jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (41 posts)

Most offensive reply.

  1. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 5 years ago

    The following is the single most offensive rely I've come across on a hub pages.

    PLANKSANDNAILS :

    "("Do you think Deuteronomy 21:10-14 or any of the others above represent a good moral code. It's a yes or a no.")

    Each of the verses need to be read and understood in their historical context.

    Let's look at Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. “She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. “It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

    In proper context, war was a reality among the ancient eastern cultures and one of the issues was the reality of what to do with the survivors and prisoners of war.

    These verses explain the law that was a protective measure for female prisoners of war, which defended their rights as people. In other nearby eastern cultures, rape was a common practice, but women were protected under this legislation. They were allowed time to grieve and reflect and have a transition period from their former way of life. After a time, if the Israelite soldier desired a woman, he was to treat her and marry her as a full-fledged wife. Mosaic Law treated the marriage commitment as a serious matter; therefore, the reason for the extended time allowed for the soldier to change his mind if he did not desire her, in which case, she was to be set free."


    How can one justify the lack of common decency to any women in this situation is beyond my comprehension. Her captor kill the men and then decides he likes the way she looks so he holds her captive and if he decides SHE pleases him he can keep her. NO ONE ASKES HER?

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I've had muslims justifying murder and child sex in private messages to me. One said to me that the koran told him not to converse with dumb people like me.

      The prejudice is rife when it comes to religion. It really is sad.

      1. twosheds1 profile image61
        twosheds1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        As sad as it is, such bigotry and, for lack of a better term, perversion will gradually go away with time. The trend is always toward more freedom and equality. The march toward modernity is inexorable and unavoiadable, and those who cling to medieval thought will be left behind and shunned by civil society until they abandon such thought and embrace the modern world.

        1. Chris Neal profile image78
          Chris Nealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Boy I wish that were true. If it were, I might almost welcome an end to religion. But the rise of sex trafficking and child prostitution don't give me great hope for the future of humanity.

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Out of curiosity, have you run across anyone advocating that the world return to this type of mentality?

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Biblical passages. However, if you read through all of the Mosaic law you'll come across serious perversions that were advised against. If you've got a group of people that you need to explain that sex with animals is wrong....you've got a backward clan on your hands. Bring one of them through time to our world today, and we'd swear they were neanderthals.

    Arguing against the Bible through shock at Mosaic law is about like calling modern Americans savages because of behavior patterns of the early settlers. Apples and oranges.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      My point is the bible worked somewhat for it's time, but not our time so therefore it was not written for us and was written by people. A God would have written laws that made sense forever, not a few hundred years. All through these forums we have people defending passages like the one in question. Why would one defend that?

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I think, people defend it because they don't bother to think. Nor would they want to. A large chunk of the Old Testament is truly horrific if you close your eyes and visualize the words.

        But, your argument looses its oomph when you state that a god would have written laws that made sense forever...when questioning Christianity. The whole explanation of law boiling down to two simple commands are what were meant to be Christian law. If they just looked to that, before they rushed to defend thier god, they wouldn't be posting such ridiculous comments. No one who cared for their neighbor would ever attempt to rationalize most of the Mosaic laws.

  3. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago

    Hey Rad Man, did you ever hear of the Rape of Nanking? It happened less than a hundred years ago.

    20,000 females were raped, including babies and the elderly. Unspeakable atrocities were committed upon the females.

    I wonder how the women who participate in these forums would prefer to be treated. Like in Deuteronomy or the Japanese way.

    I have seen many offensive posts in these forums, but PlanksandNails' is not one of them.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I find you comment offensive. I'm sure the women in these forums would prefer neither of your scenarios. Which one would you refer?

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Refer to whom?

        Muammar al-Qaddafi? (I wonder where he is)

        He authorized the distribution of Viagra in order to facilitate rape.

        I don't see that sort of thing happening in the verses you cited in Deuteronomy.

        Your nonsense does not make much sense. Not only that, but now I see you have posted the same babble-on (Babylon) on one of my hubs, in addition to here and on your own hub. How many dead horses do you beat?

        Again, I'll ask the question. Would women, should they unfortunately find themselves subject to the whim of an enemy, prefer to be dealt with according to God's way, or somebody like Muammar al-Qaddafi's way?

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I'll answer that. Being a woman, and all.

          Neither. Thanks all the same. smile

          1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
            BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Who are you, Rad Man's wooden dummy?

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              No. It's simply yours is an ignorant argument. I'm highly offended that you would think women would find either choice acceptable.

              1. Shanna11 profile image92
                Shanna11posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Lol, It's like the game Would You Rather!

                No cop out answers- you have to pick one of the extremely sucky options or....

                Well, it's not really possible to lose "Would You Rather".... but you don't have to play if you don't want to.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm afraid it isn't a game. It passed beyond the ability of being one when he posted Again, I'll ask the question. Would women, should they unfortunately find themselves subject to the whim of an enemy, prefer to be dealt with according to God's way, or somebody like Muammar al-Qaddafi's way?

                  That is the whole point of the thread. No god in his right mind would have given a rule like that to any people; primitive or otherwise.

                  For someone to argue in defense of such as this and yak away about it being 'God's way' is offensive.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Thank You. I knew I couldn't be alone.

                  2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
                    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I yak, Emile R?

                    You have 5,097 posts in 11 months and I now have 267 posts in 8 months. Yak yak yak.

                    Hey Rad Man, you won't be alone in the lake of fire. Jezebel there will be with you. I wouldn't worry about sharks.

                    You'll be whining about how unfair God is right up until the time when dinner is done.

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That's what I told him. He seems to think I need to answer his ridiculous question. At least he had the sense to ask it in a slightly better way this time.

            1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I answered your ridiculous thread.

              Not to mention that you posted the same idiot-speak (someone who is fluent in this ancient language, please respond) on your own hub and one of mine.

              You have beat that dead horse so much you really need to make some glue now.

              And use it to seal your lips before you say something even more intellectually dishonest.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You did not answer to this thread, you simple went on about worse atrocities and tried to get me to pick the lesser of the two evils. I must have hit a nerve with this one.

    2. calynbana profile image83
      calynbanaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think women would want either way lol I know I wouldn't. However given the time period and the way things were back then this law would treat women a lot better than if it was left up to the men.

      At least they were getting an option to live.

      I agree with OP about this working for the time period. That is why Christians do not take the laws in the OT and apply them to life. There is a new covenant with Jesus which means we do not have to live the way Moses outlined.

      What I would be really curious to know is what a Jewish perspective on the OT is.

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The OP isn't the one who posted the part about working for the time period.

        It is confusing how the OP presented this, but the OP is responsible for the first sentence, "The following is the single most offensive rely (his word not mine) I've come across on a hub pages."

        Then Rad Man quotes PlankandNails lengthy post that PlankandNails' made on Rad's Man's hub. Rad Man they says, "How can one justify the lack of common decency to any women in this situation is beyond my comprehension. Her captor kill the men and then decides he likes the way she looks so he holds her captive and if he decides SHE pleases him he can keep her. NO ONE ASKES HER?"

        I thought PlanksandNails made a respectful post on Rad Man's hub, expressing his opinion. And Rad Man took a total cheap shot by starting this thread.

        And now I see that's Rad Man's style.

        1. calynbana profile image83
          calynbanaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Oh okay I think I need to reread this more carefully.

  4. Shanna11 profile image92
    Shanna11posted 5 years ago

    Wow, you people are easily offended. Yeah, it's a dumb reply. Hardly the most offensive I've ever seen.

    Remember, it's always YOUR choice whether or not to be offended.

    1. Eric Newland profile image60
      Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I never! mad

    2. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It was meant to be a dumb reply since his was a stupid question.

    3. calynbana profile image83
      calynbanaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I like that. I don't agree with the you people aspect nor do I know who it is directed to but I like that your take on being offended.

    4. jenb0128 profile image91
      jenb0128posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      People get offended over which holiday greeting another person chooses to use, so I don't see anything surprising about the fact that this person's ridiculous question offended some folks.

      1. calynbana profile image83
        calynbanaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I used to go with happy non denominational festive holiday :p It worked well and gave me a laugh lol

        1. jenb0128 profile image91
          jenb0128posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          LOL... I love that one! I think I'll use it when that time of year rolls around again.

  5. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    The O.T. is horrific because that is what man insists upon. Blood, blood, and more blood. The christians bathe in the blood of the lamb, they drink it, ritually, and eat of Jesus's body. That is so we would know them.smile

    1. Shanna11 profile image92
      Shanna11posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      From what I can tell the poster isn't insisting upon it today-- however, in context, it does appear to be true. Certainly it was still disgusting, but in the historical context (I just studied these cultures last semester in a civilization class) it DID make sense. A lot of what ancient cultures did in the Middle East and surrounding areas was barbaric, but a lot of what they did also made a little bit of sense if you consider it. There were other better ways they could have done things, of course.

      I dunno, maybe it's because I read fifty textbook pages on the subject and understand the historical cultures of those who wrote the bible, but I don't find it that offensive even as a bit of a feminist woman.

      1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image81
        BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That is a very good answer, Shanna.

        But I'm wondering what the "other better ways they could have done things" are.

 
working