> Good, well then you have a good understanding that a text like this is not divergently interpreted.
And yet Christianity has numerous different denominations with vastly different, often entirely contradictory, interpretations of the bible.
Also, just so we clear here, what version of the bible do you use?
> Linguistics, grammar, cultural knowledge, historical context, context of Pentateuch, hermeneutical principles, conferring the commentaries—normal stuff.
Sure, but the problem here is that a different Christian with an entirely different interpretation of the bible than you could just as easily use the above to claim that their interpretation is correct. Once again how do we determine which of you, if any, has got it right?
> If you've studied the ancient world, which now I can assume you have, then you know it was a very different cultural context and worldview than our own.
Sure it was a different culture back then, do you seriously think that means it was therefore a good thing that a woman could be forced to marry her rapist?
> She was ruined if raped without marriage; she could have a meaningful life, if they so decided, by entering into marriage...
With her rapist! Could your God really not think of any better way to deal with this issue?
> God thought that the best way to solve the problem is to punish the man...
By letting him marry his victim! That is seriously the best way your God could think of punishing a rapist?
> ... treat the woman with dignity and rights.
What rights are you talking about? No where in the bible does it say the woman can choose whether she marries her rapist.
The woman is the property of her father. The father therefore chooses whether she marries her rapist.
> Ex. 22.16-17 is the backdrop for this teaching, and it says so there.
Once again, those verses say absolutely nothing about the woman choosing whether to marry her rapist. In fact those verses specifically say it is the father who decides whether she does. It appears that you are simply just making shit up at this point and that your interpretation of the bible is wrong.
> But you'll notice even in the context of this passage that the father and mother are involved in the proceedings.
It says absolutely nothing about the mother being involved either.
> (Dt. 22.15, 16, 17, 19, 21)
You really want to bring up those verses? The verses that discuss how women must prove their virginity and how if they can not they must be stoned to death? Yeah that just positively screams of dignity...
> Women were considered to be the property of their fathers, but not in the sense of chattel. She was considered his property because she was an economic asset to the household, and there had to be economic recompense when she married and moved out.
That sounds just like chattel slavery to me... but hey at least you accept she is her father's property.
> So you're quite wrong that it "is continuously espoused throughout the bible that women are property."
You literally just agreed that woman are the property of their fathers? Do we really need to go through all the other verses in the bible that show they are?
Board index ‹ Morality
38 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by jimwalton » Mon May 20, 2019 2:08 pm
> And yet Christianity has numerous different denominations with vastly different, often entirely contradictory, interpretations of the bible.
You're changing the subject and moving the goal posts. Denominations have nothing to do with this text. Different denominations don't interpret this text different. You're raised something totally moot to the question at hand (this text).
> Also, just so we clear here, what version of the bible do you use?
I use the original languages in my study, but for casual reading I usually use the NIV.
> Sure, but the problem here is that a different Christian with an entirely different interpretation of the bible than you could just as easily use the above to claim that their interpretation is correct. Once again how do we determine which of you, if any, has got it right?
You keeping harping on this. Then please, please, for me, outline the different interpretations of this text. I'm not aware of any. If you are (which seems obvious that you are, or you're just making a false point), I'd love to add them to my notes. Please share them with me. I'm being honest here. I'd like to add them to my notes.
> Sure it was a different culture back then, do you seriously think that means it was therefore a good thing that a woman could be forced to marry her rapist?
We must beware of the bias of "presentism," where our culture sees it right and does it right, and all other cultures were screwed up. It's also ethnocentric, and therefore skewed. We're looking more than 3000 years backwards into a completely different mindset (community of their culture vs. individualism of our culture, honor & shame (theirs) vs. guilt (ours), order vs. (oh, many things here part of our culture), interdependence vs. autonomy, responsibilities vs. rights, and this list goes on for a long time. We can hardly see through the eyes of their culture, our worldview is SOOOO radically different. We can't help but look through through the lens of our cultural river, but it has virtually nothing in common with theirs.
In their culture, most of the towns were small residential conglomerates of a collection of families. People generally knew each other. (For that matter, the whole country of Israel was only about the size of New Jersey). Marriage was more often a financial arrangement than a romantic one. Love and feelings were not fundamental to the system. Marriage was a way of establishing a relationship between families more than it was between individuals. People didn't prioritize freedom of choice for individuals. Marriage was about family mergers, financial security, and community order. We have troubled putting our heads around ANY of this.
A rape (even as now), was more often done by an acquaintance or family member—someone in the village—than by a stranger. With all this in mind, she would be requited by being set up with marriage and money, not screwed over. This is a protection for her, not a punishment. We have to look at it in their cultural river.
> those verses say absolutely nothing about the woman choosing whether to marry her rapist.
Were you the one who said you attended seminary? Then exegesis and linguistic studies, as well pentateuchal studies and hermeneutics should be in your tool box. We take the Torah as a whole, not cherry picking. Our hermeneutical principles derive from ALL of what Scripture says about things, not just from each text. The Torah was not legislation, but legal wisdom and casuistic in nature. But you should KNOW all these things if you went to sem. Ex. 22.16-17 is the background for this text. Exodus speaks of parental involvement. Even the context of the chapter of Deuteronomy speaks often of the involvement of the parents in these kinds of cases. You should know from sem that you don't just lift a text out of its housing and interpret it as an isolated chunk. Yow.
Maybe you should explain on what evidence you consider that the woman would have no input into the proceedings, and don't just say, "She was property!" I already dealt with that. She wasn't chattel, but an economic asset to the family unit.
> It says absolutely nothing about the mother being involved either.
I'm not impressed with your seminary education. Just sayin'. From Carol Myers, " 'Eves' of Everyday Ancient Israel": "Consider the concept of patriarchy. Typically this concept has been taken to imply near total male domination in families and in other social institutions. But anthropologists, classicists, feminist theorists, theologians and others who have more recently studied the concept have shown that this understanding of patriarchy does not take into account that women often had considerable agency in certain aspects of household life and that women’s groups and institutions had their own hierarchies. ... To get a balanced view of Israelite society in the Iron Age, the broader picture must be considered. Patriarchy is a term that was invented millennia after the Iron Age and is probably unsuitable for characterizing ancient Israel."
The Mosaic Law regularly includes and commands provisions so that the rights of women are not ignored, and so that she is treated as a person of value. The narrative accounts in the Old Testament tell the stories of many noble and heroic women, including Jocabed, Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Abigail, and Esther. To think that women were just property, treated like dogs, and had no input into family affairs, especially the rape of a daughter, is ludicrous and false.
> "Dt. 22.15, 16, 17, 19, 21" . You really want to bring up those verses? The verses that discuss how women must prove their virginity and how if they can not they must be stoned to death? Yeah that just positively screams of dignity...
Wow. Again, the Torah is not legislative, but legal wisdom. Second, the Torah is not prescriptive but descriptive. Third, the Torah is not apodictic, but casuistic. Therefore, these verses are about due process, judicial responsibility, and legal wisdom, not "prove your virginity or be stoned to death." It enjoins the judge to examine evidence, listen to testimony, and make a rightful decision, and if the woman is innocent, she is vindicated and the false accuser is severely punished. If she is guilty, then she bears a fair punishment for her offense. (Though the law allowed death, there is no evidence of a judge pronouncing the death penalty in such an instance. Again, the text is casuistic, not apodictic.)
> That sounds just like chattel slavery to me... but hey at least you accept she is her father's property.
You have a total misunderstanding of the ancient culture. She was considered property only in the sense that she was an important part of the family financial picture, not in any way considered chattel ownership or property.
> You literally just agreed that woman are the property of their fathers? Do we really need to go through all the other verses in the bible that show they are?
They were not property in the sense you are thinking, which is obviously "chattel." The Bible never says they are the property of their fathers, and that's not the way the ancient culture worked. They were "property" only in the sense that they were an integral part of the family's financial stability and as a productive asset. That's all.
> Do we really need to go through all the other verses in the bible that show they are?
We sure can if you want, but you'd have to be better at exegesis, linguistics, and hermeneutics if it's going to be of any value. But since I don't know of any verse where the Bible says a wife or daughter are the property of the husband/father, let's talk about it.
You're changing the subject and moving the goal posts. Denominations have nothing to do with this text. Different denominations don't interpret this text different. You're raised something totally moot to the question at hand (this text).
> Also, just so we clear here, what version of the bible do you use?
I use the original languages in my study, but for casual reading I usually use the NIV.
> Sure, but the problem here is that a different Christian with an entirely different interpretation of the bible than you could just as easily use the above to claim that their interpretation is correct. Once again how do we determine which of you, if any, has got it right?
You keeping harping on this. Then please, please, for me, outline the different interpretations of this text. I'm not aware of any. If you are (which seems obvious that you are, or you're just making a false point), I'd love to add them to my notes. Please share them with me. I'm being honest here. I'd like to add them to my notes.
> Sure it was a different culture back then, do you seriously think that means it was therefore a good thing that a woman could be forced to marry her rapist?
We must beware of the bias of "presentism," where our culture sees it right and does it right, and all other cultures were screwed up. It's also ethnocentric, and therefore skewed. We're looking more than 3000 years backwards into a completely different mindset (community of their culture vs. individualism of our culture, honor & shame (theirs) vs. guilt (ours), order vs. (oh, many things here part of our culture), interdependence vs. autonomy, responsibilities vs. rights, and this list goes on for a long time. We can hardly see through the eyes of their culture, our worldview is SOOOO radically different. We can't help but look through through the lens of our cultural river, but it has virtually nothing in common with theirs.
In their culture, most of the towns were small residential conglomerates of a collection of families. People generally knew each other. (For that matter, the whole country of Israel was only about the size of New Jersey). Marriage was more often a financial arrangement than a romantic one. Love and feelings were not fundamental to the system. Marriage was a way of establishing a relationship between families more than it was between individuals. People didn't prioritize freedom of choice for individuals. Marriage was about family mergers, financial security, and community order. We have troubled putting our heads around ANY of this.
A rape (even as now), was more often done by an acquaintance or family member—someone in the village—than by a stranger. With all this in mind, she would be requited by being set up with marriage and money, not screwed over. This is a protection for her, not a punishment. We have to look at it in their cultural river.
> those verses say absolutely nothing about the woman choosing whether to marry her rapist.
Were you the one who said you attended seminary? Then exegesis and linguistic studies, as well pentateuchal studies and hermeneutics should be in your tool box. We take the Torah as a whole, not cherry picking. Our hermeneutical principles derive from ALL of what Scripture says about things, not just from each text. The Torah was not legislation, but legal wisdom and casuistic in nature. But you should KNOW all these things if you went to sem. Ex. 22.16-17 is the background for this text. Exodus speaks of parental involvement. Even the context of the chapter of Deuteronomy speaks often of the involvement of the parents in these kinds of cases. You should know from sem that you don't just lift a text out of its housing and interpret it as an isolated chunk. Yow.
Maybe you should explain on what evidence you consider that the woman would have no input into the proceedings, and don't just say, "She was property!" I already dealt with that. She wasn't chattel, but an economic asset to the family unit.
> It says absolutely nothing about the mother being involved either.
I'm not impressed with your seminary education. Just sayin'. From Carol Myers, " 'Eves' of Everyday Ancient Israel": "Consider the concept of patriarchy. Typically this concept has been taken to imply near total male domination in families and in other social institutions. But anthropologists, classicists, feminist theorists, theologians and others who have more recently studied the concept have shown that this understanding of patriarchy does not take into account that women often had considerable agency in certain aspects of household life and that women’s groups and institutions had their own hierarchies. ... To get a balanced view of Israelite society in the Iron Age, the broader picture must be considered. Patriarchy is a term that was invented millennia after the Iron Age and is probably unsuitable for characterizing ancient Israel."
The Mosaic Law regularly includes and commands provisions so that the rights of women are not ignored, and so that she is treated as a person of value. The narrative accounts in the Old Testament tell the stories of many noble and heroic women, including Jocabed, Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Abigail, and Esther. To think that women were just property, treated like dogs, and had no input into family affairs, especially the rape of a daughter, is ludicrous and false.
> "Dt. 22.15, 16, 17, 19, 21" . You really want to bring up those verses? The verses that discuss how women must prove their virginity and how if they can not they must be stoned to death? Yeah that just positively screams of dignity...
Wow. Again, the Torah is not legislative, but legal wisdom. Second, the Torah is not prescriptive but descriptive. Third, the Torah is not apodictic, but casuistic. Therefore, these verses are about due process, judicial responsibility, and legal wisdom, not "prove your virginity or be stoned to death." It enjoins the judge to examine evidence, listen to testimony, and make a rightful decision, and if the woman is innocent, she is vindicated and the false accuser is severely punished. If she is guilty, then she bears a fair punishment for her offense. (Though the law allowed death, there is no evidence of a judge pronouncing the death penalty in such an instance. Again, the text is casuistic, not apodictic.)
> That sounds just like chattel slavery to me... but hey at least you accept she is her father's property.
You have a total misunderstanding of the ancient culture. She was considered property only in the sense that she was an important part of the family financial picture, not in any way considered chattel ownership or property.
> You literally just agreed that woman are the property of their fathers? Do we really need to go through all the other verses in the bible that show they are?
They were not property in the sense you are thinking, which is obviously "chattel." The Bible never says they are the property of their fathers, and that's not the way the ancient culture worked. They were "property" only in the sense that they were an integral part of the family's financial stability and as a productive asset. That's all.
> Do we really need to go through all the other verses in the bible that show they are?
We sure can if you want, but you'd have to be better at exegesis, linguistics, and hermeneutics if it's going to be of any value. But since I don't know of any verse where the Bible says a wife or daughter are the property of the husband/father, let's talk about it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by Imam IQ » Mon May 20, 2019 2:45 pm
> But what the family and the judges decide to do about it is a legal and cultural issue. If they go for marriage or not marriage, bride price or fine, those are legal, social, and cultural decisions, not moral ones.
They're legal and social decisions, but also very clearly moral decisions. You even say later that it's not a moral question "as much as" it's a juridical one, which I disagree with but even so, you're admitting that it's a moral decision in part.
The girl has no good choices. She could be put to death for being a victim of rape. She could be shunned and have to live as an outcast. She can marry the guy who raped her. These are all awful choices, and forcing her to have only these choices simply because she lives in a culture that has f-ed up attitudes toward women is indefensible and immoral by any standard of morality I'd want to be associated with.
They're legal and social decisions, but also very clearly moral decisions. You even say later that it's not a moral question "as much as" it's a juridical one, which I disagree with but even so, you're admitting that it's a moral decision in part.
The girl has no good choices. She could be put to death for being a victim of rape. She could be shunned and have to live as an outcast. She can marry the guy who raped her. These are all awful choices, and forcing her to have only these choices simply because she lives in a culture that has f-ed up attitudes toward women is indefensible and immoral by any standard of morality I'd want to be associated with.
- Imam IQ
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by jimwalton » Mon May 20, 2019 2:50 pm
> They're legal and social decisions, but also very clearly moral decisions.
Whether or not we toss someone into prison, fine them, or punish them with X hours of community labor is not really a moral issue as much as it is trying to be just. Of course it touches on the moral realm, but it's more a matter of wisdom and justice than it is of morality. If you want to say it touches on the moral realm, I'm OK with that. But it's relative to the situation and the cultural river, not to any kind of objective moral standard.
> The girl has no good choices.
So you're ignoring everything I said. I don't understand why we are having the conversation if you just keep saying what you started out saying and ignore all the facts, analysis, interpretation, and explanation I've brought to the conversation.
Whether or not we toss someone into prison, fine them, or punish them with X hours of community labor is not really a moral issue as much as it is trying to be just. Of course it touches on the moral realm, but it's more a matter of wisdom and justice than it is of morality. If you want to say it touches on the moral realm, I'm OK with that. But it's relative to the situation and the cultural river, not to any kind of objective moral standard.
> The girl has no good choices.
So you're ignoring everything I said. I don't understand why we are having the conversation if you just keep saying what you started out saying and ignore all the facts, analysis, interpretation, and explanation I've brought to the conversation.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by Imam IQ » Mon May 20, 2019 4:09 pm
> Whether or not we toss someone into prison, fine them, or punish them with X hours of community labor is not really a moral issue as much as it is trying to be just.
Justice is a moral issue. It more than "touches on" the moral realm. It's human behavior. The category it falls under doesn't remove or in any way diminish the issue of morality.
> So you're ignoring everything I said.
Not ignoring it. I'm reading it, finding it disgusting, and then explaining why I disagree with you. I disagree with your conclusion. I also disagree with the moral relativism argument you're making (while denying that you're doing so).
I also disagree with the attempt to create a category of human behaviors within which morality either doesn't apply at all or is only "touched on" whatever that means.
One last thought. Rape wasn't any less horrific in their culture than it is in any other culture. It doesn't cease to be horrific if it's a relative. Rape was as psychologically destructive to victims then as it is now. All your cultural relativism doesn't change any of that. If you re-read some of the things you've written with that in mind, it might help clarify why I find the conclusion you want to reach here so reprehensible.
Justice is a moral issue. It more than "touches on" the moral realm. It's human behavior. The category it falls under doesn't remove or in any way diminish the issue of morality.
> So you're ignoring everything I said.
Not ignoring it. I'm reading it, finding it disgusting, and then explaining why I disagree with you. I disagree with your conclusion. I also disagree with the moral relativism argument you're making (while denying that you're doing so).
I also disagree with the attempt to create a category of human behaviors within which morality either doesn't apply at all or is only "touched on" whatever that means.
One last thought. Rape wasn't any less horrific in their culture than it is in any other culture. It doesn't cease to be horrific if it's a relative. Rape was as psychologically destructive to victims then as it is now. All your cultural relativism doesn't change any of that. If you re-read some of the things you've written with that in mind, it might help clarify why I find the conclusion you want to reach here so reprehensible.
- Imam IQ
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by jimwalton » Mon May 20, 2019 4:23 pm
> Justice is a moral issue. It more than "touches on" the moral realm. It's human behavior. The category it falls under doesn't remove or in any way diminish the issue of morality.
Yes, justice is a moral issue, but verdicts pertain to what is fair given all the circumstances. There are few objective standards by which courts operate. Especially in a case like this where a woman is raped and the judge and family are trying to decide how best to deal with the offense, her protection, her rights, and her future. In a case like this, wisdom is more the order of the day than a constrained course of action.
> I'm reading it, finding it disgusting, and then explaining why I disagree with you. I disagree with your conclusion. I also disagree with the moral relativism argument you're making (while denying that you're doing so).
Yeah, because you're not understanding what I'm saying. It's very frustrating. I'm saying their culture was night-and-day different from ours, but you keep making evaluations based on our way of thinking. I keep telling you about the choices the girl can make, yet you persist with "She has no choices." I keep explaining that the rape is an issue of objective morality, but the verdict is one of relative morality pertaining to the cultural river, and you persist with "So you're making a moral relativism argument." Argh. Very frustrating.
> I also disagree with the attempt to create a category of human behaviors within which morality either doesn't apply at all or is only "touched on"
So you're saying that whether a judge sentences a criminal to 400 hours of community service or 10 weeks in a holding cell is the same kind of moral category as rape or murder because you "disagree with the attempt to create a category of human behavior within which morality either doesn't apply at all or is only touched on?
> Rape wasn't any less horrific in their culture than it is in any other culture.
Agreed.
> It doesn't cease to be horrific if it's a relative.
There's nothing relative about rape.
> Rape was as psychologically destructive to victims then as it is now.
Agreed.
> If you re-read some of the things you've written with that in mind, it might help clarify why I find the conclusion you want to reach here so reprehensible.
It doesn't surprise me that you may be radically misunderstanding things I wrote. Your mind seems to be locked in a pattern of thought unaffected by what I'm saying.
Yes, justice is a moral issue, but verdicts pertain to what is fair given all the circumstances. There are few objective standards by which courts operate. Especially in a case like this where a woman is raped and the judge and family are trying to decide how best to deal with the offense, her protection, her rights, and her future. In a case like this, wisdom is more the order of the day than a constrained course of action.
> I'm reading it, finding it disgusting, and then explaining why I disagree with you. I disagree with your conclusion. I also disagree with the moral relativism argument you're making (while denying that you're doing so).
Yeah, because you're not understanding what I'm saying. It's very frustrating. I'm saying their culture was night-and-day different from ours, but you keep making evaluations based on our way of thinking. I keep telling you about the choices the girl can make, yet you persist with "She has no choices." I keep explaining that the rape is an issue of objective morality, but the verdict is one of relative morality pertaining to the cultural river, and you persist with "So you're making a moral relativism argument." Argh. Very frustrating.
> I also disagree with the attempt to create a category of human behaviors within which morality either doesn't apply at all or is only "touched on"
So you're saying that whether a judge sentences a criminal to 400 hours of community service or 10 weeks in a holding cell is the same kind of moral category as rape or murder because you "disagree with the attempt to create a category of human behavior within which morality either doesn't apply at all or is only touched on?
> Rape wasn't any less horrific in their culture than it is in any other culture.
Agreed.
> It doesn't cease to be horrific if it's a relative.
There's nothing relative about rape.
> Rape was as psychologically destructive to victims then as it is now.
Agreed.
> If you re-read some of the things you've written with that in mind, it might help clarify why I find the conclusion you want to reach here so reprehensible.
It doesn't surprise me that you may be radically misunderstanding things I wrote. Your mind seems to be locked in a pattern of thought unaffected by what I'm saying.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by Shazzam » Tue May 21, 2019 4:18 pm
> Different denominations don't interpret this text different.
I'm going to assume you are a Protestant. Are you seriously suggesting that Catholicism and Protestantism don't interpret the bible differently?
> Please, please, for me, outline the different interpretations of this text. I'm not aware of any.
Well for starters what is your opinion on the deuterocanonical books?
> A rape (even as now), was more often done by an acquaintance or family member—someone in the village—than by a stranger. With all this in mind, she would be requited by being set up with marriage and money, not screwed over.
So that was the best your God could come up with? The best way he could think to sort out the problem of the rape victim being raped was to force her to marry her rapist? He seriously couldn't think of anything better?
> We take the Torah as a whole, not cherry picking.
I asked you where in the bible does it say that the woman gets to choose if she marries her rapist. You specifically said Exodus 22 16-18, but these verses say absolutely nothing about the woman being able to choose whether she marries her rapist. So once again... Where exactly does it say the woman chooses whether to marry her rapist?
> Maybe you should explain on what evidence you consider that the woman would have no input into the proceedings.
The complete lack of evidence that says otherwise. We have numerous verses from the bible that state the father is responsible for determining who his daughter marries, we have absolutely nothing that states the daughter has any choice who she marries.
> The Mosaic Law regularly includes and commands provisions so that the rights of women are not ignored, and so that she is treated as a person of value.
Ok but we are talking about the same Mosaic laws that also give specific instructions on how fathers should sell their daughters? Just because the bible says some nice things about women doesn't excuse the countless times it says absolutely abhorrent things about women.
> Therefore, these verses are about due process, judicial responsibility, and legal wisdom, not "prove your virginity or be stoned to death."
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 literally states that if it can not be proved that she is a virgin that she is to be stoned to death. "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."
> The Torah is not legislative, but legal wisdom.
How do you know this? The above verses are very clearly commandments about what to do if a woman can not prove she is a virgin. Why do you think this is not legislative?
> The Bible never says they are the property of their fathers, and that's not the way the ancient culture worked.
You literally just said in your previous reply that they were the property of their fathers...
> They were "property" only in the sense that they were an integral part of the family's financial stability and as a productive asset.
Sure, the father could make money by selling his daughter. That is precisely why they was a specific commandment that allowed for the rapist to marry his victim, so that that the victims father wouldn't lose out an the money he could get for selling his daughter.
> But since I don't know of any verse where the Bible says a wife or daughter are the property of the husband/father, let's talk about it.
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Exodus 21:7
I'm going to assume you are a Protestant. Are you seriously suggesting that Catholicism and Protestantism don't interpret the bible differently?
> Please, please, for me, outline the different interpretations of this text. I'm not aware of any.
Well for starters what is your opinion on the deuterocanonical books?
> A rape (even as now), was more often done by an acquaintance or family member—someone in the village—than by a stranger. With all this in mind, she would be requited by being set up with marriage and money, not screwed over.
So that was the best your God could come up with? The best way he could think to sort out the problem of the rape victim being raped was to force her to marry her rapist? He seriously couldn't think of anything better?
> We take the Torah as a whole, not cherry picking.
I asked you where in the bible does it say that the woman gets to choose if she marries her rapist. You specifically said Exodus 22 16-18, but these verses say absolutely nothing about the woman being able to choose whether she marries her rapist. So once again... Where exactly does it say the woman chooses whether to marry her rapist?
> Maybe you should explain on what evidence you consider that the woman would have no input into the proceedings.
The complete lack of evidence that says otherwise. We have numerous verses from the bible that state the father is responsible for determining who his daughter marries, we have absolutely nothing that states the daughter has any choice who she marries.
> The Mosaic Law regularly includes and commands provisions so that the rights of women are not ignored, and so that she is treated as a person of value.
Ok but we are talking about the same Mosaic laws that also give specific instructions on how fathers should sell their daughters? Just because the bible says some nice things about women doesn't excuse the countless times it says absolutely abhorrent things about women.
> Therefore, these verses are about due process, judicial responsibility, and legal wisdom, not "prove your virginity or be stoned to death."
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 literally states that if it can not be proved that she is a virgin that she is to be stoned to death. "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."
> The Torah is not legislative, but legal wisdom.
How do you know this? The above verses are very clearly commandments about what to do if a woman can not prove she is a virgin. Why do you think this is not legislative?
> The Bible never says they are the property of their fathers, and that's not the way the ancient culture worked.
You literally just said in your previous reply that they were the property of their fathers...
> They were "property" only in the sense that they were an integral part of the family's financial stability and as a productive asset.
Sure, the father could make money by selling his daughter. That is precisely why they was a specific commandment that allowed for the rapist to marry his victim, so that that the victims father wouldn't lose out an the money he could get for selling his daughter.
> But since I don't know of any verse where the Bible says a wife or daughter are the property of the husband/father, let's talk about it.
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Exodus 21:7
- Shazzam
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by jimwalton » Tue May 21, 2019 4:18 pm
> Are you seriously suggesting that Catholicism and Protestantism don't interpret the bible differently?
What I'm seriously suggesting is that Catholics and Protestants, Evangelicals and liberals don't interpret this text differently. It is this text that is the issue in our conversation.
> Well for starters what is your opinion on the deuterocanonical books?
That has nothing to do with the interpretation of this text. You're claiming that there's a different interpretation of this text, and I'd like to see it. Please share your source and exegesis with me. That's what I asked.
> So that was the best your God could come up with?
We're not discussing God being creative in fabricating something. We're analyzing their culture and what a woman would think is an agreeable solution in their culture.
> Where exactly does it say the woman chooses whether to marry her rapist?
I've explained several times that we take the Torah as a whole. The Torah is not legislation, but legal wisdom. It's casuistic, not apodictic. In the Torah, communities, families, witnesses, prosecutor and defendants are all involved in the process. It wasn't like our system at all. In Exodus 22.16-17, we can see that parents were involved. In Deuteronomy 22, in numerous places, we can see the involvement of the family. That's the way the Torah worked. You are trying to squeeze the biblical text into some narrow, legislative box that it was never meant to be in. Ancient Israel didn't function legally like our courts do today. They were based in wisdom and community involvement, not legislation and isolation.
> we have absolutely nothing that states the daughter has any choice who she marries.
In Genesis 24.57, in the discussions about marriage, they confer with Rebecca (the bride to be) about the decisions being made. In 1 Samuel 25.41, Abigail decides on her own to become David's wife.
> Ok but we are talking about the same Mosaic laws that also give specific instructions on how fathers should sell their daughters?
You're talking about Ex. 21.7-11. Again, some study on your part would be of value rather than just surface reading. And some background information about the culture. The section is about marriage. In days of arranged marriages, daughters would be given in return for a dowry. Marriage was as much an economic arrangement as a social one. You'll notice here that the sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt. As such, once the debt is paid, or if the seventh year came around, she could go free (Dt. 15.17). But if the daughter wished to marry the man who was now her "employer," so to speak, that was an option as well. If that were the case, the debt would be liquidated. This was a mechanism to protect those in poverty, and to protect the rights of the woman given to a man with this understanding. The debt would be paid, the daughter would have a husband, and he must treat her properly. You see in Ex. 21.8 that if the man is not pleased with her, he can't just dump her or abuse her, but must let her be redeemed by someone else in proper, legal form. If he passes her on to his son (v. 9), she becomes a daughter instead of his wife, and certainly not a slave. Verse 10 speaks of provision of food, clothing, and marital rights. If he falters on any of these points, she is free to go (11). There is nothing about this that is brutal.
> doesn't excuse the countless times it says absolutely abhorrent things about women.
Excuse me?
> Deuteronomy 22:20-21 literally states that if it can not be proved that she is a virgin that she is to be stoned to death.
As I've been saying, the Torah is casuistic, no apodictic. It's legal wisdom, not legislation. Though they had legal right to exercise capital punishment, there's no record that anyone ever did. Just as in our society man criminals are sentenced to death, but few are executed. Execution is the "full extent of the law," but it's not practiced, and the judge has that discretion. But it is true that a wise judge would find an appropriate way to punish guilty people for the wrong they have done. That's the whole point of justice.
You keep reading these texts through the worldview of our modern, legislative culture, but their culture, worldview, and practice were totally different.
> "The Torah is not legislative, but legal wisdom." How do you know this?
I digested "The Lost World of the Torah" by Walton and Walton. (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Torah ... pons&psc=1). I've also read numerous commentaries on the Torah, such as Jacob MIlgrom's Anchor Bible Commentaries, Daniel Block, J.A. Thompson, Paul Copan, Bible background material (cultural studies), I read Biblical Archaeology Review and get loads of information from it.
> The above verses are very clearly commandments about what to do if a woman can not prove she is a virgin. Why do you think this is not legislative?
Because none of the Torah is legislative. The ancient Hebrews actually had no term for "law." "Torah" means "instruction." The ancient texts (even Hammurabi, Sumerian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian) are all collections of legal wisdom, not legislation. In the olden days, judges never studied case law, memorized precedents, and argued legislation. The village would pick the wisest man, and he was supposed to make wise and good decisions. These men were expected to know the covenant with God and be oriented toward representing Him well. That's how it worked in ancient Israel, and in all the ancient cultures.
> You literally just said in your previous reply that they were the property of their fathers...
They were only "property" in the sense that they were an important part of the economic picture—a financial asset to the family. They were *not* property in the sense of chattel or ownership.
> Sure, the father could make money by selling his daughter.
Nope, nope, this is not it. Their culture worked by debt slavery (what we call "employment"). If the family were in debt, the fam could farm out themselves or the kids as work for hire (what they called "debt slaves") to pay it off. The "master" didn't own their person, he owned their labor (much like in our world). When the debt was paid, the worker could go "free." The dad wasn't selling his daughter to make money. She was working for his lender to pay off a debt.
> That is precisely why they was a specific commandment that allowed for the rapist to marry his victim, so that that the victims father wouldn't lose out an the money he could get for selling his daughter.
No, no, no no no. This isn't it at all. The dowry was an important financial asset for the family losing a valuable worker. In this sort of system, the exchange of goods (dowry and bride price) was part of the transaction for a new relationship between families. The dowry (given by the father to the bride) provided security for the wife in the possibility that her husband would die, abandon her, or divorce her. The bride price (given by the groom to the bride’s father) reimbursed the bride’s family for a lost laborer. We might think that these exchanges reflected a belief that the woman was a commodity to be purchased, but that would be a misunderstanding. But the woman and the man, along with the exchange of goods, were part of a community merger.
> "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Exodus 21:7
OK, I think we've covered this ground. When a daughter was "sold" by her father, this was intended as both a payment of debt and a way of obtaining a husband for a girl without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master does not provide her with food, clothing, and marital rights.
when a father sells his daughter, he is doing so out of economic desperation, which is more like contracted employment. The father would do this out of concern for his family, and Israel’s laws provided a safety net for its very poorest. Voluntary selling was a matter of survival in harsh financial circumstances. Temporarily contracting out family members to employers, who also provided room and board, was the most suitable alternative during hard times. Safety nets shouldn’t become hammocks, and a typical servant tried to work off the terms of his contract and become debt free.
What I'm seriously suggesting is that Catholics and Protestants, Evangelicals and liberals don't interpret this text differently. It is this text that is the issue in our conversation.
> Well for starters what is your opinion on the deuterocanonical books?
That has nothing to do with the interpretation of this text. You're claiming that there's a different interpretation of this text, and I'd like to see it. Please share your source and exegesis with me. That's what I asked.
> So that was the best your God could come up with?
We're not discussing God being creative in fabricating something. We're analyzing their culture and what a woman would think is an agreeable solution in their culture.
> Where exactly does it say the woman chooses whether to marry her rapist?
I've explained several times that we take the Torah as a whole. The Torah is not legislation, but legal wisdom. It's casuistic, not apodictic. In the Torah, communities, families, witnesses, prosecutor and defendants are all involved in the process. It wasn't like our system at all. In Exodus 22.16-17, we can see that parents were involved. In Deuteronomy 22, in numerous places, we can see the involvement of the family. That's the way the Torah worked. You are trying to squeeze the biblical text into some narrow, legislative box that it was never meant to be in. Ancient Israel didn't function legally like our courts do today. They were based in wisdom and community involvement, not legislation and isolation.
> we have absolutely nothing that states the daughter has any choice who she marries.
In Genesis 24.57, in the discussions about marriage, they confer with Rebecca (the bride to be) about the decisions being made. In 1 Samuel 25.41, Abigail decides on her own to become David's wife.
> Ok but we are talking about the same Mosaic laws that also give specific instructions on how fathers should sell their daughters?
You're talking about Ex. 21.7-11. Again, some study on your part would be of value rather than just surface reading. And some background information about the culture. The section is about marriage. In days of arranged marriages, daughters would be given in return for a dowry. Marriage was as much an economic arrangement as a social one. You'll notice here that the sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt. As such, once the debt is paid, or if the seventh year came around, she could go free (Dt. 15.17). But if the daughter wished to marry the man who was now her "employer," so to speak, that was an option as well. If that were the case, the debt would be liquidated. This was a mechanism to protect those in poverty, and to protect the rights of the woman given to a man with this understanding. The debt would be paid, the daughter would have a husband, and he must treat her properly. You see in Ex. 21.8 that if the man is not pleased with her, he can't just dump her or abuse her, but must let her be redeemed by someone else in proper, legal form. If he passes her on to his son (v. 9), she becomes a daughter instead of his wife, and certainly not a slave. Verse 10 speaks of provision of food, clothing, and marital rights. If he falters on any of these points, she is free to go (11). There is nothing about this that is brutal.
> doesn't excuse the countless times it says absolutely abhorrent things about women.
Excuse me?
> Deuteronomy 22:20-21 literally states that if it can not be proved that she is a virgin that she is to be stoned to death.
As I've been saying, the Torah is casuistic, no apodictic. It's legal wisdom, not legislation. Though they had legal right to exercise capital punishment, there's no record that anyone ever did. Just as in our society man criminals are sentenced to death, but few are executed. Execution is the "full extent of the law," but it's not practiced, and the judge has that discretion. But it is true that a wise judge would find an appropriate way to punish guilty people for the wrong they have done. That's the whole point of justice.
You keep reading these texts through the worldview of our modern, legislative culture, but their culture, worldview, and practice were totally different.
> "The Torah is not legislative, but legal wisdom." How do you know this?
I digested "The Lost World of the Torah" by Walton and Walton. (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Torah ... pons&psc=1). I've also read numerous commentaries on the Torah, such as Jacob MIlgrom's Anchor Bible Commentaries, Daniel Block, J.A. Thompson, Paul Copan, Bible background material (cultural studies), I read Biblical Archaeology Review and get loads of information from it.
> The above verses are very clearly commandments about what to do if a woman can not prove she is a virgin. Why do you think this is not legislative?
Because none of the Torah is legislative. The ancient Hebrews actually had no term for "law." "Torah" means "instruction." The ancient texts (even Hammurabi, Sumerian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian) are all collections of legal wisdom, not legislation. In the olden days, judges never studied case law, memorized precedents, and argued legislation. The village would pick the wisest man, and he was supposed to make wise and good decisions. These men were expected to know the covenant with God and be oriented toward representing Him well. That's how it worked in ancient Israel, and in all the ancient cultures.
> You literally just said in your previous reply that they were the property of their fathers...
They were only "property" in the sense that they were an important part of the economic picture—a financial asset to the family. They were *not* property in the sense of chattel or ownership.
> Sure, the father could make money by selling his daughter.
Nope, nope, this is not it. Their culture worked by debt slavery (what we call "employment"). If the family were in debt, the fam could farm out themselves or the kids as work for hire (what they called "debt slaves") to pay it off. The "master" didn't own their person, he owned their labor (much like in our world). When the debt was paid, the worker could go "free." The dad wasn't selling his daughter to make money. She was working for his lender to pay off a debt.
> That is precisely why they was a specific commandment that allowed for the rapist to marry his victim, so that that the victims father wouldn't lose out an the money he could get for selling his daughter.
No, no, no no no. This isn't it at all. The dowry was an important financial asset for the family losing a valuable worker. In this sort of system, the exchange of goods (dowry and bride price) was part of the transaction for a new relationship between families. The dowry (given by the father to the bride) provided security for the wife in the possibility that her husband would die, abandon her, or divorce her. The bride price (given by the groom to the bride’s father) reimbursed the bride’s family for a lost laborer. We might think that these exchanges reflected a belief that the woman was a commodity to be purchased, but that would be a misunderstanding. But the woman and the man, along with the exchange of goods, were part of a community merger.
> "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Exodus 21:7
OK, I think we've covered this ground. When a daughter was "sold" by her father, this was intended as both a payment of debt and a way of obtaining a husband for a girl without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master does not provide her with food, clothing, and marital rights.
when a father sells his daughter, he is doing so out of economic desperation, which is more like contracted employment. The father would do this out of concern for his family, and Israel’s laws provided a safety net for its very poorest. Voluntary selling was a matter of survival in harsh financial circumstances. Temporarily contracting out family members to employers, who also provided room and board, was the most suitable alternative during hard times. Safety nets shouldn’t become hammocks, and a typical servant tried to work off the terms of his contract and become debt free.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by Temporarily Log In » Thu May 23, 2019 2:46 pm
> We're not discussing God being creative in fabricating something. We're analyzing their culture and what a woman would think is an agreeable solution in their culture.
This is what gets me in all the threads on this discussion I've read. Maybe you are discussing what a female in their culture would find acceptable or agreeable. And maybe you're right that a woman would find it unacceptable or unagreeable in their culture to be able to choose to have nothing to do with the man who raped her and also not be celibate or ostracized as a consequence of choosing not to have anything to do with the rapist.
but surely surely surely the God who is the source of all wisdom and knowledge and goodness and love could have divinely orchestrated some sequence of events where that decision wasn't a problem. but he didn't. so instead the woman could be forced to either be ostracized or live with the rapist.
and honestly, it makes no sense to me that anyone could see this as a worthwhile representation of the chosen people of the good god or of love himself.
This is what gets me in all the threads on this discussion I've read. Maybe you are discussing what a female in their culture would find acceptable or agreeable. And maybe you're right that a woman would find it unacceptable or unagreeable in their culture to be able to choose to have nothing to do with the man who raped her and also not be celibate or ostracized as a consequence of choosing not to have anything to do with the rapist.
but surely surely surely the God who is the source of all wisdom and knowledge and goodness and love could have divinely orchestrated some sequence of events where that decision wasn't a problem. but he didn't. so instead the woman could be forced to either be ostracized or live with the rapist.
and honestly, it makes no sense to me that anyone could see this as a worthwhile representation of the chosen people of the good god or of love himself.
- Temporarily Log In
Re: God cannot be the standard of morality
by jimwalton » Thu May 23, 2019 2:55 pm
> but surely surely surely the God who is the source of all wisdom and knowledge and goodness and love could have divinely orchestrated some sequence of events where that decision wasn't a problem. but he didn't. so instead the woman could be forced to either be ostracized or live with the rapist.
Except that this is a poor solution only to YOU in YOUR time and in YOUR culture. You think completely differently than they did. Your whole perspective is colored by your era, your culture, and you're worldview. You swim in a completely different cultural river, and yet you are judging them by your situation. It's an illegitimate practice. Who's to say that the women in that era weren't simply tickled pink with this solution, thanking their lucky stars every night. So maybe, just maybe, the God who is the source of all wisdom, etc., divinely orchestrated an awesome plan for their time and era. It's like you're guilty of presentism: OUR era sees things right, and all other cultures just had it wrong, and they did it wrong, and they saw it poorly, and God is to blame for being cruel and stupid. To me it's just ethnocentrism that you think OUR culture knows what's best and does it right, and their culture had it so wrong and that God couldn't possibly be good because of it.
Except that this is a poor solution only to YOU in YOUR time and in YOUR culture. You think completely differently than they did. Your whole perspective is colored by your era, your culture, and you're worldview. You swim in a completely different cultural river, and yet you are judging them by your situation. It's an illegitimate practice. Who's to say that the women in that era weren't simply tickled pink with this solution, thanking their lucky stars every night. So maybe, just maybe, the God who is the source of all wisdom, etc., divinely orchestrated an awesome plan for their time and era. It's like you're guilty of presentism: OUR era sees things right, and all other cultures just had it wrong, and they did it wrong, and they saw it poorly, and God is to blame for being cruel and stupid. To me it's just ethnocentrism that you think OUR culture knows what's best and does it right, and their culture had it so wrong and that God couldn't possibly be good because of it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
38 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests