Thing is that no woman in her right mind will adhere to any of the abrahamic religious dogma that circumscribe her abilities.

Love is a wondrous thing yes?

(March 9, 2013 at 3:05 pm)EGross Wrote: Yes, if the girl was a virgin, and she was not already sold (erusin - waiting for delivery) and if the father doesn't like the guy, then the opposing verses indicate that the father, as primary owner, has a choice in the matter, but the seducer/boyfriend or rapist does not. It also appears that the girl, as property, does not have any choice either, although a good father would take his daughter's feelings into account. The financial incentive of a resale might cause him to hold onto her. Non-virgins have less financial value, and so are out of the picture concerning compensation.

At this point, it comes down to spin. You see a daughter as property to be sold. To me, the father wants what is best for his daughter and is older and wiser, so he makes the decision. The father presumably checks out the husband and believes he's suitable. The bride price is an extra protection which helps ensure that the potential husband has likewise considered the bride and believes she's suitable. This is speaking of the general case. In the specific case at hand, the father further has the right to deny the daughter to the man.

While arranged marriage in general seems odd to most of us today, I see nothing immoral or outrageous in in these laws.

If you read the text, the guy got caught. And if someone just raped or seduced, say, your 5 year old daughter, would you bother checking into his background?

I consider it outrageous that rape is of no issue, but the status of the ownership of her vagina is really the issue. Once purchased, it cannot be given away or taken witout being put to death. If it hasn't been sold, and you take it, if you are caught, you have to pay a normal fee plus a penalty. And if not, you are scot free since the testimony of the girl is irrelevant (females are not valid witnesses).

And this is not about "arranged marriage", this is about a non-arranged marriage and some guy taking what he wanted and getting caught.

So if the father gives up the girl, she is condemnt to being owned by the bastard for the rest of his life (if I were her, he would not have a long one). And if the father does not, her value is diminished, and he can sell her as a slave if he cannot sell her as a wife, or he can keep her. You are coming from a 21th century sense of evolved morality that surpasses the morality of this ancient text. In our days, slavery, enslaving women, and paying your way out of a rape charge seems nuts. But during those days, there was a different type of morality, where people had a financial value, and women were breeders to be sold like mares, and owned by their ba'al (master/husband), and their price was based on the status of their hymen, the amount of previous use, and their pedigree.

I consider this as evidence that morality does NOT come from those who accept these holy books, but from the evolution of society who rejects this morality.

(March 12, 2013 at 8:45 am)EGross Wrote: If you read the text, the guy got caught.

No, it says they got caught.

Well, he wasn't masterbating.

He got caught screwing the girl who was not betrothed to anyone. So he has to pay a fine. Optionally, he may end up owning her since he devalued her.

Either way, the girl gets screwed. Her lot is to be a slave to the bastard, to be sold as a true Hebrew Slave to another Hebrew by her father since her market value is down, or to be sold at a reduced price to someone who doesn't mind that she is last year's goods. Even if she is only 3 years old.

Those were the morals of the old god - women as bood mares or slaves. We have evolved beyond that, based on some, such as JohnV, who unconsciously reinterpret of the actual text, only because it is so foreign to our moral sense today, that it cannot be seen for what it is.

As I said, spin.

Which proves my point. It is likely that you are not intentionally ignoring the plain text of your bible, but it is such an antithesis of your good morality that your mind rejects it. I can accept that.

I do not believe that you would even consider rape, slavery, or the oppression of women as acceptable. Based on your earlier posts, I believe that you are too good of a person for that. You see people as more than property.

Unfortunately, the morality of yesteryear was a much different thing. Which leads me to believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, devoid of religion, and continuously evolving outside of the various immoral texts that many religions hold dear.

Which is why women who are Christians, Jews, and Muslims and live today, and share that morality, are better than these texts. And why would they would adore them? That was the first question, and I think this has shown the answer - because they cannot see the problem either.

(March 12, 2013 at 10:26 am)EGross Wrote: Which proves my point. It is likely that you are not intentionally ignoring the plain text of your bible, but it is such an antithesis of your good morality that your mind rejects it. I can accept that.

I do not believe that you would even consider rape,

The plain text of my Bible doesn't say rape. This was discussed earlier, people seemed to agree that the passage doesn't necessarily indicate rape, yet you come back to rape.

You are correct. It never mentions rape anywhere. I used that term in relationship to a 3-year old, which I thought was clear. I apologize if it wasn't.

The text speaks of forbidden relationships, and he was being fined for taking something without paying for it first as part of an ownership contract. And since a na'arah is a girl as young as three, could one call it was just a romantic fling? Although some Christian texts do insert rape, because the ones who studied see it as a possibility based on other verses, and the possibility of excessive youth.

But you are right, nowhere does the bible insert the word for rape. There is one passage that infers threat, but that only is to exonerate the woman from being killed. Rape is never mentioned. God couldn't care less, because the concept of rape did not exist as we know it. It was about ownership and theft. Women were property to be used and sold back then.

God is concerned about vagina ownership, though. If bought, she cannot give it, and he cannot take it, or there is death. If not bought and he takes it, he stole it and has to pay a penalty. And if not bought and she was not a virgin, then there is no penalty or forced marriage since she was already "used goods."

I brought up rape because it is something that the modern mind can grasp with a young girl. To try to describe a situation where a man can have sex with a 3 year old and call it anything but rape is difficult. She could be older. Maybe 6, 9, 11. Pick an age where you are comfortable that a 20 year old man can copulating with a girl. Maybe you like "statutory rape" instead of "rape". But that is our modenr mindset, since it was not uncommon to be engaged to a 3-year old, and pick up the goods when she was old enough to start breeding.

But in the Bible, God is not interested if the man forced himnself or not. He's just interested in the market value of her hymen.

Again, you see it as ownership, I see it as giving a father the responsibility to watch out for his daughter.