Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have exactly zero depth of thought, I've come to realize. Not interested in a pissing match with you. But you are dead wrong. On most things.
Dead wrong about what?!? That women can now serve in the military? That women have been battling with men for their rights going back to the days of these commandments? That they too should have the right to vote, for example? If you can imagine that which was also not imaginable all too long ago.
Dead wrong about what ONE thing?
Just FYI...
"The IDF is one of the only armies in the Western world in which women are drafted to military service by law. Women have served in the Israeli army ever since its establishment in 1948."
I certainly don't agree with you about most things, if anything. That's for sure, but I'm not inclined to make these sorts of chuck-and-run comments simply to insult. That's another glaring big difference between you and me, but are you serious this time or are you just going to come back when you're in the mood to engage once again?
If you know ... Are Jewish males exempt from military service and other obligations that would keep them away from wives within one year after marriage ? Would this mitzvah justify conscientious objector status ?
Not sure where you will get the answer you are looking for...
A thoughtful, fair objective discussion and possible answers or something else altogether, but to stay on topic here at least, I was just pointing out how these commandments are obviously written in a way that is not relevant today like they were back when women were not respected like they are today. Similar to how slavery was prevalent back then but no longer today. Same with gay people. Gay rights.
How anyone cannot recognize these sorts of differences from a simple historical standpoint is hard to understand, but of course we all know there are lots of people who still don't have sex before marriage. (Well maybe not lots). Can't use birth control because of what is written in scripture. Won't allow for gay marriage...
Another thought as well. Given the commandments about being "fruitful and multiplying," one can easily see how allowing the groom to be with his bride for at least one year (rather than go off to the wall or engage in battle), also promotes the chances of more children. Not only to allow for pregnancy but to be around for birth and early child rearing.
72. That a bridegroom shall be exempt for a whole year from taking part in any public labor, such as military service, guarding the wall and similar duties (Deut. 24:5)
What doesn't seem too relevant today (or as relevant) is the different focus on commandments for men vs women and/or vice versa. How they pertain to men vs women. Seems to me anyway, and of course there are still many who practice the old ways of males vs females (males over females) that were far more prevalent back in the day when we didn't know better.
I mean we've now got women in the military for example...
I am not sure how you went from #72 to "I mean we've got women in the military for example..."
I am not sure how you went from #72 to "I mean we've got women in the military for example..."
You would have to review the comments going back to #875, but ultimately it's about how these commandments are directed to women and/or men rather than both in some cases, because the roll of men and women back when these commandments were written was quite different from today, and therefore less relevant. For most of us anyway. Objectively speaking of course...
For example, then women were not expected to go to war. Men did the warring, so men were directed to "rejoice" with their new bride (and stay home) for one year. Today, however, women are in the military, so the commandment would or should read that men AND WOMEN are to stay home (and not go to the wall or war) to "rejoice" their marriage for one year.
This is just one example of how the male perspective shines through in these commandments in a way that is less relevant today than it was when they were written. Can look at #73 in much the same way. That's all...
74. That the woman suspected of adultery shall be dealt with as prescribed in the Torah (Num. 5:30)
I looked into what is prescribed in the Torah for such a woman, but I won't share what I found, because I suspect it would "ruffle feathers" that would do this thread little good. Among other things, however, here too there is much attention and question with respect to why this commandment is directed to women and not men.
74. That the woman suspected of adultery shall be dealt with as prescribed in the Torah (Num. 5:30)
I looked into what is prescribed in the Torah for such a woman, but I won't share what I found, because I suspect it would "ruffle feathers" that would do this thread little good. Among other things, however, here too there is much attention and question with respect to why this commandment is directed to women and not men.
Vayikra - Leviticus - Chapter 20
10 And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
10 And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Help me out here...
Is this one of the 613 commandments or in the Torah, and/or in the Bible?
Either way, a bit less relevant today all considered. Right? The penalty that is. Sure hope we all think so. Doesn't read like the all-forgiving God that some believe in anyway...
And again, why #74 of the 613 commandments directed only to women instead of both men and women?
I am not sure how you went from #72 to "I mean we've got women in the military for example..."
They have to replenish the ranks. Newly weds are given time to get the next generation started before the husbands dies on the wall. Or they both realize that they kind of don't like each other all that much.
You would have to review the comments going back to #875, but ultimately it's about how these commandments are directed to women and/or men rather than both in some cases, because the roll of men and women back when these commandments were written was quite different from today, and therefore less relevant. For most of us anyway. Objectively speaking of course...
For example, then women were not expected to go to war. Men did the warring, so men were directed to "rejoice" with their new bride (and stay home) for one year. Today, however, women are in the military, so the commandment would or should read that men AND WOMEN are to stay home (and not go to the wall or war) to "rejoice" their marriage for one year.
This is just one example of how the male perspective shines through in these commandments in a way that is less relevant today than it was when they were written. Can look at #73 in much the same way. That's all...
Are you suggesting that religious text be modified?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
