When I went to Catholic school, the religion teachers told us it was because everyone was assumed to be a sinner when they were born. Perhaps that could be it more specifically but I don't really know or care exactly what it means at this juncture.
I was raised a Catholic, and I always assumed that Original sin was from the act of procreation, probably because the Virgin Mary was said to be free of Original sin. Now after looking it up tonight, it seems to be a more abstact concept. I never gave it much thought though.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Ice Player For This Useful Post:
One shouldn't assume that in the Jewish tradition the bride and groom have no say in the matter. Rachel was asked if she would go marry Isaac. She was not forced into it. Off the top of my head I can't think of an instance where there is indication this wasn't commonly the case.
Rachel was married to Jacob. Jacob's father, Issac was married to Rebekah.
We have what is written in the Bible (or Torah as it were) and the rest are assumptions made by you (girl getting raped in the camp, shared dwellings, not forced into anything, etc.).
Regarding Rachel (if you had meant Rachel), that was not Jewish. Those were ancient Canaanite nomadic tribes who practiced varieties of idolatry (Rachel took her father's idols with her) and polygamy and was the patriarch of one small family marrying another nomadic family (who were first cousins BTW). Israel or Jews didn't even exist yet.
The time of Deuteronomy is supposedly hundreds of years and multiple generations later during the Exodus and it puts the law down very clearly.
You are the one making assumptions and not knowing your Biblical history or basic apologetics from all of your postings. Thank god I actually read my Bible very thoroughly and studied exegesis and theology and near-east history instead of listening to low-brow sermons for the masses or I wouldn't be the atheist I am today.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 03-17-2012 at 12:15 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
The previous verses are irrelevant. Location is irrelevant. It's marital status that is relevant.
The previous verses that explain why and when a man and woman should be stoned if rape occurs (because the girl didn't cry out - maybe she was scared he would kill her?), are explicitly regarding a woman who is engaged to be married (therefore, you can perhaps inference the cultural attitude that she was already the property of another man).
Deuteronomy 28 explicity has to do with unmarried and unpledged virgin girls which is similar situation to what the topic of this thread is about.
If you want to get even deeper into it, verse 13 says that a girl can be stoned to death by the entire village if her husband is unhappy with her and claims that she wasn't a virgin and no proof can be found. If proof is found, the husband has to pay a fine to her father and she gets to continue being his wife and they cannot be divorced.
To sum up:
1. If a husband is dissatisfied with his wife and makes a claim that she wasn't a virgin when he married her, his wife is to be publically stoned to death unless proof can be found that she was a virgin when she married him. If proof is somehow found, she still has to remain married to her husband (who publicly called her a whore) until she dies.
2. If a man rapes a girl who is engaged, both are to be stoned to death (unless the girl was raped in a field where no-one could hear her scream).
3. If a man rapes a virgin girl who is not engaged to anyone, he owes her father 50 pieces of silver and then he is to marry her and they can never be divorced.
As for your devotion to the KJV, I understand where you are coming from. When I was a kid, I too preferred that version but the notion that it is somehow the most perfect and literal translation is a myth and fallacy among Christians. For example, fourteen different Hebrew words were translated into the single English word "prince". This occurs many times in it's translation. Also, in the day and language of the KJV, "lay with" always indicates sexual relations without fail. It's cognate with sex. The original KJV was also bound with the Apocrypha, something which you will not find today but are fascinating reads in and of themselves.
I'm sorry, but I simply believe all of that to be absolutely abhorrent, unjust, and unethical at the very core of my being. If this "law does teach us a lot about the God we serve" is true as you say; what it taught me was that Christianity was a fallacy and it's God was not worthy of worshiping or believing in. It taught me that the Bible is a product of it's times - simply a chronicle of one Levantian tribe and it's cultural history along with all it's imperfections and atrocities that were normal for the times...Taking any of that as an article of faith or any of it as being divinely inspired takes a tremendous leap of faith and possibly an extreme disrespect toward women.
Your the one who chose to use a thread concerning a forced marriage and suicide in a Muslim country as an excuse to attack the scriptures shared by both Jews and Christians. You did it by taking a verse out of context and hand picking a poor translation that suited your interests. Now you've found another one and seem to believe that proves your case.
Ok then, both of your translations use the word "rape" which I contend was not the case but, rather it was consentual sex. Show me the Hebrew word or phrase that is translated "rape" in your hand picked verse.
My guess is that you can't because that verse isn't talking about "rape". I'll gladly show you the Hebrew word translated "lay" in the KJV. I can even show many other verses that translate the same Hebrew word "lay" with the same meaning. You see that is the benefit of a literal translation. It doesn't interpret the passage but, rather just translates it with consideration given to english grammer.
Now if you want to discuss the good reasons why adultery was treated as a capital offense or why being in town or being in a field mattered I suggest you start a thread. That isn't the topic of this thread.
haha wait a tick, Im still confused, I thought to fornicate was just to have sex, regardless of marriage or anything, just another word for sex. Adultery is sex outside of the marriage... and I understand that being a sin. But Calgaryborn states fornication is a sin, meaning even in marriage it's a sin?
I don't get what he's trying to say is all.
The word "fornication" as used in the bible is always talking about sex outside of marriage which is a sin. The word itself just means sex but, the context you will find it in scriptures will always have to do with unlawful circumstances.
When a man is having sex with his wife the Bible just says he lay with her. The word "lay" actually means "lay" but, again context tells you what they are doing.
The word "adultery" is used to describe the breaking of the marriage vows. Normally the vows are broken by having sex with someone other than your spouse or if you are single by having sex with someone who is married.
Rachel was married to Jacob. Jacob's father, Issac was married to Rebekah.
We have what is written in the Bible (or Torah as it were) and the rest are assumptions made by you (girl getting raped in the camp, shared dwellings, not forced into anything, etc.).
Regarding Rachel (if you had meant Rachel), that was not Jewish. Those were ancient Canaanite nomadic tribes who practiced varieties of idolatry (Rachel took her father's idols with her) and polygamy and was the patriarch of one small family marrying another nomadic family (who were first cousins BTW). Israel or Jews didn't even exist yet.
The time of Deuteronomy is supposedly hundreds of years and multiple generations later during the Exodus and it puts the law down very clearly.
You are the one making assumptions and not knowing your Biblical history or basic apologetics from all of your postings. Thank god I actually read my Bible very thoroughly and studied exegesis and theology and near-east history instead of listening to low-brow sermons for the masses or I wouldn't be the atheist I am today.
So I got Rachel mixed up with Rebekah; Big deal. The passage still is the only detailed account of the betrothal process the Bible gives. The reason why Abraham sent his servant where he did is because he wanted Isaac to marry someone who was from the same tribe as he was. Rebekah was given the option to marry Isaac or not. Arranged marriages don't mean forced marriages.
Anyone one thinks an "arranged" marriage and a "forced" marriage is the same thing.
Not sure why you quoted me, I just mentioned I know a couple from an arranged marriage and they have stayed married for many years. If someone wants to debate them being forced or not forced, I can simply ask them how they felt.
