The rape of marriage

"Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. "

In Judism, a maidservant (or a manservant) had pretty much the same status as a hired worker. Calling them a slave is decpetive, their life was NOTHING like that of slaves in the early USA.

Now are you going to follow up with some silly question about burnt offerings? It's part of the same ignorant sarcasm gays use to sneer at religion with.

In Judism, a maidservant (or a manservant) had pretty much the same status as a hired worker. Calling them a slave is decpetive

Exodus:
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

You get to "buy" these "hired" workers. They have to serve you for six years. You have to let them go after seven years -- unless they want to stay with the wife you've bought for them, in which case they have to serve you for the rest of their lives.

Doesn't seem to be an option where female "hired hands" ever get to leave.

Oh, but none of that is slavery, no. Couldn't be. Nope.

"It is my belief that marriage was created and instituted by God. Just read the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. It was designed for a union between a man and a woman. Any variation of this union by government or any other organization is absolutely ridiculous and is a complete corruption of something so sacred."

Uh... I don't think I'd be too quick to point to the old testament for a model of marriage. Are you giving equal weight to the following advice from Deuteronomy?

Ch. 21, v. 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Slavery was part of Isrealite culture due to thier captivity in Egypt. The Mosaic law regulated that part of the secular culture, protecting the servants from a lot of abuse.

Most of the slaves were in temporary indentured servitude to pay off debts they otherwise could not, and they were treated far more fairly than in other cultures. In Judism, slaves were not property that the master had unlimited power over, and if a slave was treated harshly they would be set free. Their status in law and in society was akin to that of a hired worker and the system was NOTHING like Greek, Roman or American slavery was. Simply calling it slavery creates a distored and incorrect view of what it realy was like.

For some even it was a career path, a way of ensuring a secure future for themselves by serving a wealthy and kind master. The prodigal son sought to become a servant of his father to find relief from his misfortunes for example.

Fathers from poor households would sell their daughters to be a maidserveant of a wealthy man that they trusted in part because the arrangement would benifit the daughter, give her a boost up the social ladder and perhaps lead to a marriage to the master or one of his sons.

"You have to let them go after seven years -- unless they want to stay with the wife you've bought for them, in which case they have to serve you for the rest of their lives. Doesn't seem to be an option where female "hired hands" ever get to leave."

Wrong. You either didn't read or didn't understand the next few verses. If the maidservent marries the master or one of his sons then there are additional rules to comply with, but outside of that she is allowed to "go out free without money" same as the men.

Also on every jubilee year, ALL slaves are released and the master had the option of releasing any slave at will, anytime. Servants could not be forced to marry against their will and they would know the rules too.

"Oh, but none of that is slavery, no. Couldn't be. Nope. "

I didn't say it wasn't slavery, I said it wasn't anything like the slavery practiced by the USA. That is a fact.

If you don't consider Biblical verses sufficient justification for banning gay marriage, I would agree with you. That is not how such decisions should be made by government. But you can make that point without fostering a distorted view of how things were in Biblical times, that's all.

I didn't say it wasn't slavery

You said "Calling them a slave is decpetive."

if a slave was treated harshly they would be set free.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

This says that you couldn't kill a slave outright, but you could beat him/her severely enough that they could die a day or two later and that's okay.

Oh, by the way. Even those "nicities" only applied to Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves had fewer "rights."

"You said "Calling them a slave is decpetive." "

Yup, because that emotionally charged word carries with it the ideas of American slavery before the Civil War. It is deceptive to lead people to think that Judism practiced the same kind of slavery that was practiced in the USA.

"This says that you couldn't kill a slave outright, but you could beat him/her severely enough that they could die a day or two later and that's okay. "

It's setting different penalties for murder and manslaughter, just as is still done in our legal system.

If you injure your own slave, it costs you the value of the work the slave would have done if not injured. If you beat your slave so hard that he dies later on, it likewise will cost you the value of having that slave around. That isn't saying it's OK, it's saying that hurting your own slave will automaticly inflict a punishment on you without anyone having to do anything about it.

"Even those "nicities" only applied to Hebrew slaves"

Non Jewish slaves were not kidnapped, but people who willingly sold themselves as slaves in exchange for a sum of money and guaranteed shelter and food. The master was still required to treat them humanely and make sure they have all necessary comforts, even if he the master had to go without to do it.

You really are barking up the wrong tree. It's a fact that slavery as practiced under Judism was a LOT more civil than the word 'slavery' suggests. Go read up on it yourself if you don't belive me, I'm not spending any more time on this with you.

You really are barking up the wrong tree. It's a fact that slavery as practiced under Judism was a LOT more civil than the word 'slavery' suggests.

Well, certainly the apologists seem to thinks so.

It's the OLD Testament. The OLD Deal.

I haven't sacrificed any calves in a while either. It's because under the NEW testament I'm justified by faith.

Does the New Testament also say it is okay?

>>>Apparently God had a changing view on marriage and women.<<<

That's true in a way. God's ideals don't change, but what he permits us does. This is explained by Jesus in Matthew 19.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

The key quote:

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

Because of the free will with which he has gifted humanity, God sometimes allows us laws that are less than his ideal.

Has not someone said that one purpose of any law is to educate? I believe God educates us through his law, then eventually asks us to take the next step. Just as you gradually educate a child according to their ability to understand, God reveals his ideals to humanity according to our ability to obey.

Take the example of Slavery

In the earliest times, the harm due to slavery was limited by regulation. In the time of Christ, the seeds of abolition were planted. Consider the political reality. The Roman economy was hugely slave-based. Imagine how much greater the animosity would have been toward early Christians if the religion had advocated the overthrow of slavery. The first priorities were spiritual freedom, not physical!

Nevertheless, the seeds were planted.

Galatians 3
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Philemon 1
15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-- 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you–although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

These seeds took 1800 years to bear fruit. But study the history of both the British and American abolition movements. They were led by evangelical Christians who belived it was time to, as it is written in Luke 4, proclaim "freedom for the prisoners" and "release the oppressed".

17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

And as relating to multiple wives, God's ideal is stated in the New Testament. Remember, using Jesus's arguement about divorce. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Eva and Evelyn.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife,

Some would blame God for not instituting the perfect society on the Mountain with Moses. But because He has given us free will, being God involves, like politics, "the art of the possible". A law so utopian that it cannot be followed will be abandoned, and will not serve to enlighten us.

In the areas of slavery, marriage, women's rights, the poor, and many other topics, you can see a progression in history. First, regulation and harm reduction. Second education. Third, revelation and reaching for the ideal.

I don't believe that it is an accident of history that the countries where these issues are central to the culture are those with a history most strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian God.

Finally, there will be no need for divine regulation when we can all love our neighbors as ourselves.