God's Favor?

[amadeus]

Amadeus, I've noticed your posts are so generic as to be unresponsive to the particular point under discussion.

People are not looking to find in the written scriptures verses to their own biases or agendas but apply scripture to the problems of living today.

When the question is hypothetical being cautious is the right road, to speak carefully or not at all.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;" Ecc 3:1,7

Jesus practiced this and so should we. Are we His sheep?

"But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." John 10:2-5

If we are His sheep and are listening He will tell us when to speak and what to say. This is in real situations, not hypothetical ones. Too often when a person thinks he has found a rule based on scriptures to follow, a situation arises in his life where his established approach is wrong. We really are to live by faith rather than by knowledge. What you did yesterday that worked, may be the wrong thing to do today in what appears to you to be the same situation. Consider Hosea versus what Paul wrote to us about being unequally yoked...

We need to be listening to God all of the time and following His lead in each actual event where we are involved... In the OT people followed black and white rules or tried to... unsuccessfully.

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Acts 15:10

 

[Heart2Soul]

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?

God's favor is given to all who are His. Male, female, Jew, Gentile, old and young. For God is not a respecter of persons...what He does for one He does for all that ask.
Here Paul speaks to the unmarried and widows...this is pertaining to sex...however it leads to additional wisdom.
“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.”
— 1 Corinthians 7:8 (KJV)
Paul said it is better for a woman not to marry because if she is married her first concern is to her husband.
And pay attention to verse 25...concerning virgins..he says he has no commandment of the Lord...

1 Corinthians 7 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
²⁵ Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
…
³² But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
³³ But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
³⁴ There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
…
³⁸ So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
³⁹ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
⁴⁰ But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

As to a family...God first, the husband, the wife and then the children. The husband must be head of his household.

 

[POI]

As to a family...God first, the husband, the wife and then the children. The husband must be head of his household.

Please notice that my OP request is quite specific. If a virgin decides to stay a virgin, become a nun, or other, okay... This is not what my request is to discuss.

The topic is if a man lies with a single female virgin. God instructs the man must marry her. I have gone back and forth with @TLHKAJ , whom wants to argue that any version of Scripture, who uses the Word 'rape', has 'an agenda'. Well, this would have to be QUITE the 'agenda'. This would either mean such versions were almost atheist-like -- looking to defile what is said to be God's Word, (or), absolutely incompetent. I can think of no third option? She states Verse 28-29 are ONLY speaking about two completely willing participants? This sounds a little far fetched...

Thus, if a male 'rapes' a female virgin, the instruction states he must marry her. But here's the kicker... Consent is granted by the father, not the victim. The law states the male is to pay the father. However, it's quite possible the father can still send the rapist packing. Christians will use Exodus 22:16-17 to support this assertion.

Hence, in this very specific case, looks like God has provided the following options:

A: The male pays the father and then leaves. For which he is able to rinse/repeat again with another female virgin who is not betrothed.
B: The male pays the father and marries her. For which, as you stated here, "the husband must be head of the household". The female gets to possibly live the rest of her days with her rapist.

 

[POI]

When the question is hypothetical being cautious is the right road, to speak carefully or not at all.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;" Ecc 3:1,7

If you do not wish to engage, then just don't engage.

My topic is a very specific request, to discuss a very specific scenario; for which God looks to have weighed in upon? The topic involves the raping of single female virgins, and how to handle the situation...

If it looks too messy for you, then please just do not respond at all.

Which begs another question to be asked... If you feel you need to 'speak carefully', then maybe this is you acknowledging that such a scenario does not sound the most 'justified' or to come from a "loving God"?

 

[Nancy]

Jesus said God was greater than him. Jesus died and God raised him from the dead, not the other way around. After being raised by God, Jesus said he was given all authority (by God). No where does it say that Jesus gave God authority. That is not equal.

Wrangler,
Of course God is greater than Jesus as He is multidimensional. He is three persons in one and God is all in all so, as Christ came down here to die on the cross, He became God in the flesh as, no mere human being can die for another's sins. God makes covenants with Himself as their is no higher. JMO bro.

 

[Wrangler]

Of course God is greater than Jesus as He is multidimensional. He is three persons in one

I reject the trinity. ‘God is greater than Jesus’ means Jesus is not God. As said, Jesus was favored by God in that he was given all authority AFTER he sacrificed himself.

Sacrifice and obedience is a prerequisite to God’s favor.

 

[amadeus]

If you do not wish to engage, then just don't engage.

My topic is a very specific request, to discuss a very specific scenario; for which God looks to have weighed in upon? The topic involves the raping of single female virgins, and how to handle the situation...

If it looks too messy for you, then please just do not respond at all.

Which begs another question to be asked... If you feel you need to 'speak carefully', then maybe this is you acknowledging that such a scenario does not sound the most 'justified' or to come from a "loving God"?

You by your agnostic designation are Not speaking God's Words... unless it is from the left hand of God. But believers also at times speak from there. I will leave you to your own thoughts.

 

[POI]

You by your agnostic designation are Not speaking God's Words... unless it is from the left hand of God. But believers also at times speak from there. I will leave you to your own thoughts.

So God did not author or inspire Deut. 22:28-29?

 

[amadeus]

So God did not author or inspire Deut. 22:28-29?

Regardless of the answer I might give, would it change what the truth of the matter is?

 

[Heart2Soul]

Please notice that my OP request is quite specific. If a virgin decides to stay a virgin, become a nun, or other, okay... This is not what my request is to discuss.

The topic is if a man lies with a single female virgin. God instructs the man must marry her. I have gone back and forth with @TLHKAJ , whom wants to argue that any version of Scripture, who uses the Word 'rape', has 'an agenda'. Well, this would have to be QUITE the 'agenda'. This would either mean such versions almost atheist-like -- looking to defile what is said to be God's Word, (or), absolutely incompetent. I can think of no third option? She states Verse 28-29 are ONLY speaking about two completely willing participants? This sounds a little far fetched...

Thus, if a male 'rapes' a female virgin, the instruction states he must marry her. But here's the kicker... Consent is granted by the father, not the victim. The law states the male is to pay the father. However, it's quite possible the father can still send the rapist packing. Christians will use Exodus 22:16-17 to support this assertion.

Hence, in this very specific case, looks like God has provided the following options:

A: The male pays the father and then leaves. For which he is able to rinse/repeat again with another female virgin who is not betrothed.
B: The male pays the father and marries her. For which, as you stated here, "the husband must be head of the household". The female gets to possibly live the rest of her days with her rapist.

Yes I was reading that....Jewish customs were very strict and were followed according to The Torah...aka..The Laws of Moses known also as the Mosaic Laws..613 to be exact....
I believe that these customs remained in the Jewish culture at that time because they were still learning about Jesus and the New Covenant.
As it was in those days a woman was subject to a man's authority.. either her father, brother, husband, father-in-law, grandfather or whoever's house she lived in.
The reason the father had to be paid and marry the daughter (if he allows it) was to save the family name from scrutiny and possibly from being cast out as heathens. Law breakers, violators of the Mosaic Laws.
Did God give Moses the laws which were written? According to the Rabbinic's tradition's understanding the Torah (both oral and written) were given by God through the Prophet Moses.
If this holds true then yes God appears to favor man over women...but when you move further into the scriptures God used women often to subdue a man, an army, or a kingdom.
Deborah- the judge and prophetess
Esther-saves her people from death and destruction
Ruth
Naomi...
Going to get back to this later....

 

[Taken]

Hello all,

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?

The Bridal Payment was to the Brides Father.
The Father set the price. (Money or goods)
A virgin, well behaved, dutiful, attractive, upstanding character, talented in chores/sewing, etc. godly...
May cost the groom handsomely...basically Payment to the father (Brides family) for their effort of investment in their daughter and her outcome.

I suppose loose women, a raped woman could as well marry, with little or no price.

 

[POI]

Regardless of the answer I might give, would it change what the truth of the matter is?

Regardless of if the Words are from God or not, do we at least agree on what these Words specify in Deut. 22:28-29?

 

[POI]

The reason the father had to be paid and marry the daughter (if he allows it) was to save the family name from scrutiny and possibly from being cast out as heathens. Law breakers, violators of the Mosaic Laws.
Did God give Moses the laws which were written? According to the Rabbinic's tradition's understanding the Torah (both oral and written) were given by God through the Prophet Moses.
If this holds true then yes God appears to favor man over women...but when you move further into the scriptures God used women often to subdue a man, an army, or a kingdom.
Deborah- the judge and prophetess
Esther-saves her people from death and destruction
Ruth
Naomi...
Going to get back to this later....

Regardless of how one spins it... If such a specific occurrence were to transpire, God's rule looks to have been as follows, right?

A: The male pays the father and then leaves. For which he is able to rinse/repeat again with another female virgin who is not betrothed.
B: The male pays the father and marries her. For which, as you stated here, "the husband must be head of the household". The female gets to possibly live the rest of her days with her rapist.

 

[POI]

The Bridal Payment was to the Brides Father.
The Father set the price. (Money or goods)
A virgin, well behaved, dutiful, attractive, upstanding character, talented in chores/sewing, etc. godly...
May cost the groom handsomely...basically Payment to the father (Brides family) for their effort of investment in their daughter and her outcome.

I suppose loose women, a raped woman could as well marry, with little or no price.

Say a man likes a girl, but the girl does not like him. Say she is a "well behaved, dutiful, attractive, upstanding character, talented in chores/sewing, and godly virgin". Say he rapes her. God's favor looks to have her (possibly) legally bound to him, by marriage, right?

 

[Taken]

Say a man likes a girl, but the girl does not like him. Say she is a "well behaved, dutiful, attractive, upstanding character, talented in chores/sewing, and godly virgin". Say he rapes her. God's favor looks to have her (possibly) legally bound to him, by marriage, right?

I find nothing in Scripture forcing a woman to marry her rapist.

Always an escort with young women used to common.
Just four generations ago, my G+ grandparents sent their boys to school, then University. Their daughter was schooled at home. And when she (Dau) was ready for University, her mother, escorted her, and while there the dau got her degree and her mother got her MD degree. The Day always had an escort, mother or brothers.

I believe true rapists should be prosecuted.

 

[POI]

I find nothing in Scripture forcing a woman to marry her rapist.

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

I believe true rapists should be prosecuted.

The rapist is prosecuted. He is forced to pay the father and marry the one he raped, and can never divorce her.

Maybe he wants to be 'prosecuted'?

 

[Heart2Soul]

Regardless of how one spins it... If such a specific occurrence were to transpire, God's rule looks to have been as follows, right?

A: The male pays the father and then leaves. For which he is able to rinse/repeat again with another female virgin who is not betrothed.
B: The male pays the father and marries her. For which, as you stated here, "the husband must be head of the household". The female gets to possibly live the rest of her days with her rapist.

No man can understand the mind of God...whatever He has established He had a reason for it
So as much as it may appear as God favoring man over woman I can assure you looks are deceiving...you may try talking to a Jewish Priest about these laws perhaps he can give you a clearer understanding of it.

 

[Taken]

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deut 22:
[28] 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;

Lay hold ...you have translated as rape.
I believe that is in error.
This particular verse gives no indication of her resisting.
Compared to previous verses.

The rapist is prosecuted. He is forced to pay the father and marry the one he raped, and can never divorce her.

Maybe he wants to be 'prosecuted'?

Prosecuted? Um, it says their encounter was found out.

 

[POI]

No man can understand the mind of God...

Your answer seems quite "convenient"; when one comes across a Verse, which looks to raise an eyebrow for the reader

What if I were to ask you what John 3:16 means? Would you give the same answer there too?

whatever He has established He had a reason for it

I've already laid forth a reason. If a woman was raped, she no longer served value to any other males. Hence, the law states to give her to the rapist to take care of; since he defiled her.

So as much as it may appear as God favoring man over woman I can assure you looks are deceiving...

So the raped woman has as much say as the father and/or the rapist, when referencing Deut. 22:28-29?

you may try talking to a Jewish Priest about these laws perhaps he can give you a clearer understanding of it.

Why would I need to? Do you state such things, when referencing the 10 Commandments? Or is it just the Verses which you may be uncomfortable with?

 

[POI]

Deut 22:
[28] 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;

Lay hold ...you have translated as rape.
I believe that is in error.
This particular verse gives no indication of her resisting.
Compared to previous verses.

I'm going to, in part, tell you the same thing I told @TLHKAJ ...

1. The NIV, along with other translations, use the Word 'rape'. Such a Word would likely not be used if such an act was considered full consent on her part. Thus, if the NIV, and other translations, are in error, this would mean that either:

a: THE NIV is deliberately leading people astray -- (head-scratcher).
b: The NIV is grossly incompetent, as other translations imply complete mutual consent alone; which they do not. Her intentions are not specified in all cases.
c: ????? (is there a third option)?

2. The translations, for which you have decided to use, does not demonstrate her full consent. It merely states he lies with her, and they are found. Hence, it seems quite reasonable that, in some of these cases, the female had not given consent anyways. Sure, maybe some did; but some did not. Regardless, she is now 'damaged good's', and the rapist must take possession of her for life.

Prosecuted? Um, it says their encounter was found out.

As stated above, the Verse you provided states 'they are found.' Which is to mean, they are discovered in the act.

And like I answered prior, to post #131... When you stated "I suppose loose women, a raped woman could as well marry, with little or no price."

In this case, if the male wants a specific female for his bride, but she does not show interest, he can just rape her. His prosecution includes marrying her, which might be what he wanted all along. Otherwise, all would know she has been raped, and she no longer serves of any value to anyone else.

Hence, God's favor was to give her to the rapist.