Thursday, July 7, 2011

My Common Sense is Tingling: Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman


I saw the above image with the following comments:

Every time I hear about how marriage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman I want to go through the Bible and bring all this up. The infographic is very helpful.
Next I need a list of all the different kinds of marriages throughout history. Because not only have we had polygamous marriage for forever, but it hasn’t always been one man and several wives. Plus, there’s that whole penchant Egyptians had for marrying siblings (there is evidence that this wasn’t just a practice of the royals, either).
But for those who only believe in what the Bible tells them, this is the best weapon.

I do believe what the Bible says about marriage. Does the Bible tells us that  Levirate marriages, concubines, polygamy are prescribed as commandments or condoned?  No, the Bible merely tells us that they happened and we have no evidence that God was happy about it. As a matter of fact the times at which God actively and miraculously matched men and women together  (Adam/Eve and Isaac/Rebbecca. are examples) were single, male/female relationships. Other marriages being discussed were the choices of people. God didn't tell them to do that.Also in a Levirate marriage the woman who married her dead husband's closest living male relative it was a real marriage and she was supposed to be a full wife. Their children were to carry on the lineage of the dead husband and provide the woman the protection that a widow looses  in that culture.

Now it gets interesting. Because the Bible does mandate that if a man rapes a virgin he has to marry her. The Bible does not mandate that a woman must marry her rapist. The Bible also talks about how to marry a woman who has been captured in war. It seems crazy to our modern sensibilities. I mean why would a woman want to marry her rapist? We are repulsed by the idea because today women have options. In Ancient times, they had no options. A woman who had been raped would not have the protection of a husband. It was better for her in that time to be in a marriage where she could not be divorced. God gave them this command for the woman's protection. If one carefully studies the Hebrew you can see when it's talking about when a woman is being forced or when a woman is choosing to have sex. Both cases are discussed.

As for two of the relationships given in the chart, there are misstatements..

Genesis 16 is about Hagar being Sarah's slave and becoming Abraham's concubine.  The chart says that a wife's property becomes that of her husband's. I should hope so! And vice versa! By this time, Sarah and Abraham had been married for years! Being barren, Sarah thought she could help God out because they had been promised children. Sarah knew legally, the child Hagar would bear by Abraham would be his and Sarah's. That was the practice of the time and no where does God say "Good idea! All those who follow me should do the same thing!!!"

As for Exodus 21:4, the whole law is not given:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.- Exodus 21:4-6

The law is not about mating slaves together like cattle. Thank America for that, not God. Instead the scripture it talking about giving permission to a slaves to marry.

So why did God allow people to mess up marriage so bad, if  monogamous, male-to-female marriages are better for us and His will?  Jesus answered this for us:

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”  8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Does anyone really think that these other aberrations of  what marriage should  be is any different than the evil of  divorce, made necessary by our sins? I don't. Why should we go and further mess up what marriage has become? Why make it worse? We should just go back to what God has called "Good", not to "I'll let you slide until I decide to judge you in hell".



Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman
Enhanced by Zemanta

12 comments:

  1. In Ancient times, [rape victims] had no options.

    Maybe that was the case in Judea, but that was not the case in Egypt. And one would have to think that if a culture could come up with "options" for women on their own without the assistance of an omnipotent god, then you'd think a culture who had an omnipotent god dictating the rules and laws would be able to figure out some better "options" for women (especially considering "Moses" supposedly spent time interacting with the culture that figured it out on their own!).

    Yes, yes, I know, "you can't second guess god's motives", blah blah blah. That's often quite convenient for the apologist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The law was binding in ancient Israel. Do you know what the law was in Ancient Egypt when a woman is raped? Today they accuse her of adultery and stone her, or ignore it. How do you know it was better that what God gave them through Moses?

    And you can't even begin to understand God's motives. Go ahead and ask Him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You realize Ancient Egypt was not an Islamic State, right?

    We do know ancient Egyptian women were legally considered equal, and we do know rapist were executed, we also know women even conducted executions. So take that for what it's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You realize Ancient Egypt was not an Islamic State, right?

    Who said it was? I didn't.

    We do know ancient Egyptian women were legally considered equal, and we do know rapist were executed, we also know women even conducted executions. So take that for what it's worth.

    Yeah adds nothing to your argument and takes nothing from mine. Thanks for nothing. Rapists in Israel were also supposed to be executed if he was caught doing it

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rapists in Israel were also supposed to be executed if he was caught doing it

    Yeah, so assuming your simplistic apologetic excusing rape in the bible is correct (and it's not), wouldn't this cause women to not have the support of a "husband" after being raped, leaving them without "options"? Again, assuming your simplistic apologetic excuse for rape in the bible is correct (and it's not), seems like this would create an incentive for women to submit to rape and then make an accusation later.... Yeah, great system...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, so assuming your simplistic apologetic excusing rape in the bible is correct (and it's not), wouldn't this cause women to not have the support of a "husband" after being raped, leaving them without "options"? Again, assuming your simplistic apologetic excuse for rape in the bible is correct (and it's not), seems like this would create an incentive for women to submit to rape and then make an accusation later.... Yeah, great system...


    Your reading comprehension level is spotty at best. The post is not about excusing or condoning rape. You show your presuppositions and they make you write really stupid things. The Bible does not condone or prescribe rape in any fashion. And no, it would not cause a woman to submit to rape. Would you like to see an example in the Bible of what a woman who was raped under this system thought and did? (2 Samuel 13)

    Surely you know about King David's daughter Tamar. You know what Tamar said when her half brother raped her? Do you know what she said when he tried to just send her away (although she fought him).

    2 Samuel 13 lays out the scenario. I'm probably making a mistake not exegeting the full text for you given you don't always understand what you read, but your stupidity really wearies me and my time is short.

    I'd never say that rape of any kind is correct. Neither does the Bible. Do try to keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Additionally, since 2nd Samuel is apparently prescriptive, does that make 1st Samuel 15 prescriptive as well?

    I don't think you want to go down that road.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again with the lack of reading comprehension. SECOND SAMUEL 13. Please read the capitalized sentence.

    Additionally, what's is Prescriptive about 2nd Samuel? It's a record of what happened. A history book! IT IS DESCRIPTIVE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You appear to be reading SECOND SAMUEL 13 (why the caps?) prescriptively. Why not FIRST SAMUEL 15 as well?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please read the capitalized sentence.

    I'm confused. Which sentence is capitalized? You inexplicably capitalized SECOND SAMUEL 13, but not a whole sentence. Please advise.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm confused. Which sentence is capitalized? You inexplicably capitalized SECOND SAMUEL 13, but not a whole sentence. Please advise.

    Yes you are. I never said that if a woman today is raped by her brother she should respond in the way Tamar did. I'm saying 2nd Samuel 13 tells us how a woman put the law into practice. I also am not saying that God is expecting us to respond to rape the same way. It's not a relativistic morality. It's how the Ancient Israelites should respond to rape not the 21st century American. If you think that is what the Bible is saying, it explains your confusions in grand fashion. No where does the the Bible tell us to do that today.

    ReplyDelete