defense of traditional biblical marriage.
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Sounds indefensible to me.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Question, if I were a serial rapist, then could I have more than one wife? Ranging in what age group? (inquiring minds want to know).
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Isn't there a passage in the Bible that says it's ok to take our enemy's babies and bash the babies' heads against rocks?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Found it.
Psalms 137:9
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
Psalms 137:9
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
i suppose one way of dealing with things that you dont understand is to take the mickey .
again prejudice and ignorance reign supreme on interfaith
again prejudice and ignorance reign supreme on interfaith
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
oh, hurrah, yet another attempt to wilfully misunderstand what's in the Torah. virtually none of this is anything like what happens in the practical halakhah.
so, who put this together and why?
as for psalm 137, nick, have you even read the rest of it? that's *our own* babies; can you imagine the despair that that sentiment echoes?
sheesh.
b'shalom
bananabrain
so, who put this together and why?
as for psalm 137, nick, have you even read the rest of it? that's *our own* babies; can you imagine the despair that that sentiment echoes?
sheesh.
b'shalom
bananabrain
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
We poor Christians do not really have practical halakhah! That is perhaps due to the infusion of Greco-Roman beliefs and thoughts.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
BB,
I am glad to see you explained the verse. I am sad to see you did it in a condescending way.
I am glad to see you explained the verse. I am sad to see you did it in a condescending way.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
1. "wives subordinate to their husbands"
not in halakhah. if this is based on the genesis story it refers to the beginning of sexual desire as a conscious consideration; the implication being, "with sexual desire goes gender politics - the flip side of the female orgasm is its exploitation. it's a prophetic warning of how men would treat women outside the garden, not a prescription of submissiveness.
2. "interfaith marriages forbidden"
no; what is forbidden is marriage between israelites and "seven nations" idolators; any further prohibitions are rabbinic and, even so, if they're so forbidden, how come they happen all the fecking time and jews look different everywhere in the world?
3. "marriages generally arranged, not based on romantic love"
so? romantic love is soooooo reliable as a basis for a lifelong relationship, isn't it. all the stats say that they are actually more successful if durability is any criterion.
4. "bride who could not prove her virginity was stoned to death"
name one. go on, you've got the whole of jewish history. i'll even help you. tamar seduced her father-in-law judah, then forced him to back down based on the fact that it was all his fault in the first place.
5. "widow who had not borne a son required to marry her brother-in-law"
so, you've read the whole of the tractate "yebamot" which is one of the largest in the talmud and you know all about the laws of "halitzah", the ceremony for releasing a woman from this obligation and the other 10,000 ways you can get out of having to do this even if the brother-in-law likes the idea?
6. "must submit sexually to her new husband"
oh, really? a jewish husband may not demand sex, ever. only the wife is entitled to demand sex on pain of divorce. rape within marriage has been prohibited for more than 2,000 years in the halakhah - when was it recognised in civil law in your country? the last 50 years - if that. the afghan government - that's an *actual* government that *actually does this NOW* - has just made it illegal to deny a husband sex for more than 8 days. but no, let's have a go at the jews.
7. man + wives + concubines
nobody has had a concubine since the gaonic period (1200+ years ago) despite a spirited attempt by nahmanides to reintroduce it in the middle ages; the status of "pilegesh" actually provides protections that modern "palimony" statutes don't.
8. rapist + victim
i've written on this one at length. it is totally wrong.
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/is-it-kool-to-rape-3592.html
9. "man could acquire his wife's property including her slaves"
wrong. actually, the man is only entitled to the *usage* of her property, with her consent (it's known as the "usufruct" in english i think) and he has to pay it back to her in a divorce.
10. "kill midianites" etc
are you a midianite? are there any midianites here? ok then, so where's the evidence this is even an issue?
11. "wives must submit sexually to their new owners"
if she's a wife (i.e. after the imposed cooling-off month is up), then #6 (see above) applies.
12. polygamy
outlawed by the ban of rabbenu gershom in the C13th on the grounds that it would make christians jealous and cause bad feeling. it persisted in some parts of the islamic world, where polygamy continues to this day, until the 1950s, but jews no longer practice it.
13. "slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves"
only if they were canaanites and, even so, slaves must be emancipated after 7 years and may not be mistreated physically in any way, or damages are payable to the slave; sexual mistreatment is similarly actionable.
14. "female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands"
see #6.
so, you see, here are 14 accusations, none of which has any substance to it other than:
"LET'S HAVE A GO AT THE JEWS, THOSE BRONZE AGE NEANDERTHALS AND THEIR BARBARIC TORAH."
easier than the taleban, isn't it? except of course when you look at it, it's total bollocks, so thanks for that.
b'shalom
bananabrain
not in halakhah. if this is based on the genesis story it refers to the beginning of sexual desire as a conscious consideration; the implication being, "with sexual desire goes gender politics - the flip side of the female orgasm is its exploitation. it's a prophetic warning of how men would treat women outside the garden, not a prescription of submissiveness.
2. "interfaith marriages forbidden"
no; what is forbidden is marriage between israelites and "seven nations" idolators; any further prohibitions are rabbinic and, even so, if they're so forbidden, how come they happen all the fecking time and jews look different everywhere in the world?
3. "marriages generally arranged, not based on romantic love"
so? romantic love is soooooo reliable as a basis for a lifelong relationship, isn't it. all the stats say that they are actually more successful if durability is any criterion.
4. "bride who could not prove her virginity was stoned to death"
name one. go on, you've got the whole of jewish history. i'll even help you. tamar seduced her father-in-law judah, then forced him to back down based on the fact that it was all his fault in the first place.
5. "widow who had not borne a son required to marry her brother-in-law"
so, you've read the whole of the tractate "yebamot" which is one of the largest in the talmud and you know all about the laws of "halitzah", the ceremony for releasing a woman from this obligation and the other 10,000 ways you can get out of having to do this even if the brother-in-law likes the idea?
6. "must submit sexually to her new husband"
oh, really? a jewish husband may not demand sex, ever. only the wife is entitled to demand sex on pain of divorce. rape within marriage has been prohibited for more than 2,000 years in the halakhah - when was it recognised in civil law in your country? the last 50 years - if that. the afghan government - that's an *actual* government that *actually does this NOW* - has just made it illegal to deny a husband sex for more than 8 days. but no, let's have a go at the jews.
7. man + wives + concubines
nobody has had a concubine since the gaonic period (1200+ years ago) despite a spirited attempt by nahmanides to reintroduce it in the middle ages; the status of "pilegesh" actually provides protections that modern "palimony" statutes don't.
8. rapist + victim
i've written on this one at length. it is totally wrong.
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/is-it-kool-to-rape-3592.html
9. "man could acquire his wife's property including her slaves"
wrong. actually, the man is only entitled to the *usage* of her property, with her consent (it's known as the "usufruct" in english i think) and he has to pay it back to her in a divorce.
10. "kill midianites" etc
are you a midianite? are there any midianites here? ok then, so where's the evidence this is even an issue?
11. "wives must submit sexually to their new owners"
if she's a wife (i.e. after the imposed cooling-off month is up), then #6 (see above) applies.
12. polygamy
outlawed by the ban of rabbenu gershom in the C13th on the grounds that it would make christians jealous and cause bad feeling. it persisted in some parts of the islamic world, where polygamy continues to this day, until the 1950s, but jews no longer practice it.
13. "slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves"
only if they were canaanites and, even so, slaves must be emancipated after 7 years and may not be mistreated physically in any way, or damages are payable to the slave; sexual mistreatment is similarly actionable.
14. "female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands"
see #6.
so, you see, here are 14 accusations, none of which has any substance to it other than:
"LET'S HAVE A GO AT THE JEWS, THOSE BRONZE AGE NEANDERTHALS AND THEIR BARBARIC TORAH."
easier than the taleban, isn't it? except of course when you look at it, it's total bollocks, so thanks for that.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Did I miss something BB? Where did the 14 accusations come from? I don't see them anywhere in this thread...
I would appreciate your context on the decisions that created the verses found in the texts provided on rape, concubines, etc. And in discussion with the time period they existed, not with whatever changes happenned in the 13th century...
IG, no there isn't any biblical Man and Man or Woman and Woman references, but if the contention is what G!d allows according to the bible, let us discuss it.
NCOT, quite the discussion counterpoint.
I would appreciate your context on the decisions that created the verses found in the texts provided on rape, concubines, etc. And in discussion with the time period they existed, not with whatever changes happenned in the 13th century...
IG, no there isn't any biblical Man and Man or Woman and Woman references, but if the contention is what G!d allows according to the bible, let us discuss it.
NCOT, quite the discussion counterpoint.
Dream
Well-Known Member
The chart is an awful, stinky attempt to misconstrue and mystify. At the least its negligent and throws mud on something that is actually beautiful in that it was far ahead of its time.
I've done studies on this topic, and all of the basic laws about women were to liberate women. If a man assaulted a girl then he had to pay and she wasn't beholden to him. You can extract it from the text just using concordances, studying the motives for the laws, marital laws and so on. There were laws to keep guys from slandering girls, laws to make sure kids were taken care of, laws to make sure women weren't destitute. Just about any situation where someone found themselves vulnerable, there was a law to protect them and that included slaves, too. The word 'Slavery' is in the Bible and there were slaves, however the laws were designed to discourage slavery ( through regulation). That is atypical, since other countries would have laws that helped to suppress the slaves. The Bible laws were sympathetic towards slaves and upheld the golden ideal of emancipating slaves as wealthy and better off than before their captivity. I had thought it would be otherwise. The laws were a nice surprise when I got through them all, and I was encouraged to see something like that existed at such a dark time.
I've done studies on this topic, and all of the basic laws about women were to liberate women. If a man assaulted a girl then he had to pay and she wasn't beholden to him. You can extract it from the text just using concordances, studying the motives for the laws, marital laws and so on. There were laws to keep guys from slandering girls, laws to make sure kids were taken care of, laws to make sure women weren't destitute. Just about any situation where someone found themselves vulnerable, there was a law to protect them and that included slaves, too. The word 'Slavery' is in the Bible and there were slaves, however the laws were designed to discourage slavery ( through regulation). That is atypical, since other countries would have laws that helped to suppress the slaves. The Bible laws were sympathetic towards slaves and upheld the golden ideal of emancipating slaves as wealthy and better off than before their captivity. I had thought it would be otherwise. The laws were a nice surprise when I got through them all, and I was encouraged to see something like that existed at such a dark time.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Oh, the spin regarding marriage. 
Judges 19-21
All this (supposedly) happened because a woman concubine didn't want to stay with her owner.
Judges 19-21
All this (supposedly) happened because a woman concubine didn't want to stay with her owner.
Dream
Well-Known Member
Maybe but its not a book of the law, and you should consider the political spin on this book. The picture the author paints is that anarchic events come about when there is no authority to enforce laws. Three times it says "In those days there was no king." The opening of the book goes through a series of judges with chaos in between each judge. Its pro government.Seattlegal said:
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
they are the statements describing "biblical marriage" in the graphic above. all of them are tantamount to accusation, as seems obvious to other readers.wil said:
i've given the context as i understand it and it's not about changes in the C13th. jewish law is generally reverse-engineered - we know what it is we do and have done and that is patiently linked back to its support in precedent and sacred text - the decisions did not create the verses; the verses drove the decisions and there simply are not available examples of decisions that would illustrate that the verses are understood in the way the graphic suggests, because, to put it bluntly, the verses aren't understood that way, which the author of the graphic doesn't appear to understand. basically, the phrase "according to the bible" simply doesn't make sense to jews, because it ignores the Oral Torah.
seattlegal:
what dream says here is quite correct. the book of judges is an evidence base designed to support the idea of law and order and against a sort of "wild west" frontier anarchy, as evinced by the statement: "in those days there was no king in israel, everyone simply did what they thought was right in their own eyes". in many ways, this can also be applied to such deficient leaders as gideon and the astounding jephthah, acknowledged in jewish sources as being the stupidest jewish leader in history. the point about the appalling story you are referencing is that this is precisely the sort of thing that used to happen when there was no moral and halakhic authority. you can hardly describe it as "spin" regarding marriage, particularly given the *actual* status, power and rights of a jewish wife compared to a wife in greece, rome, persia or egypt.
b'shalom
bananabrain
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Isn't this whole thread about governmental role in marriage, with those wanting to use the bible as an authority for governments to grab onto vs those who don't want government to use the bible as an authority for governments to grab onto regarding marriage? Spin is often used in government power grabs.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Let's just put it this way: if biblical-style marriage contracts were the only thing the government offered, with no secular alternative available, then as a woman, I would not get married. (No matter how much the religious types would complain that unmarried women are a blight on society.)
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
good grief, it is? i think the language must have gone completely over my head in my annoyance at the misrepresentation of what is supposedly "biblical" as nothing of the sort. i suppose, yes, in a US context, that might be a big deal and, frankly, i'd be with you on that. however, i certainly support civil partnerships like we have here in the UK; for me, i don't really see the point of calling something a marriage unless it is a religious thing, but it's not that big a deal to me: atheists, elton john - no skin off my hairy backside.
ok - well, speaking as someone who *has* entered into a biblical marriage contract according to what is actually said, as opposed to some kind of redneck peckerwood idea of what is said, the rights you gain thereby are significant and i cannot see that anything is given up. i do understand your concern though and, frankly, my annoyance at the original graphic is equally aimed at those who claim that something they are trying to push is "biblical" when it is patently nothing of the sort, just as much as those who are trying to oppose it are having a go at "biblical" marriage when the "bible" doesn't even talk about it. i don't notice them trying to push "biblical" clothing or "biblical" dietary laws. feckin' feathered eejits.
b'shalom
bananabrain