HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 This is not exactly meant to be a debate, but arguments will probably occur so I thought it best to put it in Debate Table. Basically, when I was doing some research on head coverings, I found this website which lists "How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women" (to quote the title). If you scroll down you will find another link that will lead you to "Old Testament passages describing women in negative terms; as equal to men; & as leaders." I know that a lot of the members here are very knowledgeable when it comes to Scripture, so I was hoping someone could help me figure this out. Here are a couple: [b] In [u]Leviticus 18:20[/u] adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.[/b] [b][u]Leviticus 27:6[/u] A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."[/b] [b][u]Numbers 30[/u] describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.[/b] [b][u]Deuteronomy 22:28-29[/u] requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."[/b] Link: [url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Parents can still nullify the contracts of minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1836812' date='Apr 15 2009, 11:49 PM'][b][u]Deuteronomy 22:28-29[/u] requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."[/b][/quote] This law was intended to protect women. In that culture, if a woman was known to be not a virgin, it would be difficult for her to find a husband, and an unmarried woman's life would be very very hard. Forcing the rapist to marry his victim was a way of limiting the damage done to the woman. It was also a de-incentive for rape. A man who had to marry his victim might think twice before committing the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I heard some messed up story on t.v. once about a woman who had been molested at the age of fourteen by this guy that was high on cocaine. Then fifteen years later, even though the guy knew that she was his victim, he married her without her knowing about him being the one that caused her that trauma. When she discovered this, we went onto a talk show about it, how horrible it was for her to married to the man who did that to her, this only hurt her more. They even had a little boy together. Just imagine telling your son about how you and your bride met! He claimed that he married her because he fell in love with her and he wanted to take care of her. It really sickened me and bothered me for days after I first watched it.I don't remember what the name of that show was. I know that there is the cultural thing, it's just that you know...it's just disturbing to think about. Considering how incredibly difficult it is just to go through a rape itself, just think of what it would be like to have your rapist being with you day in and day out as your HUSBAND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The understandings of women in these passages are reflective of attitudes held towards women for most of history, so I don't think it is unique to religion or the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='tinytherese' post='1836956' date='Apr 16 2009, 01:27 AM']I heard some messed up story on t.v. once about a woman who had been molested at the age of fourteen by this guy that was high on cocaine. Then fifteen years later, even though the guy knew that she was his victim, he married her without her knowing about him being the one that caused her that trauma. When she discovered this, we went onto a talk show about it, how horrible it was for her to married to the man who did that to her, this only hurt her more. They even had a little boy together. Just imagine telling your son about how you and your bride met! He claimed that he married her because he fell in love with her and he wanted to take care of her. It really sickened me and bothered me for days after I first watched it.I don't remember what the name of that show was. I know that there is the cultural thing, it's just that you know...it's just disturbing to think about. Considering how incredibly difficult it is just to go through a rape itself, just think of what it would be like to have your rapist being with you day in and day out as your HUSBAND.[/quote] The attitude was different back then. Rape was considered a horrible crime not because it was an awful experience for the woman, but because it stole from her the future which was rightly hers, as a wife and mother ... very few men would choose to marry someone who'd been with another man, even against her will. An unmarried woman was very vulnerable in this society. Hence the numerous admonitions in the Bible to pity widows. I am thinking about how Kind David raped Bathsheba. He did marry her, later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1836978' date='Apr 16 2009, 12:54 AM']The attitude was different back then. Rape was considered a horrible crime not because it was an awful experience for the woman, but because it stole from her the future which was rightly hers, as a wife and mother ... very few men would choose to marry someone who'd been with another man, even against her will. An unmarried woman was very vulnerable in this society. Hence the numerous admonitions in the Bible to pity widows. I am thinking about how Kind David raped Bathsheba. He did marry her, later on.[/quote] Due to this "punishment" the rapist has a better chance of [i]not[/i] getting caught - unless someone walks in on the act. What woman would go to the authorities of that time and state that she was raped if she KNEW that she would be forced to marry the man who violated her? And she would not only be marrying him, she would be having children with him and would be [i]submitting[/i] to him. She would do better to stay quiet (and unfortunately let the rapist get away with it) because then (1) she would not be forced to marry him and (2) no man within her society would know that she was no longer a virgin. And I think it is safe to say that no matter what time period or society you are from, being raped is a very traumatic experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='Justified Saint' post='1836964' date='Apr 16 2009, 12:35 AM']The understandings of women in these passages are reflective of attitudes held towards women for most of history, so I don't think it is unique to religion or the Bible.[/quote] But Sacred Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, right? Should we still be following these "rules"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The Bible is not only a rulebook of course. It is many other things, and when it comes to the OT, especially, it is a history, albeit a sacred history. The historical and cultural practices of one time period could hardly be considered rules binding on all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837230' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:57 AM']Due to this "punishment" the rapist has a better chance of [i]not[/i] getting caught - unless someone walks in on the act. What woman would go to the authorities of that time and state that she was raped if she KNEW that she would be forced to marry the man who violated her? And she would not only be marrying him, she would be having children with him and would be [i]submitting[/i] to him. She would do better to stay quiet (and unfortunately let the rapist get away with it) because then (1) she would not be forced to marry him and (2) no man within her society would know that she was no longer a virgin. And I think it is safe to say that no matter what time period or society you are from, being raped is a very traumatic experience.[/quote] No, this law does not make it more likely for the rapist to avoid being caught. The culture makes it more likely for the rapist to avoid being caught. Requiring rapists to marry their victim has nothing to do with whether or not a woman reports a rape. The women of that time were less concerned with having to marry their attacker and more concerned that they would be publicly dishonored and ruined for life. Many Old Testament Laws are like this. They seem harsh, but they are designed to put limits on evil. "Eye for an eye" was put in place to limit the scale of vengeance and blood feuds. All people in all times would agree that having a rapist marry his victim is an evil. The culture which produced this law would say that it would be a worse evil for the woman to be without any husband at all. It would be allowing the rapist to victimize her twice. It would also rob the woman of the opportunity to be a mother. The covenant is only passed through women, and in many ways a woman did not become a full "Jewess" until she'd given birth. This is offensive to our modern sensibilities. In our day and age, physical virginity is not as important; neither is childbirth. And in any case, women can support themselves. But this law was created when being an "old maid" was a prescription for destitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='Justified Saint' post='1837246' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:20 AM']The Bible is not only a rulebook of course. It is many other things, and when it comes to the OT, especially, it is a history, albeit a sacred history. The historical and cultural practices of one time period could hardly be considered rules binding on all.[/quote] Which makes me think about the thread regarding head coverings - back then it was historical and cultural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1837253' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:27 AM']No, this law does not make it more likely for the rapist to avoid being caught. The culture makes it more likely for the rapist to avoid being caught. Requiring rapists to marry their victim has nothing to do with whether or not a woman reports a rape. The women of that time were less concerned with having to marry their attacker and more concerned that they would be publicly dishonored and ruined for life. Many Old Testament Laws are like this. They seem harsh, but they are designed to put limits on evil. "Eye for an eye" was put in place to limit the scale of vengeance and blood feuds. All people in all times would agree that having a rapist marry his victim is an evil. The culture which produced this law would say that it would be a worse evil for the woman to be without any husband at all. It would be allowing the rapist to victimize her twice. It would also rob the woman of the opportunity to be a mother. The covenant is only passed through women, and in many ways a woman did not become a full "Jewess" until she'd given birth. This is offensive to our modern sensibilities. In our day and age, physical virginity is not as important; neither is childbirth. And in any case, women can support themselves. But this law was created when being an "old maid" was a prescription for destitution.[/quote] You seem to have a lot of insight. Can you try and address the others I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 So a woman covering her head because of the presence of the holy angels in the liturgy is a historically conditioned thing? Interesting. In the Byzantine tradition it is still believed that the holy angels are present when the divine liturgy is celebrated, but perhaps that belief no longer exists in the modern Roman Rite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837600' date='Apr 16 2009, 05:43 PM']So a woman covering her head because of the presence of the holy angels in the liturgy is a historically conditioned thing? Interesting. In the Byzantine tradition it is still believed that the holy angels are present when the divine liturgy is celebrated, but perhaps that belief no longer exists in the modern Roman Rite.[/quote] This discussion is not "East" versus "West." Furthermore, we really should all be unified as Catholics and not pick each other to shreds over two different traditions. I do not appreciate the blatant insult against the Roman Rite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1837603' date='Apr 16 2009, 06:48 PM']This discussion is not "East" versus "West." Furthermore, we really should all be unified as Catholics and not pick each other to shreds over two different traditions. I do not appreciate the blatant insult against the Roman Rite.[/quote] It wasn't an insult it was a comment. Appy I was taught that when I was little, but never heard it referred to since then in any teaching on the Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now