was it rape?

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 15 2005, 01:42 PM']BTW, let's all welcome Catholic author Steve Kellmeyer to the phorum.  My apologies if I've "blown your cover".[/quote]

Well, it ain't much of a cover, so that's ok.

[quote]Actually, when I worked in the food service industry as a cook, we were trained that pork was one of the foods that had to be prepared properly and utensils and surfaces sanitized.  In the OT, it is very possible that the people had not yet mastered how to properly prepare such foods.  And it is also interesting to note that the foods listed in the OT as unclean are also considered today to be dangerous [i]if not cooked properly[/i] (shellfish, for example).

As far as to why other ancient cultures eating pork, we must also remember that God expressed to Abraham that his descendants were to be as numerous as the stars, so in the OT time of salvation history, a numerous Jewish people was necessary, so keeping them healthy and safe was important, so we must keep that in mind when we read the ancient OT laws that may make no sense to us today.

(In fact, one priest in a homily mentioned that if the people in the middle ages kept the OT dietary laws, more would have survived.)
[right][snapback]724378[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing that pork has issues. My point is that the reasons the Israelites uniquely refused to eat pork had little to do with sanitation. It had everything to do with what God commanded.

Focusing on the sanitation issues in 300 B.C. Israel is like saying Catholics in medieval time had a low incidence of extramarital sex and pregancy because they wanted to avoid disease. No, actually those rates were low because fornication is a SIN and the medievals KNEW IT!

They weren't thinking, "Wow, I wish someone would invent the condom so I don't catch an STD!" They were thinking, "Wow, if I have sex without marrying her first, I'm going to hell."

I can't count the number of modern secular atheists who study medieval history and are absolutely perplexed about the low incidence of sex outside of marriage. They say things like, "The marriage age in urban areas of Victorian England was a median of 32 years of age for men and 25 years of age for women, but less than 2% of the women between 15 and 25 were unwed mothers. Further study is needed to discover why individuals in this era seemed to postpone sexual activity for so long."

Talk about blind guides.

Marriage law in nearly every European country allowed 12-year old marriage. Some societies took advantage of that (Mexico and the American colonies), others did not (urban centers in Victorian England). But it was always legal.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 15 2005, 01:45 PM']Well, I don't know the death statistics of other ancient cultures, and if there were deaths from trichinosis, they may not have known it as trichinosis at the time.  But you are correct, I'm not privy to the mind of God, but considering that God is the Creator of the natural world and as such knows how the natural world works, I would not surprised to find out that God would communicate to His people what could potentially be unsafe to eat at the time.
[right][snapback]724431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Butthat is not what was being put forth it was contended that it was immoral because it was not safe, not because it was commanded by God, which Is what I and others are saying.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 15 2005, 01:47 PM']
I'm not disagreeing that pork has issues. My point is that the reasons the Israelites uniquely refused to eat pork had little to do with sanitation. It had everything to do with what God commanded.

Focusing on the sanitation issues in 300 B.C. Israel is like saying Catholics in medieval time had a low incidence of extramarital sex and pregancy because they wanted to avoid disease. No, actually those rates were low because fornication is a SIN and the medievals KNEW IT! 

They weren't thinking, "Wow, I wish someone would invent the condom so I don't catch an STD!" They were thinking, "Wow, if I have sex without marrying her first, I'm going to hell."

I can't count the number of modern secular atheists who study medieval history and are absolutely perplexed about the low incidence of sex outside of marriage.  They say things like, "The marriage age in urban areas of Victorian England was a median of 32 years of age for men and 25 years of age for women, but less than 2% of the women between 15 and 25 were unwed mothers. Further study is needed to discover why individuals in this era seemed to postpone sexual activity for so long."

Talk about blind guides.

Marriage law in nearly every European country allowed 12-year old marriage. Some societies took advantage of that (Mexico and the American colonies), others did not (urban centers in Victorian England). But it was always legal.
[right][snapback]724437[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, my position is that God knew what foods had "issues" at the time and I am speculating as to why some were communicated as unclean by Him. I actually see this as opposite as to what modern scripture deconstructiuonalists are trying to accomplish - that God in His infinite wisdom knows what is best for His people and that He told us through His law and as such faith and reason and science actually go hand in hand instead of being opposing forces as the modern secularists try to contend.

We also need to understand that even though it was considered sinful to eat the unclean foods in OT times, it was not due to something [i]intrinsically [/i] evil as is sexual sin. That is why I do not mix comparisons between dietary laws and sexual morality.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 12:54 PM'][quote]
It couldn't be processed properly to be safe? What are you talking about the entire rest of the world could process it just fine, pork being eaten safly requires a very special technique called ---- wait for it--- cooking. Yes the secret is reveled, pork must be cooked to be safe. Are you saying the jews couldn't cook?
[right][snapback]724384[/snapback][/right][/quote]
[/quote]

Do you listen to your wife this well at home too?


[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 12:57 PM']Trichinella larva are killed at 137 degrees Farenheit, all that is required to make pork safe is cooking it.
[right][snapback]724385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Recommendations from the CDC

[quote]Trichinella is killed when pork is frozen at minus 5 degrees F for 25 days OR to minus 22 degrees F for 25 hours.[/quote]

Also
[quote]"Cooking is one of the most common methods of assuring that ‘Trichinella’ are destroyed; a temperature of 170 F (77 C) substantially exceeds the thermal death point and is usually achieved if the meat is cooked until it is no longer pink " [/quote]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 01:50 PM']Butthat is not what was being put forth it was contended that it was immoral because it was not safe, not because it was commanded by God, which Is what I and others are saying.
[right][snapback]724444[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't dispute that at all. I'm just speculating (in 50-50 hindsight after noticing that the list of unclean foods in the OT roughly coincides to much of what modern science considers dangerous if not cooked properly) as to why God communicated it as immoral (not in the sense that that I'm trying to claim to speak for God, but rather in a sense of awe that God communicates to us what is good for us and that we should trust Him and His word).

Please also keep in mind that in Acts God declared all foods clean; He did not revoke laws against sexual immorality.

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 15 2005, 03:04 PM']We also need to understand that even though it was considered sinful to eat the unclean foods in OT times, it was not due to something [i]intrinsically [/i] evil as is sexual sin.  That is why I do not mix comparisons between dietary laws and sexual morality.
[right][snapback]724468[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

AFAIK, the Hebrew faith does not distinguish intrinsic evil from dietary evil. Any breaking of the law, even in its smallest detail, is evil.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 15 2005, 02:07 PM']
[/quote]

Do you listen to your wife this well at home too?
Recommendations from the CDC
Also
[right][snapback]724473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[QUOTE]Cooking is one of the most common methods of assuring that ‘Trichinella’ are destroyed; [color=red]a temperature of 170 F (77 C) substantially exceeds the thermal death point [/color]and is usually achieved if the meat is cooked until it is no longer pink " [/QUOTE]

substantially exceeds the thermal death point, because that point is 137 degrees. And so my point agian is that the jews new how to cook, God could have just as easily said that pork had to be cooked until there was no trace of blood, or what ever, regardless there was and is nothing intrisicly wrong with eating pork it was only so as a matter of disobediance.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Do you listen to your wife this well at home too?[/quote]

yeah aabout like that. :

but in this case I didn't se her post until after I had posted.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 02:29 PM']yeah  aabout like that. :

but in this case I didn't se her post until after I had posted.
[right][snapback]724518[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm guessing you guys go through a bunch of tuna fish and crackers then

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 15 2005, 03:13 PM']I'm  guessing you guys go through a bunch of tuna fish and crackers then 
[right][snapback]724545[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



NA I just do a lot of cooking :

[Jaime]

LOL

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 03:15 PM']NA I just do a lot of cooking :
[right][snapback]724547[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think you meant to post that in this thread???

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39050"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39050[/url]

















J/K

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 15 2005, 01:17 AM']in response to Socrates, I was critiqueing our entire culture, including the part that raises children to not be ready, including the economic part that makes it nearly impossible for them to be financially prepared, including the entire society that produces these things you cite as reasons people should not be married so young.

people were able to be mature enough in other eras, and they still are in other cultures.  that is because the family raised them to be prepared by that point.  that is because the society was conducive to them being able to be financially prepared at that point.  Our culture transgresses natural law by not preparing our children to be ready for marriage sooner to their sexual maturity.
[right][snapback]724036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Forget the economic part of my post for a bit. I would actually hold that as the least important part of my critique of 12 year olds getting married. Even if 12-year-olds had a source of sufficient wealth or income (such as rich families) they would still lack the necessary maturity to raise a family. Most would lack the maturity to manage or spend their money responsibly.

Look around at any twelve-year-olds. Do you really think they are ready to start a family? They are far from mature psychologically or even physically. Science shows that the brain, particularly the part responsible for rational decision making, does not fully mature until the twenties.
And while many have pointed out the dangers associated with having children late in life, there are alos physical risks associated with very young motherhood.

While you will probably argue that all this is because of "cultural conditioning," any casual observation fo real twelve-year-olds will tell you that these are not adults. I'd agree that kids should be taught more responsibility, but I do not think this would justify twelve-year-olds getting married.

And for those arguing that kids should be marrying and having sex as soon as physically possible, would this mean because of the increasingly early onset of puberty (caused by hormones and chemicals), prematurely pubescent eight or nine year olds should be getting hitched? And if postponing sex is wrong because it is "unnatural," then would you argue against celibacy for priests or religious as unnatural? God forbid that people people should have to restrain their natural urges!

Forget ideology for a second, and look at the real world. Do you think your twelve-year-old sisters or brothers are ready for marriage? If you have a twelve-year-old daughter, would you want her getting married at that age? What would you say to some guy who wanted to marry her? Would you trust her maturity to make a life-long decision at this point?
Would you really think an older man wanting to marry your twelve year old daughter would be likely motivated out of pure love, or would you consider him a creep trying to take advantage of a child? Wuold you have wanted to be raised by young teenage parents?

Anwer these questions honestly or not at all. Think about it.

I guess I've said all I want to say about this, but I honestly find it really disturbing that so many here are arguing for pubescent marriage. If I was a newby, I might have wondered if I'd stumbled into a pedophile forum.

Y'all can go back to arguing about eating pork.

[Thumper]

NB: This is not DJ's entire quote--sorry I haven't figured out how to "snip" yet.

At any rate:

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 14 2005, 11:52 PM']
I think the age of majorty should probably be 16 instead of 18 but that is a differnant arguement.  To answer the specifics of your question I think that it is quite irrelevant because there is no issue at all here  about her ability to give consent, if he were 16  and she 14 ( which would nhave made him 15 when they had sex ) this wouldn't be an issue at all. This has to do with age differance which is a BS cultural distinction.
[/quote]


So, you think the age of majority should be 16 instead of 18. OK. Why wait until 16? Why not earlier? By arguing for an age of majority, are you not saying that there is a difference in maturity (and thus the capacity to give consent) between being a minor and being an adult?

It seems to me that the adult has a different responsibility for asking a 13 year old to engage in sexual intercourse (without the benefits of marriage and parental consent) than would a fellow 13 year old.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Thumper' date='Sep 15 2005, 05:16 PM']NB:  This is not DJ's entire quote--sorry I haven't figured out how to "snip" yet. 

At any rate: 
So, you think the age of majority should be 16 instead of 18.  OK.  Why wait until 16?  Why not earlier?  By arguing for an age of majority, are you not saying that there is a difference in maturity (and thus the capacity to give consent) between being a minor and being an adult? 

It seems to me that the adult has a different responsibility for asking a 13 year old to engage in sexual intercourse (without the benefits of marriage and parental consent) than would a fellow 13 year old.
[right][snapback]724743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But once agian I never said that he wasn't guilty of stautory rape, I said that the marriage was fine, and that the act was not one of pedophilia. As for the adult vs. 13 year old question no, I don't think that is necessarly so, so 13 year olds are adults, and all of the know right and wrong. All of them that are not insane of course. Ithink the trend to excuse 13 and 14 year olds from there decision is detrimental to society in general and to said teenagers in the particular as well. Now to why there should be an age of majority, because there has to be some point at which we say that you are an adult, our society does not have the capacity to fairly judge such things on a case by case basis. A parent does have such a capacity and can therefore consent to a marraige of someone who has not reached that arbitrary age. They can then allow that person to marry and therefore become an adult legally.