Marriage is between man and woman

Originally posted by sonship
The man was not LESS punished just because he was a man.

There is no punishment for a man not being a virgin when he's married. The only punishment is he has sex with another man's wife. However, if he rapes a woman, he merely pays a fine and still gets to marry her; but if a woman has sex with a man she's not engaged to, she can get stoned to death.

Hardly fair, is it?

Originally posted by vivify
You are assuming that God, the all-knowing, would be involved in figuring out if a woman is guilty or not, right?

But since no man could truly know if a woman has been promiscuous or not without actually catching her in the act, then this means that only God knows if the charge is true. Right?

Therefore, why would God involve men in the process at ...[text shortened]... e law made up by ignorant men rather than an all-knowing god. That's why this law is repugnant.

You are assuming that God, the all-knowing, would be involved in figuring out if a woman is guilty or not, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The God's purpose in giving the law included His being with them, in their midst, and blessing that society.

So it is not as bad as you want to portray it.
I do not say it was a utopia or heaven itself. That innocent people sometimes suffered is candidly recorded for us many places in the Old Testament.

But God was faithful to many situations. The Psalms, 150 some of them, testify of God's faithfulness. These were written out of experience of the saints.

At least one should balance his reading of Leviticus with the Psalms to see how often God was with even people who made serious mistakes.

The concept of God's eagerness to destroy life I count as a caricature.

But since no man could truly know if a woman has been promiscuous or not without actually catching her in the act, then this means that only God knows if the charge is true. Right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.
But I would not say no woman or man was ever unjustly accused falsely or condemned.

The age without the law of God was the age of Noah.
Everyone was to go only by their conscience.
The downward slide of human society called for the judging flood.
The age without the law eventually ended up so badly.

In the steps closer to that world in which the kingdom of God reigns, the giving of the law was a station along the way. The theocracy of Israel under the law of Moses was not the full accomplishment of the will of God.

Therefore, why would God involve men in the process at all, since the only thing the men could use as proof of virginity, is a bloody cloth (which doesn't prove virginity, since not all virgins bleed their first time)?

In short, this seems like some law made up by ignorant men rather than an all-knowing god. That's why this law is repugnant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it is repugnant. I think it highlights how a family better be careful in raising their sons and daughters.

The looseness of today's moral culture in the US does have some repugnant aspects to it, IMO. And of most of the men offering criticisms here I wonder how many woman they have had casual intimacy with outside of serious marital relationship.

I think we see a lot of modern day crocodile tears here about the mistreatment of woman under the law of Moses.

I already told you about the levels of judges and the realization of hard cases that could be pushed up another level. I don't know why you want to assume that the Israelites would not sometimes say - "This is a difficult case. Let us bring in more wise people, both men and women, to help us figure it out, with God's help."

Originally posted by vivify
A concubine is merely a lower-ranking wife. That's why a man can still have sex with his concubine without the concubine being punished for it. It's amazing how much Christians don't know about their own bible.

I knew Sarah was Abraham's half sister. It simply doesn't make any difference...unless you think it's okay to have sex with your sister because only she came from only one of your parents. Is that the case?

She is not merely a lower ranking wife, she may serve in the nature of a wife but she did not have all the rights that a regular wife had. Its amazing how much people that have never studied the Bible claim to know.

Whether you knew it or not is not the issue, you did not state it and reported the facts inaccurately. I have no moral issue on the matter of Abraham marrying his half sister as I leave morality up to God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
She is not merely a lower ranking wife, she may serve in the nature of a wife but she did not have all the rights that a regular wife had. Its amazing how much people that have never studied the Bible claim to know.

Whether you knew it or not is not the issue, you did not state it and reported the facts inaccurately. I have no moral issue on the matter of Abraham marrying his half sister as I leave morality up to God.

You're splitting hairs.

Solomon had a thousand women that were legally his to have sex with, bear his children, and serve in the nature of a wife. That's the point that I'm making. Christians want claim that marriage is something sacred between a man and a woman, while being unaware that God put no limit on how many wives (or side women, whatever you want to call these concubines) a man could have.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You are assuming that God, the all-knowing, would be involved in figuring out if a woman is guilty or not, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The God's purpose in giving the law included His being with them, in their midst, and blessing that society.

So it is not as bad as you want to portray it.
I ...[text shortened]... et us bring in more wise people, both men and women, to help us figure it out, with God's help."[/b]

Okay. Here's my final question on this.

Rather than have men judge a woman using the blood or lack of blood from a rag (which, again, doesn't prove virginity), why not simply make a law asking God if she's guilty or not? Why leave any part of the decision-making process in the hands of ignorant, ancient men, who assumed all virgins bleed on their first time?

The bible constantly refers those men as having "hard-hearts" and being a "stiff-necked" people. There's no reason to assume that these men would do right by these women rather doing them wrong.

Originally posted by vivify
You're splitting hairs.

Solomon had a thousand women that were legally his to have sex with, bear his children, and serve in the nature of a wife. That's the point that I'm making. Christians want claim that marriage is something sacred between a man and a woman, while being unaware that God put no limit on how many wives (or side women, whatever you want to call these concubines) a man could have.

This is simply untrue, the original standard was monogamy as Christ himself alluded to when asked about divorce. Infact for those who know their Bibles it is self evident that Solomon was warned against taking many wives for himself. That God overlooked the practice does not negate that fact that Gods original standard was monogamy and no amount of bitching against the Bible or fabricating untruths can negate this. The standard for Christians is rather clear, its monogamy and always has been monogamy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is simply untrue, the original standard was monogamy as Christ himself alluded to when asked about divorce. Infact for those who know their Bibles it is self evident that Solomon was warned against taking many wives for himself. That God overlooked the practice does not negate that fact that Gods original standard was monogamy and no amount of ...[text shortened]... e this. The standard for Christians is rather clear, its monogamy and always has been monogamy.

2 Samuel 12:7-8:

"This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms."

God believes in monogamy so much, that God himself gave David multiple wives.
Again, Christians need to learn their bible.

Originally posted by vivify
2 Samuel 12:7-8:

"This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, [b]and your master’s wives into your arms."

God believes in monogamy so much, that God himself gave David multiple wives.
Again, Christians need to learn their bible.[/b]

This does not and cannot negate the fact that the original standard was for a monogamous relationship between man and wife. God did not create multiple wives for Adam and nothing you have said or can say can negate this fact, indeed your text does not even attempt to address the issue and is nothing more than bitchin against the Bible to support your anti religious bias.

We wont be taking any lesson from amateurs and novices like you on what the Bible teaches. The standard God set in Eden with the first marriage was that of monogamy. Jesus Christ later reaffirmed that standard for his followers.—Genesis 2:18-24; Matthew 19:4-6.

“He should . . . not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside.” (Deuteronomy 17:15, 17)

What have you to say for yourself now you rascally fellow?

Originally posted by vivify
Okay. Here's my final question on this.

Rather than have men judge a woman using the blood or lack of blood from a rag (which, again, doesn't prove virginity), why not simply make a law asking God if she's guilty or not? Why leave any part of the decision-making process in the hands of ignorant, ancient men, who assumed all virgins bleed on their first ...[text shortened]... here's no reason to assume that these men would do right by these women rather doing them wrong.

Okay. Here's my final question on this.

Rather than have men judge a woman using the blood or lack of blood from a rag (which, again, doesn't prove virginity), why not simply make a law asking God if she's guilty or not? Why leave any part of the decision-making process in the hands of ignorant, ancient men, who assumed all virgins bleed on their first time?

The bible constantly refers those men as having "hard-hearts" and being a "stiff-necked" people. There's no reason to assume that these men would do right by these women rather doing them wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to think on that and pray about how to respond for awhile.
However, I think it is too easy for us to assume ancient people did KNOW or notice some things.

It is hard for me to believe that there were no men who didn't know that among women there were exceptions to the norm concerning menstruation.

As wives talked with husbands, women talked with girls, fathers talked with daughters what some modern medical books say went entirely unnoticed by the ancients ?

Just because people of old had no microwaves or computers doesn't mean we can take such an arrogant attitude that they were all Neanderthalic dummies.

They had medical people too. And they may have had some remedies for things that we moderners have long forgotten.

Get back latter.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This does not and cannot negate the fact that the original standard was for a monogamous relationship between man and wife. God did not create multiple wives for Adam and nothing you have said or can say can negate this fact, indeed your text does not even attempt to address the issue and is nothing more than bitchin against the Bible to support your ...[text shortened]... rn aside.” (Deuteronomy 17:15, 17)

What have you to say for yourself now you rascally fellow?

Yet, God ignored his own "standard" and deliberately gave David multiple wives. Clearly, God didn't hold this monogamy "standard" in very high regard, did he?

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Okay. Here's my final question on this.

Rather than have men judge a woman using the blood or lack of blood from a rag (which, again, doesn't prove virginity), why not simply make a law asking God if she's guilty or not? Why leave any part of the decision-making process in the hands of ignorant, ancient men, who assumed all virgins bleed on their firs ...[text shortened]... y have had some remedies for things that we moderners have long forgotten.

Get back latter.

Okay. Thanks for the polite response.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You expect him to know and remember every single verse in a book as large as the Bible? Dont you think you are being rather unreasonable, after all if you read it could you remember every single verse? No? well then.

Well no, I wouldn't be able to recount the exciting family tree descriptions, for instance. But the massive injustice of murdering someone for (allegedly) not being a virgin is something that did leave a lasting impression. I find it hard to believe that someone would read such a thing and then forget about it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This does not and cannot negate the fact that the original standard was for a monogamous relationship between man and wife. God did not create multiple wives for Adam and nothing you have said or can say can negate this fact, indeed your text does not even attempt to address the issue and is nothing more than bitchin against the Bible to support your ...[text shortened]... rn aside.” (Deuteronomy 17:15, 17)

What have you to say for yourself now you rascally fellow?

There is one thing: There had to be more people in the garden of Eden than just A&E. Where did their kids find the wives?

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is one thing: There had to be more people in the garden of Eden than just A&E. Where did their kids find the wives?

gee try to use your powers of imagination I know you have them.

Originally posted by vivify
Yet, God ignored his own "standard" and deliberately gave David multiple wives. Clearly, God didn't hold this monogamy "standard" in very high regard, did he?

proves nothing except that you are willing to believe naught but your own propaganda.