God's design for relationship is arranged marriage, incompatible with modern society

[cinder]

No it's not. It is a casual use of the r word and a predujice against Lot's daughters. The essence of sexual assault is a power abuse by subjugating the victim and carnally possessing their body, and the intention is always out of malice. A father could rape a daughter, by no means could a daughter rape a father.

Do you realize that your definitions are not the same definitions that the majority of people use? That makes communication difficult. For most people SA or rape just means forced, non-consensual sex. And we're not so prejudiced against men that we say men can rape women but women can't rape men. Women have their own methods of coercion. And certainly getting someone so drunk they pass out then forcing them to have sex without realizing it is SA.
Interestingly scripture is silent on the impact it had on Lot when he realized what must have happened. Can't imagine those kids had a very good home life though.

 

[RegisterNow]

Do you realize that your definitions are not the same definitions that the majority of people use? That makes communication difficult. For most people SA or rape just means forced, non-consensual sex. And we're not so prejudiced against men that we say men can rape women but women can't rape men. Women have their own methods of coercion. And certainly getting someone so drunk they pass out then forcing them to have sex without realizing it is SA.
Interestingly scripture is silent on the impact it had on Lot when he realized what must have happened. Can't imagine those kids had a very good home life though.

Well then, I guess that's a profound cultural difference. Lot's daughters didn't force their father into sex, and they did it to replenish the human race, not to exert power upon a weaker person out of lust or malice. And I'm not saying it could only be a man to a woman, what Mrs Potiphur intended to do with Joseph would be power rape, you know. The way I see it, they did the same thing as Tamar.

Also I didn't say you're predujiced against men, you're predujiced against Lot's daughters.

 

[Dino246]

I suggest you put that into the context of 1 Cor. 9, and trust Paul as not being a hypocrite contradicting his own advice.

Obviously, Paul is not being a hypocrite. The more likely situation is that you are misinterpreting the text.

And I did read it, it says A traveling wife, not the wife of Paul's, Peter's or anybody in particular.

Here's the text for everyone to read:

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

It's right there. "Take along a believing wife, even as... Cephas [Peter]".

Paul makes clear (to those without a bias) that many of the early Church leaders were married.

Also, I suggest you read 1 Tim. 3:2-4 and 3:11-12. Did Paul, Timothy or Peter have at least two children to meet this qualification?

Relevance? They weren't elders, and you have apparently misinterpreted this text also.

 

[Dino246]

Well then, I guess that's a profound cultural difference. Lot's daughters didn't force their father into sex, and they did it to replenish the human race, not to exert power upon a weaker person out of lust or malice. And I'm not saying it could only be a man to a woman, what Mrs Potiphur intended to do with Joseph would be power rape, you know. The way I see it, they did the same thing as Tamar.

Also I didn't say you're predujiced against men, you're predujiced against Lot's daughters.

Lot's daughters did not need to "replenish the human race". While they were in an unfortunate situation, it was not irredeemable by a long shot, and no amount of "unfortunate situation" justifies what they consciously and intentionally did to their father.

Do you think Jacob was "forced" in any way to have sex with Tamar? The text certainly doesn't support that ridiculous notion. He saw a prostitute and decided to hire her for sex. While sinful, that ain't rape... either way. Another thing: Tamar is not Jacob's daughter!

 

[Mem]

No it's not. It is a casual use of the r word and a predujice against Lot's daughters. The essence of sexual assault is a power abuse by subjugating the victim and carnally possessing their body, and the intention is always out of malice. A father could rape a daughter, by no means could a daughter rape a father.

Doesn't this conclusion require an acceptance of the premise that an act cannot be qualified as rape if the victim finds their self 'liking' it? Was this act not at the least an assault to their father's will?

 

[Mem]

Interestingly scripture is silent on the impact it had on Lot when he realized what must have happened. Can't imagine those kids had a very good home life though.

The progeny that came from this union were the Moabites and the Ammonites.

 

[cinder]

The progeny that came from this union were the Moabites and the Ammonites.

Yes. I'm just wondering about the rest of the story. What were they told about who their father was? How long did the family live in the caves away from all other people? How did the whole episode affect the relationship between Lot and his daughters? Who married those boys and did they know or care about their family origins? Etc. Then again after growing up in sodom how aware were any of them about how wrong what was done was? It's speculation that can never be resolved I admit, but it's the kind of speculation that treats the brief episodes relayed in the bible as real things that happened to real people and had real consequences.

 

[Snackersmom]

........nobody has given a valid answer to the simple question - indeed God offered Eve, an appropriate helper for Adam and brought her to him, but God does NOT make such a helper out everyone's side for everyone, what do you do then? Accepting it and settle on it as God's will? Or go seeking a partner, who may or may not exist, on your own accord?

Hi Registernow, if you are still looking for answers to this question you might want to check out @Edith 's current thread called "Contentment in singlehood". It's a good discussion!

I don't think anyone has been intentionally avoiding your question, it just wasn't clear what you were asking. Of course you could start up your own separate thread asking the question directly as well.

Best!

 

[Snackersmom]

Yes. I'm just wondering about the rest of the story. What were they told about who their father was? How long did the family live in the caves away from all other people? How did the whole episode affect the relationship between Lot and his daughters? Who married those boys and did they know or care about their family origins? Etc. Then again after growing up in sodom how aware were any of them about how wrong what was done was? It's speculation that can never be resolved I admit, but it's the kind of speculation that treats the brief episodes relayed in the bible as real things that happened to real people and had real consequences.

Those were probably the same virgin daughters that Lot offered up to his neighbors so they would sexually assault the daughters instead of the visiting angels.... definitely a weird situation to "come of age" in. I guess growing up in Sodom would have that effect, huh?

 

[RegisterNow]

Lot's daughters did not need to "replenish the human race". While they were in an unfortunate situation, it was not irredeemable by a long shot, and no amount of "unfortunate situation" justifies what they consciously and intentionally did to their father.

Do you think Jacob was "forced" in any way to have sex with Tamar? The text certainly doesn't support that ridiculous notion. He saw a prostitute and decided to hire her for sex. While sinful, that ain't rape... either way. Another thing: Tamar is not Jacob's daughter!

No they did not, but they were under such impression, and they were obsessed with baby making, doing it with their father was the only available option at the time. They may have taken advantage of the situation, but they didn't force Lot into it.

Also, biblically and chronologically speaking, this took place early in the Genesis account, while we know incest is wrong because God forbade it in the Mosaic law, in particular, sexual morality law against incest in Lev. 18:1-18, that did NOT exist in Lot's days. so it's not fair to judge them retrospectively, it's silly to judge any historical figure with today's moral standard. Just consider it payback against Lot who offered his daughters to the real rapist gang.

 

[Dino246]

No they did not, but they were under such impression, and they were obsessed with baby making, doing it with their father was the only available option at the time. They may have taken advantage of the situation, but they didn't force Lot into it.

Also, biblically and chronologically speaking, this took place early in the Genesis account, while we know incest is wrong because God forbade it in the Mosaic law, in particular, sexual morality law against incest in Lev. 18:1-18, that did NOT exist in Lot's days. so it's not fair to judge them retrospectively, it's silly to judge any historical figure with today's moral standard. Just consider it payback against Lot who offered his daughters to the real rapist gang.

Methinks your moral compass is broken.

 

[RegisterNow]

Obviously, Paul is not being a hypocrite. The more likely situation is that you are misinterpreting the text.

All I did was interpreting it in its original context, unlike you guys who pick out 9:5 to prove an unsubstantiated point.

Here's the text for everyone to read:

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

It's right there. "Take along a believing wife, even as... Cephas [Peter]".

Paul makes clear (to those without a bias) that many of the early Church leaders were married.

First of all, it says A believing wife in general, not THEIR believing wives; second, some older version like KJV reads "a sister, a wife", so again, this indicates a female believer in general; and third, I never advocate a strict ban on marriage, Paul's own rule is "stay as you are" - you're baptized as a single, remain single; you're baptized as married, remain married.

Relevance? They weren't elders, and you have apparently misinterpreted this text also.

Relevance is letting the scripture interpret itself, leaning upon God's wisdom instead of your own understanding.

 

[RegisterNow]

Methinks your moral compass is broken.

Methinks you're falsely accusing Lot's daughters of rape, using law and moral standard that did not exist at their time.

 

[RegisterNow]

Doesn't this conclusion require an acceptance of the premise that an act cannot be qualified as rape if the victim finds their self 'liking' it? Was this act not at the least an assault to their father's will?

Is there an unambiguous legal definition of "liking it"? You know there has been plenty of women who "liked it" at the moment, but then regret, and accuse their partner of rape?

My conclusion is that this does constitute incest, but not constitute rape at the time, since there was no law against it, until Mosaic law was given, and incestuous act between parent and child in particular was banned in Lev. 18:7. It is not comparable to the Dinah incidence.

The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. (Lev. 18:7)

 

[RegisterNow]

Hi Registernow, if you are still looking for answers to this question you might want to check out @Edith 's current thread called "Contentment in singlehood". It's a good discussion!

I don't think anyone has been intentionally avoiding your question, it just wasn't clear what you were asking. Of course you could start up your own separate thread asking the question directly as well.

Best!

Thanks. I assure you, I might not be happy, but I'm content. I have concluded that marriage, intimacy, kids, the who relationship package is a luxury I can't afford and I can't handle, it's for my own good and any potential partner's.

 

[Snackersmom]

Thanks. I assure you, I might not be happy, but I'm content. I have concluded that marriage, intimacy, kids, the who relationship package is a luxury I can't afford and I can't handle, it's for my own good and any potential partner's.

Alright. Its an interesting thread regardless, with many answers to your question if you are interested in hearing any.

Kudos to you for recognizing your limits, but don't forget that things can change. He takes us from glory to glory, and all that .

 

[Magenta]

Who did Cain marry? Meh, had to be a sister or a niece of some generation.

 

[Dino246]

All I did was interpreting it in its original context, unlike you guys who pick out 9:5 to prove an unsubstantiated point.

9:5 is the proof to the point: many of the apostles had their wives along with them.

First of all, it says A believing wife in general, not THEIR believing wives

Oh my goodness. So as long as the woman is someone's wife, she can accompany the apostle? What utter stupidity. Since you can't see it in one version, I'll give you ten:

AMP: Have we not the right to take along with us a believing wife, as do the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Peter)?

CEB: Don’t we have the right to travel with a wife who believes like the rest of the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas?

CEV: We each have the right to marry one of the Lord's followers and to take her along with us, just as the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter do.

ESV: Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Phillips: Aren’t we allowed to eat and drink? May we not travel with a Christian wife like the other messengers, like other Christian brothers, and like Cephas?

MOUNCE: Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, as also the other apostles, · the Lord’s brothers, · and Cephas do?

NASB: Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

NET: Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

NIRV: Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife with us when we travel? The other apostles do. The Lord’s brothers do. Peter does.

NIV: Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

Peter AND the other apostles AND Jesus' brothers had THEIR OWN WIVES along with them in their ministry.

second, some older version like KJV reads "a sister, a wife", so again, this indicates a female believer in general

The Greek word is the same for woman and wife, but context tells us that the subject is marriage, so the word clearly means wife.

and third, I never advocate a strict ban on marriage, Paul's own rule is "stay as you are" - you're baptized as a single, remain single; you're baptized as married, remain married.

And what contextual information did Paul give? "Since there is so much immorality" (7:2), "the present crisis" (7:26) and most importantly, "time is short" (7:29). Paul was writing to the Corinthian Christians in a time of upheaval which ended with the destruction of the temple, most of Jerusalem, and Levitical Judaism as a whole, along with persecution of Christians across the empire. His advice remains sound, but it is not to be taken as restrictive for all time.

Relevance is letting the scripture interpret itself, leaning upon God's wisdom instead of your own understanding.

Given some of your earlier comments, you lack the moral authority to quote that at me.

 

[RegisterNow]

9:5 is the proof to the point: many of the apostles had their wives along with them.

No it isn't. You're reading your own argument into it, and you're making Paul a hypocrite.

Oh my goodness. So as long as the woman is someone's wife, she can accompany the apostle? What utter stupidity. Since you can't see it in one version, I'll give you ten:

AMP: Have we not the right to take along with us a believing wife, as do the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Peter)?

CEB: Don’t we have the right to travel with a wife who believes like the rest of the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas?

CEV: We each have the right to marry one of the Lord's followers and to take her along with us, just as the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter do.

ESV: Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Phillips: Aren’t we allowed to eat and drink? May we not travel with a Christian wife like the other messengers, like other Christian brothers, and like Cephas?

MOUNCE: Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, as also the other apostles, · the Lord’s brothers, · and Cephas do?

NASB: Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

NET: Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

NIRV: Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife with us when we travel? The other apostles do. The Lord’s brothers do. Peter does.

NIV: Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

Peter AND the other apostles AND Jesus' brothers had THEIR OWN WIVES along with them in their ministry.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? (KJV)

All I can see is spiritual leadership over a sister, a wife and other apostles, it's not just Paul and Barnabas's job. I read it as what it plainly states:

Have we (Paul, Barnabas, Cephas, other leaders) not power to lead about a woman (sister in Christ) as well as other apostles?

The Greek word is the same for woman and wife, but context tells us that the subject is marriage, so the word clearly means wife.

No, the context tells us the subject is spiritual leadership, and the generic meaning of "woman" further proves my point that it is not referring to any particular apostle's wife. Here are a few titles for this section, I trust the translators over you.

NKJV: A Pattern of Self-Denial
NASB: Paul’s Use of Freedom
NIV: Paul’s Rights as an Apostle

And what contextual information did Paul give? "Since there is so much immorality" (7:2), "the present crisis" (7:26) and most importantly, "time is short" (7:29). Paul was writing to the Corinthian Christians in a time of upheaval which ended with the destruction of the temple, most of Jerusalem, and Levitical Judaism as a whole, along with persecution of Christians across the empire. His advice remains sound, but it is not to be taken as restrictive for all time.

Then please feel free to discern the current time and draw your own conclusion. As far as I'm concerned, we're living in a perilous time of economic decline, social upheaval and moral decay, the old post WWII global order is crumbling down.

Given some of your earlier comments, you lack the moral authority to quote that at me.

Then ignore it and leave in peace. I see it as a necessary remind for everyone in this thread who quoted 1 Cor. 9:5 out of its context.

 

[Lynx]

No it's not. It is a casual use of the r word and a predujice against Lot's daughters. The essence of sexual assault is a power abuse by subjugating the victim and carnally possessing their body, and the intention is always out of malice. A father could rape a daughter, by no means could a daughter rape a father.

Actually they could... Date rape drugs combined with viagra. Girls have been known to do it sometimes.

Also, about Tamar, that was definitely rape. If you don't think it was, you need to look up the definition.