The following is the single most offensive rely I've come across on a hub pages.
"("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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I find you comment offensive. I'm sure the women in these forums would prefer neither of your scenarios. Which one would you refer?
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?
I'll answer that. Being a woman, and all.
Neither. Thanks all the same.
No. It's simply yours is an ignorant argument. I'm highly offended that you would think women would find either choice acceptable.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't claim I wasn't a prolific poster. But I'm not advocating the idea that God is in favor of abusing women. That's your game. And anyone who says it is simply yaking. Because they definitely aren't using their brain in the process.
Oh, and by the way, that is an incredibly hateful comment to Rad Man.
Wow, I guess I must have struck a nerve regarding your 5.097 posts.
Get a life. It won't be an eternal life, but it's all you get.
I didn't advocate abusing women. God has a better plan for dealing with the situation than anyone else. Prove me wrong.
You didn't strike a nerve. I can't argue the number of posts I've made. Why would it bother me that you had noticed?
I suppose it is easy to prove you wrong. I can't imagine a woman alive that would want to be treated like the reference in the OP.
There. Prove me wrong.
I never advocated the abuse of women, but I will now.
Your namesake Jezebel (she was also an obsessive-compulsive internet forum gangbanger) was tossed from the top of the wall by Rad Man's brothers, trampled by horses, and eaten by dogs.
I can't think of a better ending.
Fascinating. I didn't realize my name meant Jezebel. One learns something new every day.
Do you have archeological proof that there were computers back then? Or, is this another poorly thought out delusion?
You should probably stop attempting to strike a nerve. You really aren't very good at it.
Sounds like a kid that just lost a fight. Tell the girl she talks to much and tell the guy he'll get it in the end. I'm not the one trying to justify abusing women so I'm not worried about the afterlife.
I have something better than archeological proof that there were computers back then. Your buddy Rad Man said Apple is in in the Bible. Although I can't find it. Can you?
Your pal Rad Man brought up striking a nerve first, indicating he had struck one. I thought he was talking about how he got rich quick when he found the fool's gold.
You know. I like Rad Man. The few times our paths have crossed he's been super nice. But, I don't really know him well enough to say he's my buddy.
I've got a concordance somewhere. If I find it, I'll look up the word Apple and let you know . You do understand that this wouldn't constitute proof of an ancient internet. Don't you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was meant to be a dumb reply since his was a stupid question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Ann810 2 years ago
Why do so many people not like the Bible?Individuals that can't read may not like the Bible because they can't read it.
by Rad Man 6 years ago
I have written a hub on this subject and I recently came across this video. It's part 3/3, and I didn't take the time to what the first 2 parts yet, but it's fascinating.http://youtu.be/fm-bTW3FhL0
by graceinus 3 years ago
How do we know if we understand the correct context when we study the Holy Bible?I have often wonder why we sometimes if not often misunderstand the context of chapters and/or verses when we study God's word. One can read a verse or chapter a number of times believing they understand it's meaning ,...
by Erin LeFey 7 years ago
I'm doing a research paper on the benefits and hazards of revealing secrets - I have a social theory I'd like to test, would you all mind telling me how you react to this question and why?Thanks so much!Erin
by Dan Harmon 7 years ago
Well, I got my first nasty comment today; the question is how to respond. The comment is on a hub about personal integrity and morality standards going down hill.Comment:wilderness probably got beat up as a child sure judge everyone but yourself because your perfect F.A.G.E.T ...
by ngureco 3 years ago
Why Do Women Go Against The Word Of God And Seek To Preach In Churches? (1 Corinthians 14:34-36)
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|