Marcus, Your responses amount to saying, "These were great laws for their day and age." So you have acknowledged ethical relativism, and that it can be found in the Bible.
No. I have acknowledged no such thing. Rape is wrong. Adultery is wrong. The Fundamental principles of the laws have not changed.
Neither did you consider the woman's point of view. Forced to marry her rapist? Really?
Did you consider how other nations did things. A woman who was raped was considered "damaged" and most men would not marry her. What would would happen to such a woman? She would never be a wife and never have the protection of a husband. The law was meant to protect her and make men take responsibility of not just shaming her but potentially destroying the rest of her life. It was also mandated that the man could never divorce her or abuse her. The alternative for the woman? Destitution. Ostracized. Today woman have options that were not available to ancient woman. In no way does the condone or proscribe raping a woman as good thing.
Forced to marry the men who slaughtered her husband and/or whole family, village?
Again this was to protect the woman from being treated as nothing but property and a slave.She could be integrated into society. And she would be married to only one man not men. And where does Edward get that the woman was forced against her will? The Bible does not say that. Again without being married, a woman in those days could look forward to destitution, starvation, and death.
And in neither case is a wedding ceremony mentioned. It was an exchange of property.
Does it take explicitly stating and describing a marriage ceremony to understand that it was really a marriage and not just people living together and having sex? The Bible never uses the term "marriage" loosely. It's supposed to be a sacred covenant relationship between a man and woman; co-equal - because no where does the Bible say a man is superior to or more important than women.
And if the woman failed to please the soldier who slaughtered her people, she was let go. But if she did please him, only then was he obliged to take care of her.
I wonder if Babinski really ever looked at how the other nations treated prisoners of war at the same time, or even today. They used to kill the women if they weren't pleased with them. This was to protect the women. You couldn't just take a woman, use her for sex, and then toss her out without penalty.
And in fact a Hebrew male could have as many wives as he could feed and clothe. And also keep concubines and female slaves.
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.As for the Book of Esther, read chapter 2. "Beauty pageant" is a euphemism. The king was raping every virgin in that pageant, including the Jewish virgin, Esther. God was not incensed though. He allowed the raping, so that the king could discover just how "good" Esther was in the sack. . . for the good of her people. Esther was found to be so "good" that the king made her queen, and the Jews got to take revenge on their enemies, killing 75,000 of them according to the story, all because a virginal Jewish girl was raped by a king and was so good in bed. Is the story true? Who knows? God isn't even mentioned once in that book.
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. - Deuteronomy 17:16-18
I don't think Babinski has even read the book of Esther. Xerxes did not even know or care that Esther was a Jew. The Jews killing 75,000 of their enemies had nothing to do with Esther. It was not even widely known that Esther was Jewish until she revealed it to show the treacherous Holocaust Haman had in mind for her people. The Jews were defending themselves because on a certain day they were all supposed to be slaughtered and Persian kings could not change a law once it was passed so Xerxes gave the Jews the authority to defend themselves. It had nothing to do with Ester being taken against her will. Re-read Esther.
Ruth of course uncovers Boaz's feet, which is another euphemism for sleeping with him.
Not everyone agrees with that interpretation and even if it's true, Ruth initiated the scene not Boaz. She was in control.
As for Paul, the most he said about marriage was that it was honorable, and it was "better to marry than to burn." "Better to marry than to burn?" They should SING that kind of praise of marriage at weddings. So all Paul admits is that marriage is "honorable" and "better than burning with lust" constantly. Not a word of actual praise.
Um...how is "honorable" not praise? And how does this advance Babinski's argument? It doesn't. More failure.
All that Paul praises is the "spiritual marriage" of Christians to their bridegroom, the Lord. Therefore, Paul made clear that he thought celibacy was definitely a superior choice than marriage.
So what? Paul was saying that he recognizes than not everyone can live without being married. He said that nothing was wrong with remaining single or getting married. If the point is that Paul is saying that it's better not be married because you can focus more on God, then that's true. However he never condemned anyone getting married..
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. -1 Corinthians 7: 36-38As for Cain marrying his sister, and in fact all of the children of Adam and Even marrying their brothers and sisters. Nice. More ethical relativism. I guess when they chose who was sleeping in whose beds while still kids, that was quite a serious choice indeed. But of course God being omnipotent could have created a second couple so such a thing need not have occurred. But I guess God just slapped his thigh and said, let 'em all sleep with each other!
I'm always amazed by this. According the theory of evolution, brothers and sister must have had to procreate together to pass on the traits that make us human when we evolved from lower lifeforms right? At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens and I would wager that they were closely related unless you want to argue that a man and a woman independently evolved from lower primates? I don't think so. Close relatives would have had to gotten together in order for things like large brains and opposable thumbs be propagated to further generations. So what is the problem? Even throwing out evolution and just assuming that it was only Adam and Eve, who else would their children marry when there was no other human beings? Me thinks, Edward Babinski is just trying to introduce an argument that has no merit because he has nothing else. God allowed them to do that until He deemed it no longer needed according to His purpose. Any biologist can tell you that now its no longer a good idea and very dangerous for the children. This is how we get very bad mutations and sicknesses. Before the flood, this was not the case because of the genetic purity and closeness to the source.
