If one were to attempt to educate his prejudiced, misinformed, and uneducated Egyptian in-laws about the significance and impact of the holocaust, where would you suggest he start?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< Do you have an example of a woman refusing marriage after being chazaq-ed?
Also, I thought “chazaq” meant ‘strengthen’ or ‘courage’ or something along those lines. Can it also mean that, or am I completely misinformed on this one?[/quote]As with all etymology and language in general, words (and phrases) evolve in usage and usage determines meaning for the context under discussion at any given time. A very large percentage of so called problems with the bible, in both testaments, are resolved by simply interpreting them as they were originally intended to the original audience of whatever passage is being discussed. People copy and paste bible verses and passages into hack websites alleging to destroy their credibility and they display all the knowledge and scholarship of ancient literature attributable to a soapdish.
Also, what difference does it make if there are any actual examples of a law being implemented? Does that alter it somehow or make it less valid. That’s like the sign at the gym informing patrons that if they damage the equipment through misuse they are financially responsible and somebody asking when this has ever happened. Who cares? That’s the rule. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples.
I apologize for the interjection again Jewey (Chewey? =] ). It’s been a few days and I figured you were busy.
[/quote]
I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious. [/quote]I don’t.
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
If one were to attempt to educate his prejudiced, misinformed, and uneducated Egyptian in-laws about the significance and impact of the holocaust, where would you suggest he start?[/quote]
To understand the murderous context of the times: Bloodlands
The particular persecution of the Poles and Belorussians–Jews and non-Jews–by both Nazis and Stalinists, is heartbreaking.
To find the truth, a Catholic priest became an archaeologist of horror:
To understand the use and misuse of history, Denying the Holocauset, by Lipstadt.
(Only the strongest should attempt Saul Friedlander’s four-volume history)
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< Do you have an example of a woman refusing marriage after being chazaq-ed?
Also, I thought “chazaq” meant ‘strengthen’ or ‘courage’ or something along those lines. Can it also mean that, or am I completely misinformed on this one?[/quote]As with all etymology and language in general, words (and phrases) evolve in usage and usage determines meaning for the context under discussion at any given time. A very large percentage of so called problems with the bible, in both testaments, are resolved by simply interpreting them as they were originally intended to the original audience of whatever passage is being discussed. People copy and paste bible verses and passages into hack websites alleging to destroy their credibility and they display all the knowledge and scholarship of ancient literature attributable to a soapdish.
Also, what difference does it make if there are any actual examples of a law being implemented? Does that alter it somehow or make it less valid. That’s like the sign at the gym informing patrons that if they damage the equipment through misuse they are financially responsible and somebody asking when this has ever happened. Who cares? That’s the rule. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples.
I apologize for the interjection again Jewey (Chewey? =] ). It’s been a few days and I figured you were busy.
[/quote]
I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious. [/quote]
The implications are…nil.
Torah is not a court reporter, or a compilation of events. It is not The New York TImes or The National Enquirer.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< Do you have an example of a woman refusing marriage after being chazaq-ed?
Also, I thought “chazaq” meant ‘strengthen’ or ‘courage’ or something along those lines. Can it also mean that, or am I completely misinformed on this one?[/quote]As with all etymology and language in general, words (and phrases) evolve in usage and usage determines meaning for the context under discussion at any given time. A very large percentage of so called problems with the bible, in both testaments, are resolved by simply interpreting them as they were originally intended to the original audience of whatever passage is being discussed. People copy and paste bible verses and passages into hack websites alleging to destroy their credibility and they display all the knowledge and scholarship of ancient literature attributable to a soapdish.
Also, what difference does it make if there are any actual examples of a law being implemented? Does that alter it somehow or make it less valid. That’s like the sign at the gym informing patrons that if they damage the equipment through misuse they are financially responsible and somebody asking when this has ever happened. Who cares? That’s the rule. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples.
I apologize for the interjection again Jewey (Chewey? =] ). It’s been a few days and I figured you were busy.
[/quote]
I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious. [/quote]
The implications are…nil.
Torah is not a court reporter, or a compilation of events. It is not The New York TImes or The National Enquirer. [/quote]
Well then It’s a good thing I never said anything about limiting your sources to the Tora…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious. [/quote]I don’t.
[/quote]
Then you’re either wilfully ignorant or just commonplace ignorant.
If this supposed law was never so much as exercised even once, it suggests that either Jewbacca is plainly wrong or that this ‘out’ was a law on paper only and social pressure saw to it that no woman ever took advantage of this “empowerment”, rendering the whole point moot.
I shall call you Mark Twain.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious. [/quote]I don’t.
[/quote]
Then you’re either wilfully ignorant or just commonplace ignorant.
If this supposed law was never so much as exercised even once, it suggests that either Jewbacca is plainly wrong or that this ‘out’ was a law on paper only and social pressure saw to it that no woman ever took advantage of this “empowerment”, rendering the whole point moot.
[/quote]
Wrong.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
In this case, absence of documentation to suit your notions, from 2000 years ago, cannot support your contentions.
But keep trying.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I shall call you Mark Twain. [/quote]
Your allusion is lost on me.
Why am I Mark Twain?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< I think the implications of there not being an example of a woman refusing to be married after being raped/hit on are obvious. [/quote]I don’t.
[/quote]
Then you’re either wilfully ignorant or just commonplace ignorant.
If this supposed law was never so much as exercised even once, it suggests that either Jewbacca is plainly wrong or that this ‘out’ was a law on paper only and social pressure saw to it that no woman ever took advantage of this “empowerment”, rendering the whole point moot.
[/quote]
Wrong.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
In this case, absence of documentation to suit your notions, from 2000 years ago, cannot support your contentions.
But keep trying.[/quote]
Well then, it’s a good thing I used the word ‘implication’ and not ‘proof’…
But by all means, keep trying.
The thing is there isn’t even absence of proof here. God’s character is under attack. His command is His command on a given issue whether anybody does it or not. This is like saying that laws forbidding murder don’t count unless somebody actually murders someone. God gave this law. That’s His mind on the subject.
Whether anybody actually does it or not does not in any way change the fact that that’s what He said. That’s what was under dispute from the beginning of this exchange. The dispute is over. God did not COMMAND women to marry their rapists. This is not my thread, but can we move on to something that actually exists please.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The thing is there isn’t even absence of proof here. God’s character is under attack. His command is His command on a given issue whether anybody does it or not. This is like saying that laws forbidding murder don’t count unless somebody actually murders someone. God gave this law. That’s His mind on the subject. Whether anybody actually does it or not does not in any way change the fact that that’s what He said. That’s what was under dispute from the beginning of this exchange. The dispute is over. God did not COMMAND women to marry their rapists. This is not my thread, but can we move on to something that actually exists please.[/quote]
Perhaps God didn’t command it, but if everyone thought that’s what he meant and acted accordingly, then God is responsible for the sufferings of these women who were pressured into marrying their rapists.
As an all-knowing entity, he would have known about the miscommunication that would occur since the dawn of time and even earlier, yet he refused to make the needed adjustments. Really, what you’re saying makes your God look more cruel, not less.
After all, this was long before God became shy, so there’s no reason for him to not set things straight.
What is it with people around here lately? God is God and you ain’t. He does what He wants and He has the brazen temerity to do it without consulting you about whether it’s a good idea or not. He doesn’t care if you approve. (He doesn’t care if I approve either BTW) That said, this is a truly brain dead statement you have made above. I urge you to fix it before too many people see.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What is it with people around here lately? God is God and you ain’t. He does what He wants and He has the brazen temerity to do it without consulting you about whether it’s a good idea or not. He doesn’t care if you approve. (He doesn’t care if I approve either BTW) That said, this is a truly brain dead statement you have made above. I urge you to fix it before too many people see.[/quote]
Well I guess you must be right, seeing as you assert it so often with such unwarranted conviction.
Who needs logic and evidence when you have all that? Not Tiribulus, that’s for sure.
Whew, now that we got that outta thee way can we give Moshe back his thread please?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Whew, now that we got that outta thee way can we give Moshe back his thread please?[/quote]
He’s actually the only man here whose answers I’m concerned with. The rest of you derailed that, so Jewbacca can have his thread back whenever you guys are ready to piss off.
It really would be regrettable if one of the most informative threads on the whole Forum became hi-jacked.
Mufasa
I’ve been in Singapore for over a week. Added attraction that some asshole phoned in a bomb threat after news of the recent terrorist attack on the bus, so I ended up missing a flight.
I will answer the questions as my deck clears.
As an aside, the only thing kosher in Singapore is raw sushi because I can watch it get made and know what is in it.
I normally like sushi. If I see another fucking raw fish, however, I will become a dangerous man.
Welcome back, JB!
Mufasa