Kassad84 said-
Dinah was raped, and her brothers acted accordingly.
Yeah, That's an anachronistic and superficial reading of Genesis, typically employed by modern-day Xians to excuse the murderous brutality of Simeon and Levi.
Lacking the "big picture" message delivered by the Torah, you're "cherry-picking", only focusing on the individual elements rather than seeing how the Levi character fits into the bigger context of the Torah narrative. The account of Dinah is not really the point, per se: it's merely a prologue, an introduction to the Levi character to explain how Levites eventually came to be the tribe appointed by Jehovah to serve as His priestly class, and to minister God's Temple by living amongst the other 12 tribes (as described in Jacob's "curse", the Levites were a landless class, instead subsisting off of tithes given them by the other 11 tribes).
For one, the concept of rape and giving consent didn't apply to women (they were considered mere chattel/property of the patriarch). In fact, "rape" of a woman was more likely an affront to the family patriarch, but note that Jacob didn't object to "rape", and even consented to giving Dinah in marriage: he wanted to form a familial alliance with the Shechemites. The account has Dinah living in the house of the to-be in-laws as a guest, when her brothers stormed into town to kill all the men and pillage.
It wasn't rape: that's just the way marriage was handled, where the suitor was allowed to take women for a "test-drive"; in this case, the son wanted her father to "buy" her (the account says he "spoke tenderly" to Dinah, code-words for her giving consent to her would-be suitor).
The sons are depicted as the xenophobic hot-heads who protested against inter-marriage, but over-reacted by deceiving and killing them. The story serves as a polemic of the disruptive nature of inter-marriage and mixing with others (a message the JWs STILL understand, as they use it to discourage association with non-believers, just as it served when it was written).
Kassad84 said-
That doesn't mean that they were right in what they eventually did, and Jacob's exasperated reply to them afterwards stressed the point.
Jacob's anger with his sons stems from the fact that he feared retaliation from those neighbors living in the area who'd recognize the treacherous despicable dealings with the Shechemites, and may even have had familial alliances with them (their family members may have been taken away as slaves); Jacob feared the neighboring tribes would've sought vengeance against his band of murderous outsiders (in violation with local rules). Murder was murder, even in the Ancient Near East, and bloodshed demanded retaliation (as it did in Jewish beliefs).
Notice how God remains mute on the issue in the next chapter, not even mentioning the account with the Schemites, but simply telling Jacob to leave the area.
Kassad84 said-
Also his eventual blessings for them in his deathbed turned to a curse and indicates a sign of his disapproval for their actions:
5 “Simeon and Levi are brothers—
their swords are weapons of violence.
6 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.
7 Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel. - Genesis 49
You're missing the big picture, since Jacob's "curse" to scatter them amongst Israel serves as dramatic foreshadowing that explains how Levi became blessed by Jehovah to serve as the head of the Levites, the tribe who eventually became one of the 12 tribes to serve dual role as God's henchmen and enforcers by turning that murderous rage trait displayed in the Dinah account on their fellow Israelites, as well as the ones to run the Temple!
Jacob's "curse" turned into a blessing in disguise, since Levi's murderous fidelity to Jehovah was demonstrated at the time of the 'golden calf incident', when the tribe of Levi carried out the death sentence of God by slaughtering 3,000 unarmed Israelites (Exodus 32:28). Note that Moses and his brother Aaron were Levites; note too how Aaron actually MADE the golden calf for the people, but somehow he wasn't killed? It's good to be in charge, isn't it?
Levi was blessed for his murderous loyalty in Deut 33:8-11, and even praised for his skills at "striking down those who rise against him":
About Levi he said: "Your Thummim and Urim belong to your faithful servant. You tested him at Massah; you contended with him at the waters of Meribah. He said of his father and mother, 'I have no regard for them.' He did not recognize his brothers or acknowledge his own children, but he watched over your word and guarded your covenant. He teaches your precepts to Jacob and your law to Israel. He offers incense before you and whole burnt offerings on your altar. Bless all his skills, LORD, and be pleased with the work of his hands. Strike down those who rise against him, his foes till they rise no more."
Adam said-
I'm calling BS. You clearly haven't read ANY other contempory legal codes that existed in the region, or you'd know better.
Kassad84 said-
You got me there, I must admit I don't have any idea on other laws existing about the same timeframe. Nor do I honestly care or have the interest. I am not keen on disproving the Torah, Jews, Jesus, or God and am not actively looking for evidence to the contrary. Reading the old/new testament by themselves, I can confirm on my own conviction that they are a beneficial guide to one's life. But thanks for mentioning these authors. I might take a look in the future but I don't want to force it.
Of course you don't want to disprove it: you want to let your pre-accepted conclusion lead the actual evidence (and at least you're honest enough to admit that you want to believe what you want to believe). Hence you're not going to let little inconvenient things (like historical evidence and facts, or even understanding what your own Holy Bible says!) get in your way!
Kassad84 said-
BTW, I dont like that you come across as condescending. There's no need for that. Have a great day.
Maybe it's because of my JW past, but you know what I find even MORE condescending? Those who'd tell outright lies to others, and then excuse their deceit in the name of worship to their God(s). Sound familiar, like some religion you may have been a member of?
THAT'S what I call TRUE arrogance and condescending attitude, as if expecting others to accept their distortions and refusal to examine evidence, simply because believing in their falsehoods personally makes them feel better....
Adam
