If You Get Raped, Or Become Endebted

[CatholicCid]

What would happen to a non-married, non-engaged, non-virgin woman at the time?

My thoughts w/out any real reading into:
In the time period, the role of the woman was to get married. That was what they were brought up to be. If no longer a virgin, they are somewhat seen as outcasts and even have their lives put to risk.
If raped, it would be much worse to find a husband for the woman as she is no longer a virgin. So, they make the man who raped her pay her father a dowery (sp?) and marry her.
This is not done out of pity or whatever for the man, however out of compassion for the woman.

And as Socrates said, women at the time were somewhat treated like property. I don't think you can just ignore the responses that state it was a different time period... because it was a different time period. It was a different culture with different laws and standards then our own.
You cannot judge the past by our own standards and expect them to make sense. You need to take into context the past (which I'm somewhat guessing at as it's been a while since I've studied into).

My question would be, can the Father reject the dowery (sp?) and not allow his daughter to marry the rapist? My take on the passage seems to leave somewhat the possibility that the woman does not have to marry the man (if the father rejects the dowery) but the man, however, is not given any option. He MUST marry her if the dowery is accepted.

Now, if you look at Deut 22:25-27, it seems to paint a different picture. The woman, who is promised to be married, is raped but no one stops it. Instead, the man is killed and nothing is done to the woman. The man does not have to pay a dowery or marry her, as she already has a marriage arranged. Instead, the man is killed.

Edited August 20, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Cure of Ars]

One of my earliest memories is watching tv while my parents wallpapered the room. I was probably around 5 years old. My dad had got a bag of M&M’s when he bought some of the wallpaper supplies. I remember my dad telling me that I needed to stop eating the M&M’s because I was going to get a stomach ache. I ignored him and kept eating. He told me again to stop eating because I was going to make myself sick. I have talked with my dad about this incident when I was an adult and he remembered it. He told me that I gave him a look that said, “you cheap ass”. My dad finally said, “Fine, eat as much as you want.” I got a terrible stomach ache that night. I can remember not being able to sleep and crying. I learned something from this and my dads words gained more weight after that night. My dad was telling me to stop for my own good.

We have a tendency to have to see for ourselves how things are. To take God’s word is not enough. We have to learn for ourselves. He tries to set things one way but we think we know a better way.

The following is from the Bible that gives an example of this....

[quote]Then I gave them my statutes and made known to them my ordinances, which everyone must keep, to have life through them. Ezeikiel 20:11

But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the desert. They did not observe my statutes, and they despised my ordinances that bring life to those who keep them. My sabbaths, too, they desecrated grievously. Then I thought of pouring out my fury on them in the desert to put an end to them. Ezeikiel 20:13

But their children rebelled against me: they did not observe my statutes or keep my ordinances that bring life to those who observe them, and my sabbaths they desecrated. Ezeikiel 20:21

Therefore I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances through which they could not live. I let them become defiled by their gifts, by their immolation of every first-born, so as to make them an object of horror. Ezeikiel 20:25-26[/quote]

The examples that you gave in regards to kids being destroyed along with the whole city I think fits into this category. It was called a "ban". Other cultures during the OT times would slaughter the whole city as a sacrifice to their god. [each area had a specific god] It was a show off thing. Our god is so great that he deserves the sacrifice of a whole city (Deut. 7:1,2) and our devotion is so strong that we do not take the spoils of war but offer them to God (Josh. 6:17). [ban means "devoted"] I believe that the Israelites got caught into this line of thought. They demanded showing God this devotion to show off how worthy their God was and how devoted they were even though God did not want this type of sacrifice.

[quote]“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” (Matthew 12:7)[/quote]

It is true that God is ultimately worth all the sacrifice of the world [a perfect one even Malachi 1:11] and it is also true that the Israelites don’t deserve any of the rewards but I don’t believe that this is what God ultimately wanted.

The Bible was not written by God possessing someone and writing for them or dictating word for word what to write. The holy Spirit inspires the author and the author uses his own culture and experiences to convey what God is saying. The ban was a half truth that foreshadowed the ultimate true and perfect sacrifice of the cross.

This gets also to the whole means and ends thing again. I will address this in the future along with some other thoughts. This is post is longer than I like at this point.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

Ok let me address the ends and the means argument.


It is sometimes hard to talk about spiritual things with people because different words mean different things to different people. This is especially true in regards to the word God. To some this word means a grey bearded guy up in the clouds. To others it means nothing because there is no recognized experience of God. Let me just say that God is the creator of the universe who is all good and just. He also wants to have a relationship with us and to make it possible for us to share in his own life, his own love.

Death is another word that is important. Death is the end of life. Life is good. The loss of a good is an evil and because of this death is evil. So why is there death if God is good?

God is like a magnet. As long as a piece of metal is connected with a magnet it has a strong magnetic field that passes through it and it has strength. But once a piece of metal breaks away from the magnet then it does not have this strength. It only has a week magnetic field that last a short time. This is like life in use. Humanity has broken away from God and because of this we all will die once our “magnetic” field runs out. This is why the Bible says that the wages of sin is death. God allowed death to make it possible for a greater good.

What is evil. Evil is really not a thing. It is an absence of good. God did not create evil although he allowed it to enter into the world because God gave us free will. We can choose to be separated from God or we can choose to love God.


Now there is three things God can do (from what I can see) in regards to humans and there choices to go against him. (Assuming he does not take a way our free will)

1. God could tolerate human evil actions. But by tolerating the actions he would be condoning it saying ultimately that it is not evil which is untrue or it would be him participating in evil. Which he can't do.

2. God could go straight for justice. With Death being an example, physical separation from God.

3. God could face the evil, admit it, but see beyond it and forgive. God could do this in his mercy but he is also totally Just. This is where Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins comes in.


God in the Old Testament through the New Testament does both options two and option three.

Finally there is the principle of double effect. There are some general rules for the principle of double effect.

The [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/"]New Catholic Encyclopedia[/url] provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).


So I would argue that God allowed development in the Old Testament Law (which is not an evil means due to double effect) with the end being the chance that we can participate in God’s own life and love.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1323713' date='Jul 10 2007, 08:48 PM']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.[/quote]
Be very careful about how you state this, especially with regard to the pre/post-Incarnation.

God did not change the rules, but he did introduce a new player. As is recorded in Matt. 5:17, Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfull it. The ground rules stayed the same, but Jesus was able to fulfill them as we alone never would have been able to do.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Terra Firma

[Anomaly]

dairy,
I'm not one to claim that my opinion is 'correct' since I don't claim to be Catholic and thusly, claim to have the 'infallible' response.

I believe that things change, not neccessarily God. Using God as a 'Father' example works quite well. For example, when I was 8, I related to my parents (who were in their late 40's) a certain way. When I was 38 with my own children, I related to my parents quite differently, but my parents were esentially the same, just had a few less kids living in the house. My parents did not have to enforce a rule about bed time or brushing my teeth at night.

Putting God in as the "parent", one could easily say that from the Old Testament to the New Testament humanity in general matured, and their relationship with God changed because we were more mature (due to knowledge and Grace of Jesus), but God did not essentially changed. The 'rule' that to brush your teeth after meals and before bed was no longer enforced by a 'parent figure', but we matured and understand the principles of hygeine and paying Dentist bills and regulate ourselves. With your scenario, the principle of forgiveness and not seeking 'vengance' is displayed in two different persepectives because of the difference in our relationship and understanding of God.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1368221' date='Aug 22 2007, 06:04 PM']dairy,
I'm not one to claim that my opinion is 'correct' since I don't claim to be Catholic and thusly, claim to have the 'infallible' response.[/quote]


I don’t claim that my arguments made here are ‘infallible’. As far as I know the Catholic Church has not made a definitive statement on this issue. A lot of it is speculation on my part but I believe it is true.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' post='1368337' date='Aug 22 2007, 09:39 PM']I don’t claim that my arguments made here are ‘infallible’. As far as I know the Catholic Church has not made a definitive statement on this issue. A lot of it is speculation on my part but I believe it is true.[/quote]LOL. Chill, thumper. I wasn't refering to any specific person, fictional or real.

[Cure of Ars]

sorry if I came off angry Edited August 23, 2007 by Cure of Ars

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' post='1368389' date='Aug 22 2007, 10:06 PM']

sorry if I came off angry[/quote]
No, you didn't seem angry, just not right.

I mean not right as in error, not wrong, or just not right.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the principle of double effect is frankly often a cop out. sometimes i think it could be legitimately used, like if you want to save the world and hitler is going to use a mega bomb to blow it up but hitler is in a building that is going to collapse, you are not killing him by not saving him even if you could without harm to yourself or anyone. the end was good of the world being saved.
then you get into other things like this example where it doesn't cut it. (or the classic example where it doesn't cut it, you cut out a phalopian tube, but don't kill the embryo in ecopic pregnancies and say you didn't kill the embryo but just "let it died". i think the end does justify the means in this case. and in cases where you simply have to do something evil to get a greater good, like robbing a store to appease a lunatic. if you were to say it's not really evil to begin with, i think this logic could be applied to most ends justifies the means situations and aht would go against the whole point of the ends justifies the means argument)
with all that as teh necessary background...

here it doesn't fly, cause God is saying.... "the rapist must marry the raper" he's not jus allowing it. or, "kill the innocent with the guilty" sure, he's not doing it himself, but he essentially is, or at least allowing others to justify the means. unless it wouldn't be wrong for me to say "go kill him so we can save them" but itwould be wrong for the person who actually kills him.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've also never heard of "the end doesn't justify the means... unless the means are the lesser of several evils, then it's okay, even if it's not the lowest evil" that's what the arguments here are.
that logic could be applied in so many situations that it would essentially negate the "end justifies the means aregunet"

i think people have to admit that the ends sometimes do justify the means, just not all the time. and whatever the case, the stuff in this thread of the OT isn't just justying any menas for a good end, but rather sheer brutality with no good ends. eg "marry the raper" "kill the good with the bad"

i remember budge one time ripping on catholics, saying that they think women shold be barefoot and dirty etc. but, if you read the quotes i posted, the bible says this very thing. her precious "infallible" bible, yea...


i remember when i was catho, i'd ignore these sorts of things. i'd say.... "well, i'll just assume that the bible is true for the sake of argument etc even though i'm wondering. right now i have to focus on the arguments against protestants". it was all just theory and ignoring the truth, for the sake of argument....
it'd be big if any would admit they were or are doing the same thing. i'd think i wasn't the only one.

Edited October 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"i'm not killing him to save them.... i'm simply putting him in a room where he has no food or water, and if you happens to die well..." is the same as cutting out the fallopian tube. is the same as many things.

[dairygirl4u2c]

whenever i want reassurance that many if not most christians have problems, i just look at this thread and threads similar to it.