God's Favor?

[amadeus]

Read other parts . If GOD says one thing it stands . Instead of hatred against the truth . Seek THE TRUTH
and find it you will . I will be praying for you . JESUS CHRIST is truly the only name where by one can be saved .
If we dont have him we have no salvation . Nor will we ever see the rightly divided truth .
You have a anger inside of you . A bitterness against the truth . Only Christ can set you free and give you salvation .
And that brings great joy and much hope .

Only God always knows all of the answers to every question anyone could ask. Sometimes he reveals the answer and sometimes He does not. Even though we have some knowledge, we do not live for God by knowledge but by faith. There are times to be silent even if we actually know the answer. Jesus did this. Sometimes we need to do this. Remember that only God gives the increase to people who could use an increase, but I doubt that He always does it just satisfy a person's curiosity or to prove or disprove what a person believes.

Some people are likely lacking some answers when they die, but still are pleasing to God. One would be King David, considered by many the greatest of the Kings of Israel. Yet, David was engaged in polygamy, which in both the OT and the NT might be shown to be a less than pleasing situation or way to behave. But... in spite of that apparent error on his part David was called the apple of the eye of God and a man after God's own heart. When we begin to understand the reasons for that, maybe we can begin to understand why someone who is not really seeking the truth is given instead of a clear explanation a road block or an uninterpreted parable. God knows why. He may not share His answer with everyone.

 

[POI]

but this was the scripture you chose. why? arent there other topics that interest you?

My objective here is not to discuss topics for which we would all agree. That would be nothing more than existing in an 'echo chamber'. Of course the Bible makes some seemingly good points.

Please note what the term apologetics means:

"Reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine."

I'm here to address the Verses which do not seem so 'good'. You know, the ones never discussed or mentioned in passing. It's only if all these passages too, can survive scrutiny, you can then continue to confidently "preach the good Word..."

I ask you anew:

A single female virgin is coerced, raped, seduced, or other. Heck, she is even seen crying out. Based upon the Bible, the resolution is as follows:

A: The rapist pays the father, and also marries her. Under the contract of marriage, the female submits to the male.
B: The rapist pays the father. The father does not also grant consent for the rapist to marry his daughter. After the rapist pays the father, the rapist is free to leave. The rapist can then possibly rinse/repeat with another victim.

I have receipts for all the above, via the OP cited Verses.

Care to engage now? If not, why not? Why hang out in an echo chamber?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hello all,

Recently, I was engaged in a debate, elsewhere with several interlocutors, regarding Verses Deuteronomy 22:28-29. After much back and forth, this was the conclusion drawn, at least by me...?

When this passage was written, women's right's were quite restricted in society. Women needed to marry men, or to remain with their fathers for financial stability. Prior to marriage, the women remained with their father's, where applicable. If a women was known to have relations with a male, prior to marriage, she was considered unworthy of marriage by any other potential mate. And thus, the father could never 'give her away'. And hence, would remain financially responsible for her, for life. A woman's consent, prior to marriage, was likely granted by the father, not the woman. And after marriage, under the contract of Biblical marriage, the woman was then to submit to the husband. Sure, the husband was to fulfill his role in the marriage, but the woman answered to the man. Two notable Verses to reference would be (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3). Some would bring up Exodus 22:16-17, as a defense. However, the Verses speak about possible seduction, and not rape. Hence, what constitutes 'rape', verses not 'rape'? And furthermore, was the price, for which the male was to pay, enough to sustain the father's financial obligation to support his daughter for life?

Having established the above, this is essentially where the prior debate left off, at least for me. Why? It started to go off the rails from there....

Moving forward, I would like to explore the following point...

In light of the given passage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), seems as though God's favor was to protect the father more-so than the female victim. Why? Seems as though God's favor was to assure the father is compensated over and above seeking 'justice' for the rape victim. If the female was raped, seems as though her only available options were:

a: The father keeps her, and no other man will ever marry her, (because she is not a virgin).
b: Hand her over to her 'rapist', or the one whom 'seduced' her, where the woman is to submit, under the contract of Biblical marriage, (Ephesians 5:22-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3).

What is your take on this seemingly precarious predicament?

Greetings.

I'm not certain the father was the central focus. To me the law spoke to the seriousness God placed upon two people becoming one flesh through sexual intercourse, even when it was without consent, something that is not taken with much seriousness in most of Western society today.

As for avoiding a terrible injustice being done to them, I'm guessing young virgins were not generally in the habit of being out in the fields alone in light of such laws.

 

[POI]

Greetings.
I'm not certain the father was the central focus.

In the given situation, there exists three possible interactive or integral participants.

1. The single virgin female
2. The male whom had relations with her (in rape, coercion, seduction, other)
3. The father of the single virgin female

If the father was not the 'central focus', then who else was? We know the single virgin female was not considered, right? Her consent is never merited in this equation/situation. I guess that leaves the rapist? If the 'central focus' was the rapist, what was his punishment exactly? Seems as though it was to pay the father and marry the victim. And/or, pay the father, and then possibly leave free; as the father needed to grant consent and give away his daughter to him.

To me the law spoke to the seriousness God placed upon two people becoming one flesh through sexual intercourse, even when it was without consent, something that is not taken with much seriousness in most of Western society today.

Okay, so if the sex was not consensual, then the woman is still bound to the rapist by marriage??? Please elaborate?

As for avoiding a terrible injustice being done to them, I'm guessing young virgins were not generally in the habit of being out in the fields alone in light of such laws.

True, but the law was made for a reason. Surely, God would not instruct a law, where such a situation would never happen anyways, right? It would be a waste of everyone's time to know this law.

 

[lilygrace]

well this would all not be a good conversation to have on a date or at a dinner table.

 

[Hidden In Him]

If the father was not the 'central focus', then who else was?

The woman and the man, as stated.

Not to be rude, but I read some of your other responses, and while you seem to be polite enough (to your credit), on the down side you don't seem to read the responses you are given very closely, forcing people to have to repeat themselves.

I'm generally not into debate merely for debate's sake, so I'll bow out as quickly as I entered, but I just thought I'd give you a heads up. Take their responses into consideration enough to where you understand what they are saying. If not, you'll give them the impression that it may be a one-way conversation, and they will lose interest.

God bless,
HiH

 

[POI]

well this would all not be a good conversation to have on a date or at a dinner table.

I would appreciate your input to my current synopsis. I'm placing a lot of stuff out there. Please hack away at it, if you feel you can I would love to be proven wrong

 

[lilygrace]

well im not interested in an argument that seems to repeat itself. i am also not trying to be mean. if you are truly seeking God i hope you find him. he is a rewarder of those who seek him. hebrews 11: 6

 

[POI]

The woman and the man, as stated.

Not to be rude, but I read some of your other responses, and while you seem to be polite enough (to your credit), on the down side you don't seem to read the responses you are given very closely, forcing people to have to repeat themselves.

I'm generally not into debate merely for debate's sake, so I'll bow out as quickly as I entered, but I just thought I'd give you a heads up. Take their responses into consideration enough to where you understand what they are saying. If not, you'll give them the impression that it may be a one-way conversation, and they will lose interest.

God bless,
HiH

On the contrary, I feel I have to repeat myself, because they are not taking what I have stated into consideration. I feel I have addressed all given concerns, more than once.

I have a feeling that you may be, in part, bowing out because maybe I'm making some points which seem uncomfortable for you? Am I close?

As I've told all here, my OP is in regards to the single female virgins. Not the raped engaged or married females.

If this is your last response, please let me leave you with a brief exchange I've had with another....

One interlocutor stated the given law was placed as a deterrent. He stated it was put in place so that no one would touch a virgin female, because then they would be legally bound to them for life. For which I responded... Sure, it would be a deterrent for the women he did not want to marry, but a license for the one he did want to marry; as her consent was not necessary (under such a loophole law). If he liked a female single virgin, and she did not reciprocate, or the father did not approve of him, maybe just rape her?

I'll leave you with the above scenario as food for thought...

Peace

 

[Hidden In Him]

I have a feeling that you may be, in part, bowing out because maybe I'm making some points which seem uncomfortable for you? Am I close?

No.

 

[POI]

well im not interested in an argument that seems to repeat itself. i am also not trying to be mean. if you are truly seeking God i hope you find him. he is a rewarder of those who seek him. hebrews 11: 6

Kool. No problem, I guess enjoy repeating the Verses you like, over and over again

I've only repeated criteria for which people ignore. Seems as though no one here wants to address them. I find this arena does not seem to be a true apologetics forum, but is instead an echo chamber of believers reaffirming Verse and sayings they like.

O well....

Maybe I'll try an actual apologetcis debate forum, where skeptics come to challenge the believer's faith?

 

[lilygrace]

im probably the only one who hasnt yet posted a bible verse btw.... take care.

 

[TLHKAJ]

For those who desire to understand from a genuine heart....this is an example of why I use the KJV. Other versions leave out huge portions of scripture, change and twist and distort meanings, and even leave out entire verses.

 

[Wrangler]

In light of the given passage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), seems as though God's favor was to protect the father more-so than the female victim. Why?

Marrying for love is a modern concept. The historical purpose of marriage was transfer of wealth through generations. Women were considered property of the man (either father or husband). A women who lost her virginity by any means dramatically lowers her SEXUAL MARKET VALUE, a financial loss to the property owner.

This is the same as anyone damaging any other property. If you through a rock through my window, you ought to compensate me for the window. We don't speak of the broken glass having rights or being a victim. I recognize such analysis does not align with modern sensibilities but there it is.

 

[POI]

For those who desire to understand from a genuine heart....this is an example of why I use the KJV. Other versions leave out huge portions of scripture, change and twist and distort meanings, and even leave out entire verses. View attachment 13864

For those who desire logic, please see post #49 (i.e.):

The NIV would not be THIS clumsy, and use the term "rape", if Verses 28-29 were merely ONLY speaking about "completely consensual sex."

 

[POI]

Marrying for love is a modern concept. The historical purpose of marriage was transfer of wealth through generations. Women were considered property of the man (either father or husband). A women who lost her virginity by any means dramatically lowers her SEXUAL MARKET VALUE, a financial loss to the property owner.

This is the same as anyone damaging any other property. If you through a rock through my window, you ought to compensate me for the window. We don't speak of the broken glass having rights or being a victim. I recognize such analysis does not align with modern sensibilities but there it is.

Thank you very much. Thus far, your response seems right on point, as with my OP.

God's law provides the following choices (as per post #62):

A single female virgin is coerced, raped, seduced, or other. Heck, she is even seen crying out. Based upon the Bible, the resolution is as follows:

A: The rapist pays the father, and also marries her. Under the contract of marriage, the female submits to the male.
B: The rapist pays the father. The father does not also grant consent for the rapist to marry his daughter. After the rapist pays the father, the rapist is free to leave. The rapist can then possibly rinse/repeat with another victim.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Marrying for love is a modern concept. The historical purpose of marriage was transfer of wealth through generations. Women were considered property of the man (either father or husband). A women who lost her virginity by any means dramatically lowers her SEXUAL MARKET VALUE, a financial loss to the property owner.

This is the same as anyone damaging any other property. If you through a rock through my window, you ought to compensate me for the window. We don't speak of the broken glass having rights or being a victim. I recognize such analysis does not align with modern sensibilities but there it is.

Man's opinions are not God's ...and neither are man's thoughts God's thoughts. Glass isn't made in the image of God. A woman is. You place much lower value on God's creation. This is pride. I hope you do not have a "wife." Nowhere in scripture does God say that a woman is property. Indeed, the NT states that the woman has as much power over her husband's body as he does over hers.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” — Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

The word translated "man" means "mankind." And as stated, mankind (male and female) was created in God's image. Where pride comes in, there comes deception, degradation, and abuse.

 

[Wrangler]

Then there is the story of the only one of Jacob's children who does not become a nation or become a tribe of Israel, his only daughter, Dinah. She was raped but her brother's took vengeance for her.

 

[Wrangler]

You place much lower value on God's creation.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

This is pride. I hope you do not have a "wife."

This is judgmentalism. I hope you don't spread false doctrine.

Nowhere in scripture does God say that a woman is property.

Wrong. Scripture says this over and over and over again. It is the whole purpose for commandment, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. The property owner is the husband. (The commandment does not say, you shall not look at a woman with lust). The 9th and 10th Commandments are prohibitions against the (neighbor) man's property rights.

 

[POI]

I hope you do not have a "wife." Nowhere in scripture does God say that a woman is property. Indeed, the NT states that the woman has as much power over her husband's body as he does over hers.

Straight from God's mouth:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

As 1 Corinthians 11:3 also conveys, the hierarchy goes as follows: God>Jesus>man>woman