God Advocates Rape

[_Res Ipsa]

Oops. Double double post post.

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad, I think your objection makes sense if Gods role is perpetual rule maker. I do not think God does that. Instead I believe God asks us to make rules and asks us to do so faithfully. Humans are to make the adjustment you mention. It is worth noting that generally Bible influenced cultures have done this over time.

The picture of God I just spoke of probably did not come from Mormonism.I think it is in the Bible but is not necessarily the picture in view in all parts of the Bible. I can think of God writing the ten commandments but I do not picture him writing the whole legal social structure in the Torah. I am completely unable to read the first five books books of the Bible without seeing tribal traditions and stories cobbled together. That is literally what is there.

I think Liz comments about the specific law in question are helpful. Trying to understand why it exists, I am reminded of the sense that group survival took precedent over individual rights in that time and place. Marriage was to ensure social peace and harmony and produce children. Producing enough children to survive was a perpetual serious undertaking. Like it or not one was understand they were obligated to do their part. People did not choose partners they made babies fulfilling social obligation.I do not think this was a Biblical thing but is just they way things were in all sorts of cultures at that time. Population maintenance was critical to social power and survival.

When I look at the time place social sense of the law my objection to it is partially answered. I do not like the particular sense of feminine purity that is in view. I think it plays out today in the honor killing that occurs in that culture to this day. In saying culture, I mean place and people,more than followers of Torah.

With the exception of Biblical literalists, I think that's pretty much how people interpret the more troublesome aspects of the Old Testament. I fully believe that the Old Testament authors were recording what they believed to be the will of god. I seem them as pretty much doing what I do: try to make sense out of their lives and their place in the universe.

[_huckelberry]

With the exception of Biblical literalists, I think that's pretty much how people interpret the more troublesome aspects of the Old Testament. I fully believe that the Old Testament authors were recording what they believed to be the will of god. I seem them as pretty much doing what I do: try to make sense out of their lives and their place in the universe.

Brad, even though I am believer who goes to church I find I agree with your statement here. Considering Biblical literalists I suspect they would not be happy with the way I presented the problem of law. However I think they end up making the same sort of changes but must present different reasons.

If I take my view of moral law and look at homosexuality I must leave a lot of openness to change from traditional moral rules. I think that homosexuals are stuck figuring out some moral rules without me telling them how to do it.

That subject comes to mind because it is so linked in the past with the same ideas of clean and unclean which are troublesome in the Old Testament. People then saw making the difference between clean and unclean clear as a matter of maintaining personal and social order which is health overcoming chaos. I am more than a little inclined to believe such concerns predate particular religions in human history and may well outlast them. It is a tricky subject because what people perceive as unclean can lead to unjust and brutal treatment. Children can abuse the different outsider. People can brutalize gay individuals.

[_moksha]

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

This could be a possible way around LDS marriage dictums for Steve and Paul. Just think of England, Steve.

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad, even though I am believer who goes to church I find I agree with your statement here. Considering Biblical literalists I suspect they would not be happy with the way I presented the problem of law. However I think they end up making the same sort of changes but must present different reasons.

If I take my view of moral law and look at homosexuality I must leave a lot of openness to change from traditional moral rules. I think that homosexuals are stuck figuring out some moral rules without me telling them how to do it.

That subject comes to mind because it is so linked in the past with the same ideas of clean and unclean which are troublesome in the Old Testament. People then saw making the difference between clean and unclean clear as a matter of maintaining personal and social order which is health overcoming chaos. I am more than a little inclined to believe such concerns predate particular religions in human history and may well outlast them. It is a tricky subject because what people perceive as unclean can lead to unjust and brutal treatment. Children can abuse the different outsider. People can brutalize gay individuals.

Thanks, huckleberry. What you describe is pretty much how I think about the relationship between religions and society in history. Churchgoing believers come in all flavors, and I find that I have lots of common ground with most of them.