Effects of Castration, chapt. 5
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2001 6:15 pm
V. AN ANCIENT BIBLICAL PRACTICE: Castration As an Act of War
Although biblical eunuchs have been mentioned, it would seem appropriate to explain castration as an act of war in biblical times.
It would not be difficult to quote passages of scripture relative to eunuchs and the practice of castration during biblical times.
The following strange reading will be found in verses 11 and 12 of the 25th chapter of Deuteronomy:
"When men strive together, one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets: Thou shalt cut of her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."
A man who is a scholar and scientist, and who has been a successful editor and publisher for nearly 40 years, Mr. Hugo Gernsback, editor of Radio-Craft (New York), had given the following explanation of the passage of scripture quoted:
"To understand the passage it should be noted that strive means war. In the biblical passage it is made clear that a faithless wife is trying to injure or castrate her husband, while he is fighting an adversary (who is getting the better of the fight) shall have her hand cut off.
"Why should a woman wish to mutilate her own husband? Remember that in biblical times, people were still quite savage. A passionate woman seeing her elderly husband was doomed in combat with a younger, handsomer and stronger man, never hesitated to help kill her own man to gain a new one."
In biblical days women went with their men to the fields of war and fought side by side with them. It was the practice of women, by using a sharp knife, to castrate as many of the enemy as possible. It may be observed that in numerous instances the rule of the enemy was applied to a woman's own husband. If then, the woman managed to remain in the camp of the enemy she did not suffer the loss of her hand. If she was taken to her own camp after an attempt (whether or not successful) to mutilate her own husband or a member of her tribe, "her hand was cut off. They did not pity her."
Even to the present, history records that men have continued to mutilate men - to castrate or completely remove the sexual organs of enemies - in war. Whether the practice arises from the ancient savage customs or as a result of biblical teaching, or both, is a matter for individual conjecture or opinion.
Laws, whether biblical or otherwise, and rules of war, are impotent to remedy sick minds - minds that continue to foster man's inhumanity to man. The remedy lies at the door of medicine - of geneticists, eugenists and educators. At these doors it must lie until legislators are required to pass rigid tests as to their qualifications to "make laws," and until the leprous hands of thin-brained censors are forever purged from the affairs of mankind.
Although biblical eunuchs have been mentioned, it would seem appropriate to explain castration as an act of war in biblical times.
It would not be difficult to quote passages of scripture relative to eunuchs and the practice of castration during biblical times.
The following strange reading will be found in verses 11 and 12 of the 25th chapter of Deuteronomy:
"When men strive together, one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets: Thou shalt cut of her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."
A man who is a scholar and scientist, and who has been a successful editor and publisher for nearly 40 years, Mr. Hugo Gernsback, editor of Radio-Craft (New York), had given the following explanation of the passage of scripture quoted:
"To understand the passage it should be noted that strive means war. In the biblical passage it is made clear that a faithless wife is trying to injure or castrate her husband, while he is fighting an adversary (who is getting the better of the fight) shall have her hand cut off.
"Why should a woman wish to mutilate her own husband? Remember that in biblical times, people were still quite savage. A passionate woman seeing her elderly husband was doomed in combat with a younger, handsomer and stronger man, never hesitated to help kill her own man to gain a new one."
In biblical days women went with their men to the fields of war and fought side by side with them. It was the practice of women, by using a sharp knife, to castrate as many of the enemy as possible. It may be observed that in numerous instances the rule of the enemy was applied to a woman's own husband. If then, the woman managed to remain in the camp of the enemy she did not suffer the loss of her hand. If she was taken to her own camp after an attempt (whether or not successful) to mutilate her own husband or a member of her tribe, "her hand was cut off. They did not pity her."
Even to the present, history records that men have continued to mutilate men - to castrate or completely remove the sexual organs of enemies - in war. Whether the practice arises from the ancient savage customs or as a result of biblical teaching, or both, is a matter for individual conjecture or opinion.
Laws, whether biblical or otherwise, and rules of war, are impotent to remedy sick minds - minds that continue to foster man's inhumanity to man. The remedy lies at the door of medicine - of geneticists, eugenists and educators. At these doors it must lie until legislators are required to pass rigid tests as to their qualifications to "make laws," and until the leprous hands of thin-brained censors are forever purged from the affairs of mankind.