If You Get Raped, Or Become Endebted

[dairygirl4u2c]

note, slavery was a way back in the day to pay your debts

[quote](Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.[/quote]




[quote]if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."[/quote]


[quote]When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)[/quote]

[mod]If you want to reference the Bible, don't do so by linking to an anti-Catholic website.[/mod]



i know the robot response is to say these are all from the old testament. but, even so, it was still at one time God's way of doing things apparently...
so saying the old way isn't the new way doesn't explain how it could have ever been the old way to begin with.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Raphael

[dairygirl4u2c]

just for kicks...

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

[carrdero]

[quote]dairygirl4u2c writes: I know the robot response is to say these are all from the old testament. but, even so, it was still at one time God's way of doing things apparently...
so saying the old way isn't the new way doesn't explain how it could have ever been the old way to begin with.[/quote]
There are some people who proclaim that God does not change yet it is clearly defined in comparison to the Old Testament with the New Testament that this deity does indeed change it’s mind.
Another line of reasoning that doesn’t wash is that the God of the Old Testament kowtows to human culture which doesn’t really make sense either. It has been said that one should follow God not the other way around. God has been around since the beginning. Human culture comes and goes.

[kujo]

Hmmm....I don't see this as being the dictates of the Lord, but rather the Mosaic Law which, as Jesus points out in the Gospels, was given to man because of "the hardness of his heart."

I don't understand the need to post of any of that other than to diss the LORD without offering any context for any of it. Therefore, I must lovingly-state that you stink.

[Socrates]

This needs to be put into context.

The ancient Israelites were living in a society and under circumstances that were extremely different from our own.

While the law about a man being forced to marry a woman he rapes may seem lenient to the man and unjust to the woman to our modern ears, at the time it was a rather strict rule for the rapist. In most pagan cultures of the time, women were seen only as property and men could do whatever they liked with women, as long as they were strong enough to get away with it. Under this law, though, a rapist is required to commit himself to the woman for life, as well as pay a hefty sum to the family. Keep in mind, in the close-knit family structure of the time, this could involve being at the mercy of some rather harsh in-laws. This was a pretty good way to discourage wanton sexual predation in men.
The Israelites lived in a nomadic desert society, and there were no effective prisons. The only alternative punishment would have been death - yet ironically most of the liberals shocked at this rape law also like to howl about the death penalty.

Again, with slavery, this was the option for prisoners-of-war other than death at the time. The law actually placed restrictions on slavery (which was more a kind of indentured servitude), rather than have slaves be at the complete mercy of their captors as was common in the surrounding pagan world.

Dairy, have you ever read the who Bible straight through, rather than just reading snippets out of context on anti-religious websites?

Edited July 11, 2007 by Socrates

[MichaelF]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1323479' date='Jul 10 2007, 07:49 PM']There are some people who proclaim that God does not change yet it is clearly defined in comparison to the Old Testament with the New Testament that this deity does indeed change it’s mind.
Another line of reasoning that doesn’t wash is that the God of the Old Testament kowtows to human culture which doesn’t really make sense either. It has been said that one should follow God not the other way around. God has been around since the beginning. Human culture comes and goes.[/quote]

God changed the ground rules as the Salvific Process advanced. Chiefly, this is seen when comparing the pre- and post-Incarnation periods. However, note also the difference in scope and scale between the Noachide Laws and the Mosaic Laws.

Context is important. As is the fact that the Old Testament is properly viewed via the lens of the New Testament. We have a New Covenant.

Edited July 11, 2007 by MichaelF

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]i know the robot response is to say these are all from the old testament. but, even so, it was still at one time God's way of doing things apparently...
so saying the old way isn't the new way doesn't explain how it could have ever been the old way to begin with.[/quote]

notice the last post and socrates' post was predicted by me when i made my first post, quoted above.

things changed. that still doesn't explain why a woman would have to marry the rapist, just cause things were different back then.
as for socrates' post, there had to be other methods of punishment. are you saying that it was the only real option? either make them marry the rapist, or execute them?

Edited August 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Cure of Ars]

Couple of things to remember. 1. God did not give his revelation all at once. It developed as humans were better able to understand His revelation and it continues to develop to this day. The Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the New Testament. It was to prepare His people for the coming of Jesus 2. God did not demand His people to live to his standard all at once. In his mercy, God started where people were at, not where his justice demanded them to be. An example...

People naturally want to beat their enemies to the first punch. “Im going to get him before he gets me” It is also natural for people to want to hit back harder than they have been hit. This is really were the people were at during the Old Testament. God ratcheted things up when he set the standard to an “eye of an eye”. Is an “eye for an eye” the full revelation? Nope, but God did not call His people to make quantum leaps that they were not going to make. Jesus ratcheted up the standard again when he asking us to love our enemies. Our society does not live up to this although this is what God is calling us to do. This is such a high standard that it is still hard for us to understand.

If you look at the Old Testament it is really a dialog between God and his people. God calls them to something that is closer to him and the people try and fall away. God then calls them back and they try and they fall away. This happens over and over. But the morals standards in the Old Testament that you are having an issue with are a step closer to God’s justice. Did God’s justice change, no God still and always has demanded perfect justice, but through Jesus’ cross he was also able to bring mercy, without it no one can be saved.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Cure of Ars

[Paddington]

DairyG,

I'm glad you're back!

Paddington

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]God did not demand His people to live to his standard all at once. In his mercy, God started where people were at, not where his justice demanded them to be. An example...

People naturally want to beat their enemies to the first punch. “Im going to get him before he gets me” It is also natural for people to want to hit back harder than they have been hit. This is really were the people were at during the Old Testament. God ratcheted things up when he set the standard to an “eye of an eye”. Is an “eye for an eye” the full revelation? Nope, but God did not call His people to make quantum leaps that they were not going to make. Jesus ratcheted up the standard again when he asking us to love our enemies. Our society does not live up to this although this is what God is calling us to do. This is such a high standard that it is still hard for us to understand.

If you look at the Old Testament it is really a dialog between God and his people. God calls them to something that is closer to him and the people try and fall away. God then calls them back and they try and they fall away. This happens over and over. But the morals standards in the Old Testament that you are having an issue with are a step closer to God’s justice. Did God’s justice change, no God still and always has demanded perfect justice, but through Jesus’ cross he was also able to bring mercy, without it no one can be saved.[/quote]

this is a good post.

it starts getting into God justifying the ends with the means, though i don't think that's an absolute like most catholics do anyway.
i'll think about this post i gotta get going.

[XIX]

[quote name='kujo' post='1323577' date='Jul 10 2007, 07:41 PM']Hmmm....I don't see this as being the dictates of the Lord, but rather the Mosaic Law which, as Jesus points out in the Gospels, was given to man because of "the hardness of his heart."

I don't understand the need to post of any of that other than to diss the LORD without offering any context for any of it. Therefore, I must lovingly-state that you stink.[/quote]

[quote]Dairy, have you ever read the who Bible straight through, rather than just reading snippets out of context on anti-religious websites?[/quote]
Please, I mean this in all charity, but can we try to answer the question without resorting to personal attacks?

DairyGirl, as far as God using the end to justify means, I would say that there are parts of God's law tht He Himself does not have to follow. For example, we aren't supposed to judge other peoples' souls. God does that, does it make Him a hypocrite? No, it simply means that He is far more qualified and we are utterly unqualified to make judgments on others. Also, we can't take another person's life (except in self defense) while God has all authority to end life when He will it.

Similarly, one could argue that God has authority to use the end to justify the means, because he possesses the wisdom to know what the best action is. We do not.

Hope dat helps.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you're arguing that it's beyond us, which is an argument that i cannot necessarily accept, especially when it's apparent that it's a argument that does not follow.

if God says to hit instead of kill, he's justifying hte means. it's not beyond us. he's justifying hte means in his law.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's actually worse than justifying the means, as is typically thought of the phrase. the end is usually good. here, the end is simply not as bad.


i notice no one likes to seriously debate this issue. they'd rather avoid it.

Edited August 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Cure of Ars]

I have more things to say in regards to this topic. I thought that you were going to expand your comments because you said you didn't have time and was thinking about it. I don’t have time right now, but I should be able to give a response tonight after work [on lunch brake at the moment].


A quick question for you dairygirl4u2c:

Since we do not have all the data, is an alternative explanation possible in regards the Old Testaments problematic laws in regards to women?

Edited August 20, 2007 by Cure of Ars

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe. you'd have to explain yourself. as is, it appears that we have sufficient data to make a conclusion.

i guess it's not super clear if this was God or the human talking, and the bible is simply expounding on the clearly not good law of man. but, it sppears so far to be the law of God and that argument doesn't work, in this situation. this is an attack point against my argument if you got something.

not just feminine issues, i also find problem with how kids are told to be destroyed as well as their city. i do realize this gets into God said how he'd spare even 5 righteous in Sodom. How can he justify killing even the five though? I guess in the wisdom you might say they are bound to breed nothing good in the future, and it's better to stop the disease of hte town before it spreads. But, I'm still not sure, I'd have to think about that.