by ThomasCovenant 191 Replies latest members adult
changed attitudes towards women in our society have more to do with the equal rights amendment than they do with anything God's son taught.
cognizant dissident... I couldn't agree with you more. The politicians and bankers saw an opportunity to capitalize on collecting taxes from a large group of people they had yet to collect from (aka women).
lol heaven
the motives may not have been pure, but in the end, society as a whole has benefited by the greater contribution of women (except for the watchtower society of course).
By the way, I find the title of this thread somewhat discriminatory. Shouldn't the ugly girls have an equal opportunity to be raped and forced to live with their rapist for the rest of their lives? Why should only the pretty girls reap all the benefits of Jehovah's laws?
lol heaven
the motives may not have been pure, but in the end, society as a whole has benefited by the greater contribution of women (except for the watchtower society of course).
I am very happy paying taxes as long as they are reasonable and used in supporting a principled society. The empowerment of having a paying job is amazing.
edited to add: even though I believe the equal rights movement was used by the politicians and bankers, I am very grateful to be able to have a paying job that can support me.
I wondered what 50 silver shekels is worth in US money = $???
But I wonder what value that had in those times?
1 shekel = 4 days wages?
50 = 200 days wages (assuming they did not work on Saturday, 200/6 = 33 weeks 2 days?)
I would think that 50 shekels was not a minor sum back then.
No amount of money though could replace what this man had taken from this woman. But notice that the money is paid to the father not the woman since she is really the father's property.
This whole thing is a property issue under the Law not a moral issue.
Married women are the property of their husbands.
Engaged women are the property of their fiances.
Virgin women are the property of their fathers.
In Israel when the king died, his wives became the property of the new king (clinched their claim to the throne)
Women could not inherit property because they were the property.
As to divorce, did you realize that men could divorce their wives in Israel but not on the grounds of adultery...adultery carried with it a death penalty (unless you were David or Bathsheba) which terminated the marriage. But women could not divorce their husbands. Thus the part of the scripture denying this man the choice of divorcing his wife.
---------------------------------------
The WTS uses the OT as a pattern and even holding up as examples to be followed, men who sent away their wives and children because they were of a different religion without any mention of taking care of their own children financially, perhaps expecting their wives families to do that. Are jws today allowed to do that? How man times have jw women had the phrase "Jehovah has a divorcing" thrown at them?
(Malachi 2:14-16) . . .have dealt treacherously, although she is your partner and the wife of your covenant. 15 And there was one who did not do [it], as he had what was remaining of [the] spirit. And what was that one seeking? The seed of God. And YOU people must guard yourselves respecting YOUR spirit, and with the wife of your youth may no one deal treacherously. 16 For he has hated a divorcing," Jehovah the God of Israel has said; "and the one who with violence has covered over his garment," Jehovah of armies has said. "And YOU must guard yourselves respecting YOUR spirit, and YOU must not deal treacherously.
(Ezra 10:1-4) . . .Now as soon as Ez´ra had prayed and he had made confession while weeping and lying prostrate before the house of the [true] God, those of Israel collected themselves together to him, a very large congregation, men and women and children, for the people had wept profusely. 2 Then Shec·a·ni´ah the son of Je·hi´el of the sons of E´lam answered and said to Ez´ra: "We—we have acted unfaithfully against our God, so that we gave a dwelling to foreign wives from the peoples of the land. Yet now there exists a hope for Israel concerning this. 3 And now let us conclude a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and those born from them according to the counsel of Jehovah and of those trembling at the commandment of our God, that it may be done according to the law. 4 Get up, for the matter devolves upon you, and we are with you. Be strong and act."
(Ezra 10:19) 19 But they promised by shaking hands to put their wives away, and that, they being guilty, there should be a ram of the flock for their guiltiness.
(Ezra 10:43-44) . . .. 44 These all had accepted foreign wives, and they proceeded to send away wives along with sons.
Notice how the bible says sent away, put away, in the WTS uses dismisses....the word divorce occurs only in one place I could find in the WT publications:
*** it-1 p. 44 Adaiah ***An Israelite, one of the descendants of Bani who divorced their foreign wives and sent away their sons after the Babylonian exile.—Ezr 10:29, 44.
Why were they told to do this; to save the genetic purity of Israel? Doesn't the WTS want jws to protect their purity by having their members not marry non-jws, not associate with non-jws or ex-jws?
Why then are jw spouses not encouraged to divorce non-jw spouses (on paper anyway), to send away their children who are half non-jw and being exposed to non-jw ideas in the home, and non-jw vocabulary and language and could contaminate the congregation?
Notice how the WTS dances around this question regarding verse 44:
*** w06 1/15 p. 20 Highlights From the Book of Ezra ***10:3, 44—Why were the children put away along with the wives? If the children had stayed behind, the likelihood that the dismissed wives would return on account of them would have increased. Moreover, little children generally require the care of their mother.
sound familiar 20 years before:
*** w86 1/15 p. 9 Jehovah Fulfills His Promises! ***10:3, 44—Why were the children dismissed as well?Young children usually need their mothers. Moreover, through the influence of the children, the dismissed wives may have returned in time. Pure worship of Jehovah had to take precedence.
Notice how the WTS misuses the scripture about these men "sending away" their non-jewish wives to marrying a non-jw person: (emphasis mine)
*** w89 9/15 p.24 par.17 Be Obedient toThoseTaking the Lead***
To illustrate: The elders may urge a Christian to follow the Bible’s counsel to marry "only in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 7:39; Deuteronomy 7:3, 4) They may point out that marrying an unbaptized person can lead to serious problems, even as King Solomon erred gravely by taking foreign wives, who inclined his heart toward false gods and away from Jehovah. (1 Kings 11:1-6) The elders may also explain that Ezra had Jewish men put away their pagan wives, and Nehemiah said that those marrying unbelievers were ‘committing great badness in acting unfaithfully against God.’ (Nehemiah 13:23-27; Ezra 10:10-14; see TheWatchtower, March 15, 1982, page 31; November 15, 1986, pages 26-30.) Blessings and the satisfaction of pleasing Jehovah result from applying such Scriptural counsel given by loving elders.
----------
I can't help but wonder what Deuteronomy would have said if these virgin women had been raped by a non-jew....would marriage have been an option?
Blondie's ramblins
i'm sorry to tell you............... but there many laws (petty) that got people killed and this one was there to "protect"?
c'mon, how nieve and apologetic?
So now i ask you again: Will you agree that your rationalization of this law is just an example of special pleading and if not, where do i misunderstand you? Where does the parallel with my example fail? What IS a good example of special pleading to you?
I do not agree that it is an example of special pleading.
My assertion is that this law was designed to curtail immorality and callousness, on the part of men especially. (Would that those laws were still in effect!)
No where does it state that the girl had to live with the man; it simply states that he couldn't divorce her.
Anything else, imo, is reading too much into the text.
Why didn't you answer my question?
Sylvia
Oh, TEC ,welcome and thank you for your well-reasoned remarks.
Sylvia
Since special pleading means asserting that something must be so because we desire it to be, and since none of us were around during those times, then all posters on this topic stand guilty.
Sylvia
No where does it state that the girl had to live with the man; it simply states that he couldn't divorce her.
Anything else, imo, is reading too much into the text.
Oh, come off it.. surely, you have to be smarter than that.. or are you really that clueless about what life was like in those times?
He married her.. she thus becomes his property. She then must, by divine law, obey him in everything he says.. to claim she has a choice as to whether or not she lives with him is "reading too much into the text", IMO.
