the Bible's view of marriage
by just n from bethel 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
NewYork44M
I want to make a totally inappropriate comment... but I won't.... but I want to... but I won't.
-
just n from bethel
you should - go for it; After all what could be more inappropriate than God's justice of a rape be to make the victim marry the rapist.
-
free @ last
Believe it or not I became a conscientious objector to the bible first and then to the Jehovah's over that bloody set of laws in the bible regarding rape. The JWs simply failed to come up with any logical explanations on how to reconcile god's love, wisdom or justice with his misogynistic laws. Then they have the nerve to preach that we would somehow be safer under a theocracy than a democracy.
Thanks for the visual on the bible's recipe for this 'sacred institution'
-
dgp
Bookmarked.
-
Larsinger58
Interesting how you can emotionally look at something vs. legally.
For instance, brother-in-law marriage had to do with property, primarily. The inheritance passed down to children, albeit, primarily the male children. If a man married and had no children, then his brother would have intercourse with his sister-in-law so she could have children in her former husband's name and thus produce an heir. The "intent" was to preserve the family line of that brother, not to abuse the wife.
Same with a woman being raped. She would no longer be desireable as a wife and her life and livelihood would be ruined. So to assure she had security, the rapist had to marry the woman, thus taking care of her. So the "intent" of the law was so that the woman's future was not ruined by the rapist.
Further, Jehovah hated "divorce." Some men would tire of their wives then divorce them causing lots of pain for those women. Under the Christian law, therefore, divorce was only granted on grounds of fornication. Further, God recognized polygamy and the rights of secondary wives. That is one reason why the WTS is called the "man of lawlessness" in the Bible because it condemns marriage. 2 Timothy 3:4 is thus a prophecy about the WTS:
" 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth."
The WTS fulfills this because the Bible does not condemn polygamy and never has. Preferring monogamy certainly is suggested in the Bible but preferring singleness is also. But what is suggested for an improved spiritual life does not mean there is a law against those who choose otherwise, that is, to marry rather than be single. Even so, a principle is not a LAW. There is a "law" against divorce except on th grounds of fornication. That includes seconary wives who are recognized in the Bible. Thus when the WTS takes it upon itself to force African brothers to divorce their legal wives on grounds other than fornication, they actually cause them to break God's law against divorce. That's why they are called the "man of lawlessness." They fit the cliche of someone traveling to the ends of the earth to make one proselyte and then upon finding them, make them twice as subject to Gehenna than they were previously!
So while we're talking about cruel laws, look at the WTS and how much pain they cause women and their children when they force families of secondary wives to break up. And for what? God does not condemn polygamy.
Just in passing, the Bible clearly emphasizes that nothing you take into your mouth or body condemns you, but what comes out of the mouth does, that is, what is in the heart. Christians are under no dietary restriction. What a Christian takes into his body is up to him. Thus condemning intake of blood products or tobacco is non-Biblical. The WTS ignores the scripture that says if you're at the home of an unbeliever you are to eat everything without questioning your conscience. That seems to contradict another scripture that says to "abstain from blood." However, when you consider the context it is clear that was rule in the context of the state of the Christian congregation at that time which was primarily Jewish. The Jews had a weak conscience regarding eating blood and the weaker conscience of your brother is what determined whether you ate of the foods that were now free to be eaten. So that is the context of whether to eat or not eat. The rule was thus made so that everyone in the congregation was on the same page. But if you were at an unbeliever's home, say an unbelieving relative, then you could chow down on whatever you wanted to, including those blood sausages or anything sacrificed at the temple. That is also why it said you can buy anything at the meat market as well if you liked without question. That's because you were doing it privately and not in the congregation setting. That means a mature Christian understood there were no dietary restrictions except with respect to the weak conscience of another. So in the congregation setting, "abstain from blood." But outside the congregation setting, eat whatever your conscience allowed because nothing is condemned. Not blood. Not tobacco. Not anything.
So getting back to the WTS, they take the traditions of men and make them the laws of God. Western culture tradition looks down on polygamy so JWs use that tradition to condemn polygamy, making it seem like a Biblical mandate. They distort the blood issue that way as well, and we know how much unnecessary pain and suffering the blood issue has caused. And forget about defending the WTS in that regard based on the complications of tainted blood because they also condemn autologous blood transfusions. Meaning, if you knew you were up for say a knee replacement that might require blood replacement, over several months you could have your own blood drawn and saved just in case. Thus no issue with contracting hepatitis or AIDS. No psychological issues of misuing the sacred life of another. Yet that is forbidden also. Transfuing your own blood back into yourself is against God's laws? No.
So, finally, getting back to marriage. God loves women and seeks to protect them. God hates divorce and protects secondary wives and their rights. Even the law requiring a rapist to marry his victim was in the interest of the woman and her rights, not the rights of the rapist. Ordinarily the rapist would rape the woman and cast her off to fend for herself. This way, he is forced to provide for her and she and her children are guaranteed part of his inheritance.
So I understand, in the modern world where romance and monogamy is the norm that having a rapist marry his victim seems an insult to injury, but really it was in the interest of the woman this law was made, not to demonstrate misogynic tendencies.
Now I wonder why the "intent" of the law under those circumstances in a male dominated culture would be misunderstood as misogynic?
NO GENDER INEQUALITY AFTER JUDGMENT DAY: God loves women. Women became the "weaker vessel" for a limited time to facility families and childbirth. But once Judgment Day is over, marriage will be abolished and the human condition will be that similar to the angels, which means all will be bisexual or androgynic. There will be no more male and female; everyone will be of the same sex and thus there will no longer be any gender bias toward males. Everyone will be equal. Women will no longer have to play the secondary role.
Bottom line is that women have been exploited from the very beginning, starting with Eve whom Satan exploited. Exploitation of women would continue until after Judgment Day, though some concessions are made by God to minimize this to the extreme.
For those who want to exaggerate matters and label Jehovah as misogynic and barbaric, be my guest. But all of us don't see it that way.
In the meantime, some of that fallout is because of Eve's role in the Eden fiasco. Even so, women are not excluded from the kingdom. They will have equal roles in the kingdom just like men, so Jehovah is not misogynic in my opinion. Women are equals where it truly matters.
In the meantime, they should reflect on some of their suffering as brought upon them by the first woman, Eve, rather than the first man Adam, or the Creator.
LS
-
the-illuminator81
Jehovah was so wise to let rape victims marry their rapists. I mean, who else would marry such a dirty woman? She was probably asking for it, winking at the rapist or wearing a skirt that was not covering her knees. In his loving wisdom he made sure that the woman would not become a single spinster, a fate much more terrible than getting raped and enslaved by some random horny goatherd for the rest of their lives. And of course the woman's father would be paid well for selling off one of his slaves - errr..- daughters.
-
WTWizard
A rapist only required to pay 50 shekels of silver? Put in more modern times, a shekel is roughly 1/2 troy ounce. Or, 25 one-ounce rounds of silver.
This gives you some idea of the value of silver--or how Jehovah devalued the female gender. If silver was priced at $1.29 per ounce (as in 1971), that would amount to only $64.50. To compare, the fine for littering was $100 during the same year, and a month's rent averaged around $100. Hence, you are putting rape at about the severity of littering! Even at today's prices of silver, 25 ounces is just $1,000 (and that allows for $40 silver). Compare: You probably take home roughly $500 a week (if you are employed)--two weeks' wages! Something is not right here. And, if Jehovah is to make himself look just, silver is going to have to go WAY up in price to compensate. Being able to take a bride for 1,000 toilet papers, and she has to take you, simply is not just on Jehovah's part.
-
No Room For George
So much for marry only in the Lord carrying any weight.
-
mostlydead
Same with a woman being raped. She would no longer be desireable as a wife and her life and livelihood would be ruined. So to assure she had security, the rapist had to marry the woman, thus taking care of her. So the "intent" of the law was so that the woman's future was not ruined by the rapist.
Oh yeah....I'd feel real secure being married to a rapist. I just know he'd take good care of me! And we'll live happily ever after! My future is saved!