tale - but that will do for the moment.

No, it will not do. You speak of the "tricky Israelites". That is deceptive, because it was just Simeon and Levi, and Jocav not approve of it.

I suggest this tale is to add Simeon and Levi to the lists of sons of Israel who were not fit to inherit the promised land ...

... and to decry the practice of circumcision.

Your suggestion is incorrect, because the descendents of Simeon were not excluded from inheriting the promised land and Levis descendents only inhereted a few cities, because they recieved the blessing of being the keepers of the Mishkan. That had nothing to do with this incident.

It is VERY significant to note that the booklet of Deuteronomy does NOT require physical circumcision.

There are commandments found in Leviticus that are not found in Deuteronomy and vice versa. That does not matter they are in HaTorah.

Not a peep has come from anyone here to suggest that ANY of these nasty tales came from the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh.

This is also deceptive. Many have spoken of the commandments being from Adonai and the writing down of the account in HaTorah being directed by Adonai. The fact that such can not be verified scientifically does not mean that "not a peep" has been said.

But there have been a few specious attempts to try and show that they are not nasty political slander designed to defame all but one of Jacob's sons.

If such attempts have been specious, you have provided no evidence to support that. Life is a nasty business and HaTorah records activities that are common to men, even if they taint the image of the favored characters. This is one thing that makes it more believable. These were not superheroes, but men and women like you and me.

Is it possible to show that THIS tale is. well, shall we say, kosher ...?

What do you mean by "kosher". You do have a habit of speaking in generalities and speculating in specifics. I would suggest that it would be wiser to speak in specifics and leave the speculation open ended.

[StuartJ]

Very little can be "proved" in the biblical writings.

No one BEGINS to prove that the Jesus character was sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, for example, yet it is the foundation of "faith".

Given that not a soul gives a soupcon of "proof" that so much as a verse of "scripture" emanates from anyone's version of "God", it's instructive, in my view, to hypothesise what the writers may be conveying.

The nasty little tales in Genesis are not contemporaneous accounts.

The earliest we have are a few tiny scraps from Herodian times.

And we may wonder - given the complete absence of the demonstration of "God" in the writings - just who was writing what and for what purpose in the 1700 or so years between these slanderous-looking tales and King Herod the Great ...?

Please note that the slander looks to me to be demonstrating why the characters did not DESERVE a place of influence in the Promised Land ....

... these tales were possibly written AFTER whatever political distribution is being referenced.

Thank you Tam for addressing the countdown. But we have biblical proof that Reuben is out of contention (see the Chron refs).

Some of the female names mentioned by Bluethread were involved in some of the scandals mentioned.

Eve and the Talking Serpent/Penis may be thought of as the worst sex-crime ever ....

[bluethread]

Some of the female names mentioned by Bluethread were involved in some of the scandals mentioned.

Eve and the Talking Serpent/Penis may be thought of as the worst sex-crime ever ....

It sounds like you are projecting or going off of some wild Freudian evangelist's take on the creation story. Interpreting Scripture based on Freudian psychology really doesn't work. It leads one down some rather strange paths that would indeed cause one to reject them as nonsense. However, archeology has provided us with additional information that makes it clear that view is way too simplistic. The ancients had no problem showing genitalia. They had no need to be cryptic. It is modern society that has adopted cryptic psychosexual imagery. Sure there is sexual imagery in ancient artifacts. However, such imagery is not just ancient pornography, as some early archeologists thought. It is symbolic of philosophical principles. You might want to watch Jordan Peterson's Maps of Meaning lectures. I think it might help you get a better handle on the nature of ancient mythology.

[StuartJ]

This tale is commonly known a "The Rape of Dinah" ...!!!

Like many things in belief systems, this title is meant to evoke an emotional response and does not necessarily have anything to do with fact.

The story is quite possibly complete fiction - we shall probably never know.

And - as i continually point out and no one corrects me - not a verse of this "holy scripture" is EVER shown to have emanated from anyone's version of "God".

Calling the incident of premarital coitus a "rape" is a distortion of what was written.

I suggest it is deliberately distorted by people of faith to try and give justification to the unjustifiable acts that are clearly written in this curiously anti-Israelite propaganda.

But - as I also constantly point out - distorting the "Word of God" to have it mean what you want it to men, is common practice amongst the faith communities.

It's one of the reasons I distrust people of faith when it comes to matters of faith.

The second part of this tale is even more horrific.

I shall start the "Holocaust of the Hivites" thread in due course.

And we really should ask why the Israelites would willingly include these nasty tales of anti-Israelite propaganda in their national accounts ...?

I suggest they didn't ....

Unless all this really is the "Word of God" of course ...

... the door is WIDE open.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 3 by tam]

Otherwise, all we have are ACTUAL deeds that caused Reuben, Simeon and Levi to lose the birthright/inheritance of the firstborn

I use the terms "suggest", "look like", "perhaps" etc in speculating and formulating hypotheses.

You tell me if I can't prove my hypotheses, then we have ACTUAL deeds ....

Please prove that they are ....

[bluethread]

This tale is commonly known a "The Rape of Dinah" ...!!!

Like many things in belief systems, this title is meant to evoke an emotional response and does not necessarily have anything to do with fact.

The story is quite possibly complete fiction - we shall probably never know.

So, for the sake of this discussion, let's presume it is fiction. How does it being fiction advance your argument? Are you arguing that Simeon should have been some royal line? What is interesting is that the first king of Israel was not a descendent of Yehudah, he was a descendant of Benyamin. How does that work into your theory?

And - as i continually point out and no one corrects me - not a verse of this "holy scripture" is EVER shown to have emanated from anyone's version of "God".

It doesn't matter, because I am not making an argument from authority. I am evaluating the text using standard literary criticism.

Code: Select all

Calling the incident of premarital coitus a "rape" is a distortion of what was written.

Here you might have a point because the basic definition of the term 'anah(defiled v. 2) is to be occupied or busy with. However, it generally carries the connotation of force. So, given the context, rape is not an unreasonable translation. That said, for the sake of this discussion, I will concede that tame'(defiled v. 5) , which refers to being made unclean, may refer to the fact the he was not circumcised. I still do not get your main point.

I suggest it is deliberately distorted by people of faith to try and give justification to the unjustifiable acts that are clearly written in this curiously anti-Israelite propaganda.

But - as I also constantly point out - distorting the "Word of God" to have it mean what you want it to men, is common practice amongst the faith communities.

It's one of the reasons I distrust people of faith when it comes to matters of faith.

Then you probably distrust everyone about everything, because it is common practice among humans in general to distort information to have it mean what they want it to mean. It is called sophistry. However, it is my experience that it is more productive to ask for references so that I can examine the context myself, than it is to just throw up my hands and question other people's integrity.

The second part of this tale is even more horrific.

I shall start the "Holocaust of the Hivites" thread in due course.

And we really should ask why the Israelites would willingly include these nasty tales of anti-Israelite propaganda in their national accounts ...?

I suggest they didn't ....

Unless all this really is the "Word of God" of course ...

... the door is WIDE open.

Whether it is the "Word of God" or not, there is good reason to include "nasty tales". Life is full of "nasty tales" and to leave them out could also be a form of distortion. Therefore, including "nasty tales" would tend to add credibility, especially if the "nasty tales" support the narrative and are similar to one's own experiences.

[StuartJ]

I though Mithrae may be interested in this one ...