Marriage Violations?

[POI]

Current hypothesis, prior to provided clarification:

I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

***************************************************************

For debate: When A believer reads the following passage, how does the Christian rationalize that God not only inspired such assertions, but that God is 'good'? (i.e.):

Deut. 22:13-29

Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

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[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

[1213]

...
I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

Why would it be less authoritative, if it is written by men?

[Athetotheist]

...
I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

Why would it be less authoritative, if it is written by men?

Why would the Quran or the Book of Mormon be less authoritative if they're written by men?

[POI]

...
I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

Why would it be less authoritative, if it is written by men?

Please allow me to restate my current hypothesis entire:

I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

If the Bible was written by men, and men alone, then what Paul later states about the Bible is incorrect. Especially anything written in the OT, as the NT did not yet exist when he wrote his memoirs, letters, works, etc (i.e.):

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Then, the Bible has to stand upon it's own; like every other published piece in history. And when one reads Deuteronomy 22:13-29, does the reader say to themselves, "wow, this is another shinning example of some really solid advice". Or, is it maybe instead the works of ignorant and/or mistaken bronze-aged men?

I then re-issue the posed question for debate:

When A believer reads Deuteronomy 22:13-29, how does the Christian rationalize that God not only inspired such assertions, but that God is 'good'?

[JehovahsWitness]

I dont see any need to rationalize anything, the passage discouraged sexual immorality something that causes tremendous suffering in the long run. A loving God would logically prohibit negative behaviours.


RELATED POSTS

WHY does scripture prohibit sexual immorality?
viewtopic.php?p=1019649#p1019649

WHY does God prohibit deviant sexual behaviours?
viewtopic.php?p=994394#p994394

[theophile]

...
I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

Why would it be less authoritative, if it is written by men?

Please allow me to restate my current hypothesis entire:

I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone.If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

The fact the bible was written by men means nothing except that it's fallible. It does not mean the bible is wrong (or right for that matter) but only that it needs to be fairly evaluated against all other views. If that's what you're saying, I would agree. (I would argue further that the bible is in fact right, but that's another matter entirely. )

The way I tend to look at it is through the concept of idolatry. i.e., we can easily become idolatrous with the bible, and take its word for God's. And that is a bad thing, like any other idolatry. It is the path to sin and death that God warns us about from the very beginning in the bible. What we have to do is focus on being in real relationship with God, not with words written thousands of years ago whether by God or men.

As such I also find it helpful to distinguish the bible as idol from the bible as icon. An iconic relationship with the bible, where we take the bible as (potentially) revealing and pointing to God ('inspired', as the passage you later cite suggests), only opens the question of what God was really saying in the verses you cite, or would have said in such a context, versus what we or the men who wrote them heard, thought, or portrayed.

Treating the bible as an icon points us to God and opens the question of the true word of God versus closing down the question and taking the answer as already given. The former is what we should aspire to.

[POI]

I dont see any need to rationalize anything

You don't need to rationalize any such assertions, as laid out in Deuteronomy 22:13-29? Interesting...

Any schmo, with common sense, could figure out that if humans want to live in a collective/cooperative society, we need to establish some "rules" (i.e.) "don't murder each other, don't take each other's stuff without permission, don't trespass unless....," etc etc etc.... These "rules" can be vetted out and discussed -- (like we are here).... And in the case for the given "rules", as cited in Deut. 22, how do these given "rules" fair? Do they seem 'god given' and all-wise? Not to me they don't. How about you? If they do, then I will polarize some, for your needed justification -- to then possibly change my current position/hypothesis:

- Did the 'rule maker' know that hymens can break without intercourse? Doesn't seem so?
- Is death a suitable punishment for adultery? If so, why no more?
- Is death a suitable punishment for premarital sex? If so, why no more?
- If a woman is raped, and the rapist is instructed to then marry her, does she (the victim) have a say in the matter? If so, how do you know? Seems a silly rule to even suggest; as I would imagine a rape victim would hardly ever want to marry their rapist? Why not instead suggest that he pays her "X" amount for life, or gives his life savings to her? Adding insult to injury, by devaluing her (by taking her virginity), to then also be entitled to keep raping her for life now 'legally" by 'marriage', seems to be placing salt in the perpetual wound?

the passage discouraged sexual immorality

I would have no beef, if the passages state not to commit sexual immorality, while also defining what sexually immorality is... My beef is with the "rules", as given. Thus, my current hypothesis in the OP.... Care to challenge my current hypothesis? I'm open to discussion.

[POI]

...
I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone. If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

Why would it be less authoritative, if it is written by men?

Please allow me to restate my current hypothesis entire:

I say the Bible was written by men, and men alone.If this is the case, then the Bible is no more or less 'authoritative' than any other bronze-aged book of misguided assertions and legendary tales.

The fact the bible was written by men means nothing except that it's fallible. It does not mean the bible is wrong (or right for that matter) but only that it needs to be fairly evaluated against all other views. If that's what you're saying, I would agree. (I would argue further that the bible is in fact right, but that's another matter entirely. )

The way I tend to look at it is through the concept of idolatry. i.e., we can easily become idolatrous with the bible, and take its word for God's. And that is a bad thing, like any other idolatry. It is the path to sin and death that God warns us about from the very beginning in the bible. What we have to do is focus on being in real relationship with God, not with words written thousands of years ago whether by God or men.

As such I also find it helpful to distinguish the bible as idol from the bible as icon. An iconic relationship with the bible, where we take the bible as (potentially) revealing and pointing to God ('inspired', as the passage you later cite suggests), only opens the question of what God was really saying in the verses you cite, or would have said in such a context, versus what we or the men who wrote them heard, thought, or portrayed.

Treating the bible as an icon points us to God and opens the question of the true word of God versus closing down the question and taking the answer as already given. The former is what we should aspire to.

I think post #7 is a decent place to start...

[JehovahsWitness]

- Did the 'rule maker' know that hymens can break without intercourse?

According to the website health Navigator NZ "About half of women bleed when they first have sex". The website flo- health ... says {quote} "Bleeding during the first sexual intercourse happens in only 43 percent of cases. The amount of blood can vary from a few drops to bleeding for a few days" and others propose the phenonemen is experienced by as few as a third. The British government Health website (NHS) points to various reasons why a women may not bleed after her first sexual intercourse , referring to ...

- activities such as horse riding and other sports
- using tampons
- masturbation

THE BIBLE DIRECTIVES

Given the above, the directives which, it should be noted , were to protect a virgin from unfounded accusations , were entirely reasonable:

1. Regardless of the true percentage, bleeding is not mythical but a real physical phenonemen; significant proportion of women do bleed even in our modern times, so the directives provided a reasonable safeguard for the virgin bride.

2. The Hebrews culture would have girls married relatively young age who were not subject to the factors cited that contributed to the likelihood of a stretched (or torn) hymen.

3. Given its import a Hebrew virgin would naturally be aware to keep evidence of any exceptional circumstances which did result in vaginal bleeding not associated with her menstrual cycle.

4. There is nothing in the text which indicates that proof of virginity be restricted evidence to the physical evidence of blood after penetrative sex

What about girls born without hymen or break or stretched their hymen engaging in non-sexual activities?
viewtopic.php?p=1081242#p1081242

.


The bible did not order the girl be subject to an intimate examination or that the physical proof of bloodsheets be the only defense made, but it did discouraged both wild accusations and promiscuity.

JW


RELATED POSTS

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit ALL sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

Was the "Jealousy curse" that was part of the Mosaic Law comparable to
"trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p836096

Why did the bible authorize bloodsheet testimony?
viewtopic.php?p=1081153#p1081153

# Why did the Mosaic Law propose punishing women with having her hand cut off
if she'd grabbed a man's genitals during a conflict (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p822599[/list]

Why, then is there no law that explicity states "You must not have sex before marriage"?
viewtopic.php?p=780257#p780257

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SEXUAL IMMORALITY and ... MARRIAGE

[Miles]

.

What I find interesting is that god supposedly goes along with the antiquated notion that a female's virginity can be established by the presence of an intact hymen. A broken hymen being a sure indication of "lost" virginity.Verses:13-19
Isn't god suppose to be smarter than this? NO? Okay.

Also, that a virgin female who is engaged to be married and raped is considered to be a wife for stoning purposes. But only if this happens in a city.Verses:23-24
IOW, for personal protection engaged females best never venture into cities.

If such a rape happens in a field, country, countryside, or open country then only the man should be killed.Verse:25
See girls! It's much safer scampering around fields and countryside.

If one rapes a virgin female who is not engaged to another the rapist must marry her forever, but only if the rape is discovered by others. Verse:28
Gee, how lucky can a girl get, being spotted by others having sex and then subjugated to rape after rape after rape after . . . until your dying day.

(Rape being: "the unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim."
(Dictionary.com))

.