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.

[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.