On Deuteronomy 22

[weltschmerz]

Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy sparked a social media firestorm among gay marriage supporters and opponents after taking a public stance on the divisive issue this week.

Speaking to Christian news site Baptist Press, Cathy called Chick-Fil-A “guilty as charged” in response to past criticism of its position on same-sex marriage; he said the company is “very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.”
-----
Really? The biblical definition? Kind of like this?

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
Deuteronomy 25:5

[weltschmerz]

. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
----
How about this biblical definition of marriage? Oh gosh, no....it's always those evil gays they single out.

[Virgil Showlion]

A widow was as good as dead in biblical times, Ms. Weltz. None of our social institutions existed. Life was agrarian, with hard, backbreaking farm labour the norm. Starving to death was common.

God is laying out in Deuteronomy that if a man's wife was widowed, his family (specifically his brother) was not to leave her to die. And if a woman was raped, the victim was not to be left to die. It would be a shotgun wedding. The rapist was to pay the father an enormous sum of money and care for the woman as a husband all her days. Given that "Dad" would undoubtedly have lived five minutes away, he'd have made sure of it.

These are laws for impossible decisions being made in merciless times, a part of the Law of Moses. The spirit of the law, as I say, is that a woman is not to be left to die. There is a moral obligation for somebody to take care of her.

If you believe that this law is not being fulfilled in other ways today—that a widow or a rape victim will starve to death—then I agree the literal law must still be in effect.

As for what Deuteronomy and countless other books say on the matter of homosexuality, I needn't tell you that both the spirit and the ad litteram are crystal clear.

[chiver78]

but Virgil, you don't see the the comparison between cherry-picking verses to insist that people live and govern by and what Weltz is doing - cherry-picking verses that don't make sense in today's society?

religion is not an a la carte menu, and no one religion should be able to impose its own "rules" on everyone. it doesn't work that way.

[Virgil Showlion]

I should point out publicly that the original three posts in this thread were moved from a "Chick-Fil-A" thread in P&M.

I intended on replying to Ms. Weltz' comment, and, in light of the "no scripture" rule in P&M, moved the post to an appropriate venue.

    - Virgil (Scripture Monkey)

[Deleted]

God hates homosexuals.

[Deleted]

Doesn't he also hate snakes and/or lizards? I can't tell.

[Green Eyed Lady]

God doesn't hate anyone. But I would imagine he gets really pissed off at people who twist his Word into something it isn't just to further their own agendas.

[Opti]

I believe the bible works better on a metaphorical level, metaphysical level, etc. than a literal level for this and other reasons. I understand what Virgil is saying about women's survival in an unjust society that values men too highly and women are considered ruined goods if sexually assaulted by a man. In the case she has to marry her attacker I'm still not convinced it is a kindness to anyone except her attacker. For him, he may choose to assault her if Dad says no to him marrying her and obtain her this way. If it is a standard assault it is more likely that the woman will want to commit suicide like that poor girl in Morocco because you've just married her off to someone who can assault and beat her on a daily basis.

Interestingly if a man gets raped by another man as long as no one knows he can go and choose to have a normal life. (Per the bible not spelling any laws out in that case.)

[Virgil Showlion]

but Virgil, you don't see the the comparison between cherry-picking verses to insist that people live and govern by and what Weltz is doing - cherry-picking verses that don't make sense in today's society?

There's a world behind "making sense", chiver.

I admit that some people consider the notion of "the spirit of the law" to be carte blanche to simply do away with inconvenient parts of the law, but there are numerous precedents within the Bible itself where individuals are criticized for clinging to the ad litteram without righteously discerning the spirit—the meaning—of the laws.

The Law of Moses (the customs that Israelites were to live by) contains most of the examples that are considered contentious today.

Consider the issue of divorce. The Bible states that God hates divorce. It uses the same language when talking about it as when talking about homosexuality. God abhors divorce, not the least reason of which is because it shatters families, and because the marital covenant is symbolic of the spiritual covenant between a man and his God. You do not "back out" once you've sworn an oath.

Yet men of ancient times were allowed to issue a certificate of divorce to their wives? Why?

Christ explains in Matthew 19:8-9 (AKJV):

He said to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery.

If we look further into the matter of "hardness of your hearts", it isn't difficult to speculate that cold-blooded murder was 'the other option'. God hates divorce, but He considered it preferable to men murdering their wives to honour a contract "until death do you part".

The spirit of the divorce law was to protect the life of the woman. It's for this reason that virtually any church today considers spousal abuse to be tantamount to infidelity. The man has forsaken his wife and put her life in jeopardy, and thus he has broken the marital contract.

The same applies to issues of a woman widowed, and a woman raped. We see what the law says about who is at fault, what wrong has been committed, and what punishments or remedial actions the law applies. As I say, in the case of Deuteronomy 22 and 25, the law makes it quite clear that the rapist is at fault (which you'll note is not the conclusion of several other religions), the wrong in both cases is that the woman is being left to die, and the remedial action is that the woman's family (or her husband's) has an iron-clad obligation to allow her to fulfill her life.

The fact that the laws "don't make sense" in the last 400-or-so years of western civilization is simply because we're fulfilling them (not breaking them, but applying punishment and remedial action in the fullest) in more comprehensive ways. We have lavish social institutions. We have huge, expensive prisons to imprison rapists and extract our "50 shekels" worth of punishment (although I suppose this is debatable). Rape victims and widows are not left to starve to death. If ever things get so bad that they are, the scripture is clear as to who must be responsible for taking care of them.

Regarding homosexuals, the ad litteram law is "put them to death" (again, which is practiced in many places in the world). I'm quite certain most homosexuals are grateful Christians honour the law in spirit rather than in letter, following Christ's example of sparing the life of the adulteress. We understand that the world today normalizes and even glorifies homosexuality. And we're to apply the law ad litteram in a world where 99% of what people hear on the subject is "it's fine; go right ahead; follow your heart"? Homosexuality in ancient times was considered as abominable as murder. And open homosexuality was every bit as rare as murder.

This does not mean that homosexuality is not morally repugnant. By no means does this make homosexuality "right" or give us license to call it "right", or give us license to endorse it in any way. We look at what the consequences of putting the literal law into application and we see what the fruits of that would be. We are admonished in John 7:24 to "judge righteous judgment", and to choose between the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, scripture is clear from top to bottom precisely what God thinks of homosexuality, and ultimately that any individuals who who continue in it with the definitive (i.e. believing) knowledge of what He thinks of it are deserving of death. That is the spirit of the law which persists and which anybody who purports to be a Christian must honour.

Hopefully that explains the analog between the issues a bit better.

In the case she has to marry her attacker I'm still not convinced it is a kindness to anyone except her attacker.

To be blunt, God knows what's best, and what you're "convinced of" is worth less than fart in a hurricane. It would be fair to say that you nor I know less than one trillionth of what there rightly is to know in order to question God's judgment on the matter.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 8:35:35 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jul 24, 2012 8:32:05 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

God hates homosexuals.

My God hates no one.

My God could kick your God's butt.

[Virgil Showlion]

God hates homosexuals.

He hates homosexuality. He forgives any individual who comes to understanding repents—meaning "turns 180° away from and remains deadset against"—from wrongdoing.

Anybody who claims either of these two statements is false and claims to follow Christ is a liar. As it says in Isaiah 8:20:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 9:19:30 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jul 24, 2012 9:15:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

My God could kick your God's butt.

LOL!!! Will our Gods allow us to place bets on this butt kicking?

I'm not sure if the Gods take markers, but Vegas might!

[Virgil Showlion]

This is place for sober-minded debate, ladies and gentlemen. At least I think that's the purpose.

Perhaps the mods can weigh in.

Your EEing may have to go elsewhere.

[Deleted]

GOD HAS SPOKEN!

[Opti]

Jul 24, 2012 9:12:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

but Virgil, you don't see the the comparison between cherry-picking verses to insist that people live and govern by and what Weltz is doing - cherry-picking verses that don't make sense in today's society?

There's a world behind "making sense", chiver.

I admit that some people consider the notion of "the spirit of the law" to be carte blanche to simply do away with inconvenient parts of the law, but there are numerous precedents within the Bible itself where individuals are criticized for clinging to the ad litteram without righteously discerning the spirit—the meaning—of the laws.

The Law of Moses (the customs that Israelites were to live by) contains most of the examples that are considered contentious today.

Consider the issue of divorce. The Bible states that God hates divorce. It uses the same language when talking about it as when talking about homosexuality. God abhors divorce, not the least reason of which is because it shatters families, and because the marital covenant is symbolic of the spiritual covenant between a man and his God. You do not "back out" once you've sworn an oath.

Yet men of ancient times were allowed to issue a certificate of divorce to their wives? Why?

Christ explains in Matthew 19:8-9 (AKJV):

He said to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery.

If we look further into the matter of "hardness of your hearts", it isn't difficult to speculate that cold-blooded murder was 'the other option'. God hates divorce, but He considered it preferable to men murdering their wives to honour a contract "until death do you part".

The spirit of the divorce law was to protect the life of the woman. It's for this reason that virtually any church today considers spousal abuse to be tantamount to infidelity. The man has forsaken his wife and put her life in jeopardy, and thus he has broken the marital contract.

The same applies to issues of a woman widowed, and a woman raped. We see what the law says about who is at fault, what wrong has been committed, and what punishments or remedial actions the law applies. As I say, in the case of Deuteronomy 22 and 25, the law makes it quite clear that the rapist is at fault (which you'll note is not the conclusion of several other religions), the wrong in both cases is that the woman is being left to die, and the remedial action is that the woman's family (or her husband's) has an iron-clad obligation to allow her to fulfill her life.

The fact that the laws "don't make sense" in the last 400-or-so years of western civilization is simply because we're fulfilling them (not breaking them, but applying punishment and remedial action in the fullest) in more comprehensive ways. We have lavish social institutions. We have huge, expensive prisons to imprison rapists and extract our "50 shekels" worth of punishment (although I suppose this is debatable). Rape victims and widows are not left to starve to death. If ever things get so bad that they are, the scripture is clear as to who must be responsible for taking care of them.

Regarding homosexuals, the ad litteram law is "put them to death" (again, which is practiced in many places in the world). I'm quite certain most homosexuals are grateful Christians honour the law in spirit rather than in letter, following Christ's example of sparing the life of the adulteress. We understand that the world today normalizes and even glorifies homosexuality. And we're to apply the law ad litteram in a world where 99% of what people hear on the subject is "it's fine; go right ahead; follow your heart"? Homosexuality in ancient times was considered as abominable as murder. And open homosexuality was every bit as rare as murder.

This does not mean that homosexuality is not morally repugnant. By no means does this make homosexuality "right" or give us license to call it "right", or give us license to endorse it in any way. We look at what the consequences of putting the literal law into application and we see what the fruits of that would be. We are admonished in John 7:24 to "judge righteous judgment", and to choose between the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, scripture is clear from top to bottom precisely what God thinks of homosexuality, and ultimately that any individuals who who continue in it with the definitive (i.e. believing) knowledge of what He thinks of it are deserving of death. That is the spirit of the law which persists and which anybody who purports to be a Christian must honour.

Hopefully that explains the analog between the issues a bit better.

In the case she has to marry her attacker I'm still not convinced it is a kindness to anyone except her attacker.

To be blunt, God knows what's best, and what you're "convinced of" is worth less than fart in a hurricane. It would be fair to say that you nor I know less than one trillionth of what there rightly is to know in order to question God's judgment on the matter.

To be blunt, you assume the bible is God's unchanging word literally.
You assume the God of the bible is separate and distinct from the God of the Koran, and the one God of other religions.

I have a feeling that the God of the Koran is the one God who dictated the Koran for that time and place. Then God attempted to update by dictating parts of the bible. Most subsequent updates have been ignored except in small pockets.

God IMO is not a singular entity the way most Christians are taught. Not even just the Triune entity if you want to view it that way. You and I are both part of God we can if we had the belief access the very power Jesus used to heal which some call God, some call the unified field, but it is the all, the everything where all is possible.

God created homosexuals, it is just illogical to me that God would condemn them throughout eternity and not have laws condemning and sacrificing all homosexual animals as well. I believe its a human bias not a God bias and yes we aren't going to agree on this.

Buddhists have a whole technology on how to be reborn and for predicting where someone might be reborn physically. There is a whole world out there that is not explained by a literal reading of the bible. I know because of your beliefs you believe I am utterly wrong and possibly damned because of it. Luckily my own beliefs in God are more generous and life affirming. I believe someday in one of your lives you will evolve to know more and understand more of the truth. Until then we will continue to disagree on some literalistic points of the bible.

[swamp]

Jul 24, 2012 9:19:30 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jul 24, 2012 9:15:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

My God could kick your God's butt.

LOL!!! Will our Gods allow us to place bets on this butt kicking?

The Catholic Gods will turn it into a bingo game.

[trevorw2539]

Jul 24, 2012 8:13:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

A widow was as good as dead in biblical times, Ms. Weltz. None of our social institutions existed. Life was agrarian, with hard, backbreaking farm labour the norm. Starving to death was common.

God is laying out in Deuteronomy that if a man's wife was widowed, his family (specifically his brother) was not to leave her to die. And if a woman was raped, the victim was not to be left to die. It would be a shotgun wedding. The rapist was to pay the father an enormous sum of money and care for the woman as a husband all her days. Given that "Dad" would undoubtedly have lived five minutes away, he'd have made sure of it.

These are laws for impossible decisions being made in merciless times, a part of the Law of Moses. The spirit of the law, as I say, is that a woman is not to be left to die. There is a moral obligation for somebody to take care of her.

If you believe that this law is not being fulfilled in other ways today—that a widow or a rape victim will starve to death—then I agree the literal law must still be in effect.

As for what Deuteronomy and countless other books say on the matter of homosexuality, I needn't tell you that both the spirit and the ad litteram are crystal clear.

In short.

Levirite marriage. Yibbum. When a man died and left a widow without a son, it was the duty of his brother to marry the widow and provide a son to carry on his brothers name. The son would be known as the deceased mans son and share his property.
It was important that everything stayed within the national family.
If the brother refused the ceremony of 'halitzah' was performed. The woman could then either marry another brother or was free to marry whom she chose.
Ruth and Boaz was a case in which there was no brother. A close relative refused to marry her and Boaz (another relative) took on the duty. However this was probably a Go-el (Kinsman-Redeemer) marriage as opposed to Levirite (brother) marriage.

Gets complicated don't it.



Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
----
How about this biblical definition of marriage? Oh gosh, no....it's always those evil gays they single out

This is not a biblical definition of marriage. That is in Genesis 2, defined by Adams words.

This is the outcome of an act of violence and illegality. Its consequence results in a marriage under the law. The price paid would be the 'bride price'.

Homosexuality has been with us for 4000+ years. Most civilisations have recognised it and dealt with it in different ways. To some it has been openly acceptable. To others acceptable in private.

[thyme4change]

God doesn't hate anyone. But I would imagine he gets really pissed off at people who twist his Word into something it isn't just to further their own agendas.

Man, does he have a really long list - including just about every preacher at one time or another.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 10:09:25 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

God doesn't hate anyone. But I would imagine he gets really pissed off at people who twist his Word into something it isn't just to further their own agendas.

Man, does he have a really long list - including just about every preacher at one time or another.

The list would probably be about 7 billion people long.

[thyme4change]

The list would probably be about 7 billion people long.

What about all the dead ones? He is over them?

[Virgil Showlion]

To be blunt, you assume the bible is God's unchanging word literally.

In the spirit of being blunt, your view on who God is and mine are irreconcilable.

We shall find out whose view is the truth in time. If the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the author of the Koran, I owe you a Coke.

Gets complicated don't it.

Life, alas, is complicated.

Thank you all the same for some legal perspective on the matter.

[thyme4change]

Bring back animal sacrifice!

[Opti]

Jul 24, 2012 10:19:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To be blunt, you assume the bible is God's unchanging word literally.

In the spirit of being blunt, your view on who God is and mine are irreconcilable.

We shall find out whose view is the truth in time. If the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the author of the Koran, I owe you a Coke.

Gets complicated don't it.

Life, alas, is complicated.

Thank you all the same for some legal perspective on the matter.

The Koran thing is just a guess, but I've talked to Muslims who are convinced it is THE WORD OF GOD because it was written before the bible. I'd prefer Zevia instead of Coke should either still exist when you find out.

We agree on some things that are in the bible, just not all. And yes we do disagree on who God is and that's OK.

[Virgil Showlion]

Bring back animal sacrifice!

The Jewish state evidently will, close to the end of the age. A great deal has to happen before then.

Speaking as to Christians, animal sacrifices were symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. They portended the shedding of his blood for the remission of man's sins, and to justify mankind before God. The amount of detail involved in each ritual and what each symbolizes is, in a word, astounding. A topic for another time, however.

When Christ came, the symbols were no longer necessary. They were rendered ancillary (superfluous) when Christ fulfilled the law, as he was the great High Priest of God, and his blood the sacrifice. The New Testament Church from the first understood this, and it can be proven without a doubt from scripture.

As for why Jews (who reject Christ as the messiah) discontinued the sacrifices, you'll have to ask them. I believe it happened sometime around 300 AD (300 CE in more modern parlance).

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 10:20:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Bring back animal sacrifice!

As long as they are served with a dry rub, I agree.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I appreciate your postings, Virgil, and always come away after reading them feeling as if I learned/gained a better understanding of some things. Thank you. You have the patience of a.....saint?

[Virgil Showlion]

You have the patience of a.....saint?

The patience of an engineer.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Ah. I stand corrected.

[trevorw2539]

Quote. The Koran thing is just a guess, but I've talked to Muslims who are convinced it is THE WORD OF GOD because it was written before the bible. I'd prefer Zevia instead of Coke should either still exist when you find out.


The Bible was 'written' - Torah and OraL Torah (or the Pentateuch and the rest of the OT) around over many centuries before 300BC. The NT in the first 2 cent. AD. Thus it was at least 500 years before the Quran.



The sacrifices were discontinued when the Temple fell in ad 70. This was the only place where sacrifices could take place. Especially the Day of Atonement sacrifices.

The Pharisees, as a sect, continued for another couple of centuries as they believed that worship (not sacrifices) could take place in the Synagogues.. The Saducees, however, believed that the Temple was the only place for worship. Ergo, when the Temple fell, they fell.

In brief.