Re: Challenge #2

From: JW Burgeson (
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 12:11:13 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Epiphanies, Pascal and "le pari""

    Paul -- you posted a good commentary on my problematic verses. I think I am
    guilty, even while trying to be a reductionist, of expanding the question
    set too much. So I will try once more.

    You wrote: "This authority was often used in the best interests of the
    daughters and even included consideration of their desires, but it could
    also be used as Caleb, the man of faith, used it: to offer his daughter in
    marriage to any man who would spearhead an attack on Kiriath-sepher. Yet,
    even in the latter case, are we really justified in saying the daughter
    married off without any choice was "raped"? I don't think Caleb's daughter
    (or the captive woman) thought of it
    that way."

    She probably did not. But that was not my point. My point was twofold:

    1. Did God see women in those days as property?
    2. Does he see women as property today?

    The verses I cited seem to convey a "yes" answer to #1.
    Various NT verses seem to convey a "no" answer to #2.

    I am unable to reconcile these two except by assuming it was Moses, not God,
    speaking in those verses.

    As Terry (and others) pointed out, an "I don't know" is an OK answer. "I
    will not think about it anymore but accept someone else's answer" is not OK.
    At least not to me.



    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 14:01:42 EDT