Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Christian · 03-08-2003, 06:03 AM

Deut 22:28-29 is also a "women's rights" law.

A man rapes a virgin. In that culture no one would be willing to marry her after that, and so she would live in shame with her parents for the rest of her life. After her parents died she might well have had noone to provide for her. And there were few career options for women back then. Prostitute or begger pretty much covered it.

So this horrible thing happens, a man rapes a virgin. What is then to be done about it? What would be the most corrective thing to do about the damage done in that cultural context? What is the most just and moral way to address such a horrible situation once it occurs?

Solution ... the man gets stuck with caring for her for the rest of his life. She becomes his wife (which he surely was not looking for) rather than merely being his victim. Instead of the parents having to provide for her in shame the rest of her life, she becomes the WIFE of this man. He's not going to rape very many virgins with this law being enforced. He would go broke very quickly doing so.

The "sexual predator's dream" is victimizing whoever they please with no consequences. Being forced to take responsibility for thier victims and to provide for them physically for the rest of their life is the sexual predator's nightmare.

Respectfully,

Christian

Lobstrosity · 03-08-2003, 06:21 AM

Wow...just wow. I'm honestly speechless. That's pretty disturbing, Christian.

Christian · 03-08-2003, 06:29 AM

Under the Mosaic Law the sacrifice offered to God had to be without blemish, and so did the priest offering the sacrifice. Visible things exert strong impressions on the minds of people. Any physical impurity or malformation tended to distract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. More importantly it failed to externally exemplify the inward wholeness God sought. And most importantly if failed to be a picture of Jesus Christ, the perfect High Priest to come.

The purpose of all of the Mosaic rituals of sacrifice were to point to the perfect sacrifice to come ... Jesus Christ. The Mosaic law was a symbol and a foreshadowing of the reality to come. It was fullfilled in Jesus, who was the unblemished and perfect sacrifice (Heb 7:26).

That is why the one testicled man could not be a priest.

This fact is irrelevant to David for several reasons. For one, he was not of the tribe of Levi (he was of the tribe of Judah). Therefore he didn't even make the first qualification of being a priest. Also, I'm pretty sure that David always had a priest do the actual sacrifices for him. And there was no tabernacle (of the design given and built by Moses) during David's reign. The sacred "assembly" or "congregation" would have been gathered outside the Tent of Meeting during Moses' day. The corresponding location during David's day would not have existed. So there would have been no problem with David staying away from a place that didn't exist at the time.

Respectfully,

Christian

doc58 · 03-08-2003, 06:33 AM

Christian,
I think it is amazing that you could write all of that and still feel like you justified such idiotic laws. How do you know that a "vast majority" of women bleed the first time they have sex? It is not true. Then you agreed that some do not and that they are heck out of luck. They just get killed unjustly.

Then you give the standard cultural justification on the rape thing.
I challenge you to think of all the options that an omnipotent God would have had in making a law covering rape of an unmarried women. How about this one. "If an unmarried women is raped, you shall cut off the rapists genitals and then cut off his head. The women shall be precious in my sight and I shall give her long life, riches and beauty and shall choose her a mate who will love her and they shall live happily ever after."
No problem for an omnimax God. He can dictate the culture, not bend his laws to accomodate a stupid culture.
Think of your own solutions.

Christian · 03-08-2003, 06:47 AM

Personally, I've never bought the idea that Luke's geneology is Mary's line. Basically for the same reason ya'll have pointed out ... the text says "Joseph the son of Heli." I'm not the brightest bulb in the room, but I can tell the difference between the name "Mary" and the name "Joseph."

The solution Eusebisius wrote about in the 4th century makes a lot more sense to me. You can read his detailed explaination here . It's a little more than half way down the page in the section entitled "Chapter VII. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ."

Basically he claims that Matthew gives the physical lineage and Luke gives the legal lineage. Under Jewish law if your brother died without children you had to take his wife as your own so that she might have children from you and your brother's line be thus preserved. I can't find the OT reference off hand, but the pharisees refer to this in Matt 22:23-28.

One genology gives the physical line down to Joseph, and one geneology gives the legal line down to Joseph.

Respectfully,

Christian.

Christian · 03-08-2003, 06:51 AM

Doc58,

If you want to speculate about how you think you could have done things better than God, then that's your perogative. I could persue your logic to it's absurdity, but then you would simply speculate in a different direction. That's an endless cycle that doesn't accomplish much.

My point is that the laws you are complaining about here are good and moral, and they in fact valued women and furthered their rights.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-08-2003, 07:08 AM

A short search on the internet found an article claiming that 20-25% of virgins do not bleed at first intercourse. So I'll refine "vast majority" to be "75%." I'd be happy to consider any evidence that supports a lower number.

Respectfully,

Christian

Lobstrosity · 03-08-2003, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
My point is that the laws you are complaining about here are good and moral, and they in fact valued women and furthered their rights.

How is legally sanctioning rape "good" and where did a woman have any rights? The man rapes the woman so the man has to marry the woman. Can you tell me where the woman is deciding anything. You could replace the word "woman" with "goat" and it would still work as a law, only this time, according to you, it would be fostering goats' rights. Your notions are absurd beyond belief and cause serious doubt to my faith in humanity.

Old Man · 03-08-2003, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie
Although Israel may have been advanced compared to the cultures around them, God has been around forever, so he should have been advanced enough to give his people better laws. That's what I think about that. It was this scripture about proving virginity that really did the Bible in for me. I determined that the Bible could not possibly be from God if something like that was in it.

And what alternative "virginity" test do you propose other than that contained in the bible?

Are you saying it was the fault of the Jews for not having advanced gynecological techniques?

So you are saying that God should have instituted some practice for establishing virginity that way quite beyond any scientific practicability?

The reason for these laws was as a deterent to whoredom. It stopped women for playing the harlot. Something that the modern occidental democracy has no answer to - a majority of women turn harlots even before they reach the age of consent in the UK.

These days "women rights" equate to "the right to play the whore". And the indulgence in, proclivity to, whoredom, is the principle reason why women cannot and will not believe in God.

The feminist today is antichrist in female guise, just as the deist/atheist is the antichrist in male guise.

Lobstrosity · 03-08-2003, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
So you are saying that God should have instituted some practice for establishing virginity that way quite beyond any scientific practicability?

Well, considering God is all-powerful, maybe the moron should have made virgins bleed 100% of the damn time.

Quote:

The reason for these laws was as a deterent to whoredome. It stopped women for playing the harlot. Something that the modern occidental democracy has no answer to - a majority of women turn harlots even before they reach the age of consent in the UK.

And the part about this that's bad is... Sorry, not seeing a stonable offense here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2003, 06:03 AM	#21
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Deut 22:28-29 is also a "women's rights" law. A man rapes a virgin. In that culture no one would be willing to marry her after that, and so she would live in shame with her parents for the rest of her life. After her parents died she might well have had noone to provide for her. And there were few career options for women back then. Prostitute or begger pretty much covered it. So this horrible thing happens, a man rapes a virgin. What is then to be done about it? What would be the most corrective thing to do about the damage done in that cultural context? What is the most just and moral way to address such a horrible situation once it occurs? Solution ... the man gets stuck with caring for her for the rest of his life. She becomes his wife (which he surely was not looking for) rather than merely being his victim. Instead of the parents having to provide for her in shame the rest of her life, she becomes the WIFE of this man. He's not going to rape very many virgins with this law being enforced. He would go broke very quickly doing so. The "sexual predator's dream" is victimizing whoever they please with no consequences. Being forced to take responsibility for thier victims and to provide for them physically for the rest of their life is the sexual predator's nightmare. Respectfully, Christian

03-08-2003, 06:21 AM	#22
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Wow...just wow. I'm honestly speechless. That's pretty disturbing, Christian.

03-08-2003, 06:29 AM	#23
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Under the Mosaic Law the sacrifice offered to God had to be without blemish, and so did the priest offering the sacrifice. Visible things exert strong impressions on the minds of people. Any physical impurity or malformation tended to distract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. More importantly it failed to externally exemplify the inward wholeness God sought. And most importantly if failed to be a picture of Jesus Christ, the perfect High Priest to come. The purpose of all of the Mosaic rituals of sacrifice were to point to the perfect sacrifice to come ... Jesus Christ. The Mosaic law was a symbol and a foreshadowing of the reality to come. It was fullfilled in Jesus, who was the unblemished and perfect sacrifice (Heb 7:26). That is why the one testicled man could not be a priest. This fact is irrelevant to David for several reasons. For one, he was not of the tribe of Levi (he was of the tribe of Judah). Therefore he didn't even make the first qualification of being a priest. Also, I'm pretty sure that David always had a priest do the actual sacrifices for him. And there was no tabernacle (of the design given and built by Moses) during David's reign. The sacred "assembly" or "congregation" would have been gathered outside the Tent of Meeting during Moses' day. The corresponding location during David's day would not have existed. So there would have been no problem with David staying away from a place that didn't exist at the time. Respectfully, Christian

03-08-2003, 06:33 AM	#24
doc58 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 101	Christian, I think it is amazing that you could write all of that and still feel like you justified such idiotic laws. How do you know that a "vast majority" of women bleed the first time they have sex? It is not true. Then you agreed that some do not and that they are heck out of luck. They just get killed unjustly. Then you give the standard cultural justification on the rape thing. I challenge you to think of all the options that an omnipotent God would have had in making a law covering rape of an unmarried women. How about this one. "If an unmarried women is raped, you shall cut off the rapists genitals and then cut off his head. The women shall be precious in my sight and I shall give her long life, riches and beauty and shall choose her a mate who will love her and they shall live happily ever after." No problem for an omnimax God. He can dictate the culture, not bend his laws to accomodate a stupid culture. Think of your own solutions.

03-08-2003, 06:47 AM	#25
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Personally, I've never bought the idea that Luke's geneology is Mary's line. Basically for the same reason ya'll have pointed out ... the text says "Joseph the son of Heli." I'm not the brightest bulb in the room, but I can tell the difference between the name "Mary" and the name "Joseph." The solution Eusebisius wrote about in the 4th century makes a lot more sense to me. You can read his detailed explaination here . It's a little more than half way down the page in the section entitled "Chapter VII. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ." Basically he claims that Matthew gives the physical lineage and Luke gives the legal lineage. Under Jewish law if your brother died without children you had to take his wife as your own so that she might have children from you and your brother's line be thus preserved. I can't find the OT reference off hand, but the pharisees refer to this in Matt 22:23-28. One genology gives the physical line down to Joseph, and one geneology gives the legal line down to Joseph. Respectfully, Christian.

03-08-2003, 06:51 AM	#26
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Doc58, If you want to speculate about how you think you could have done things better than God, then that's your perogative. I could persue your logic to it's absurdity, but then you would simply speculate in a different direction. That's an endless cycle that doesn't accomplish much. My point is that the laws you are complaining about here are good and moral, and they in fact valued women and furthered their rights. Respectfully, Christian

03-08-2003, 07:08 AM	#27
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	A short search on the internet found an article claiming that 20-25% of virgins do not bleed at first intercourse. So I'll refine "vast majority" to be "75%." I'd be happy to consider any evidence that supports a lower number. Respectfully, Christian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.