So You Just Lost Your Virginity To A Man And Feel Horrible

[Nukie]

Great post! Thank you.

I fornicated with a virgin once met through game, I thought of it as an achievement while at the same time I felt sorry about it. I didn't know before the intercourse, she told me afterwards.

 

[marknreprisal]

Also, I forgot about another additional context to the cited Deuteronomy verse: the woman may not be allowed by her father to marry the rapist at all in the first place, due to the father being her head and authority. If her father can refuse this, then clearly rape is not binding on the level of marriage. Here's a couple of articles that explain this in more detail:

Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? | GotQuestions.org

Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? Why would God command a woman to marry the man who just raped her?

www.gotquestions.org

What does the Bible say about rape? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about rape? Where does the Bible condemn rape? Is it true that the Bible allows rape in certain circumstances?

www.gotquestions.org

But none of those passages says anything about the girl (raped or otherwise) beaing eligible to join herself to another man. We dont know what happens to this girl after her father refuses to allow this man to keep her to wife.

 

[marknreprisal]

Indeed. Jesus says here that he came to fulfill the law. In other words, to be the final sacrifice to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant sacrificial ceremonial system once and for all, that could never be truly fulfilled by animal and grain sacrifices, no matter how many were made. Also, for His sacrifice to enable believers to be inhabited by His Holy Spirit, so that we are strengthened and emboldened, and all but happy to fulfill the moral law, more and more as we become ever further sanctified by abiding in Him. For He is not a mere mortal Levitical priest of the line of Aaron, subject to corruption and death. He is not only our one true final sacrifice, but is our eternal High Priest, forever interceding on our behalf to the Father in Heaven, in the manner of the order of Melchizedek.

The original purpose of the ceremonial law, which is distinct from the moral law, was to set the Hebrew people apart from the Gentiles, and to foreshadow the coming of the Messiah (i.e. animals sacrificed outside of the camp, prefigured Christ being sacrificed outside of the boundaries of Jerusalem.) Now that the Messiah has come, there is no more need for the ceremonial law. It's why Christians can consume pork and shellfish now. It's why Jews can associate with Gentiles without becoming unclean. It's why the Sabbath is no longer observed on Saturday anymore: because Jesus is our Sabbath rest. In Him, we have rest from the formerly required works of the ceremonial law that Saturday was originally a rest from. Even our current rest from the ceremonial law is but a shadow of the permanent eternal rest to come on the 8th day: eternity in paradise with God in the new Kingdom.

If your argument, that "the law is to stand until a new heaven and earth" was referring to ceremonial laws continuing as well too, was taken to it's logical conclusion, Paul's rebukes of the Judaizers, throughout several of his epistles, for trying to bring back the ceremonial laws as a salvific requirement, would make no sense. Paul was especially explicit about this aspect as well. Literally hoping that those still pushing for physical circumcision would just cut the whole thing off. Why? Because still insisting on such ceremonial law in the aftermath of Christ's death and resurrection is an outright slap in the face of our Lord. For we now bear the circumcision of the heart, which is greater and a spiritual reality; not merely symbolic of a covenant to come like physical circumcision was.

Since we live in an age in which purifying pigs of parasites is easier and makes pigs more reliably safe for consumption, we have no need to abstain. With police and justice systems, we have no need of sanctuary cities. With institutions like unemployment, some forms of government support, and 9 to 5 jobs, slavery is no longer necessary. There is also a reason why children are no longer executed for disobeying their parents, nor are people executed for not going to church on Sunday. Jesus Himself, in one of His most iconic moments, did away with the death penalty for adultery. Even when a city rejected Him, and His apostles asked if they should call down fire and brimstone to wipe said city off the face of the Earth akin to Sodom and Gomorrah, Christ rebuked them, saying that is not how things are done anymore.

Thus, in an age of mercy, grace and systems of support in place, there is simply no need to subject a rape victim to marrying her rapist in order for her to be spared the fate of being a penniless, homeless, spinster.

Once again, God had his prophet, Hosea, literally marry the prostitute Gomer, to foreshadow the level of grace and mercy to come with the New Covenant. Hosea took Gomer back as a wife, even when she cheated on him again. Even when Gomer went back into prostitution and was so destitute, that she because a slave whose price on the market was less than even a normal slave, Hosea bought her back. Such was God's expression of love for Isreal, in spite of their straying at the time. Such is Jesus' love for us when we were or are His enemies, and beyond wretched and seemingly hopeless. If God can show such a level of mercy to a prostitute, willfully defiled by who knows how many men, and in the Old Covenant no less, then mercy and grace to a woman who has been unwillingly defiled by one man is nothing. Nothing is impossible with God. Nothing is too hard for Him. His hand is not too short to save.

I understand how man has categorized the law into "ceremonial" versus everything else, but I can't find any scriptures that make this distinction. If you are saying we are now (since Christ) only bound by the "moral" law, then where do you find this law? New Testament only? If that be your position, then how under the new testatment law, is marriage defined and initiated?

 

[SolitaireZeta]

I understand how man has categorized the law into "ceremonial" versus everything else, but I can't find any scriptures that make this distinction. If you are saying we are now (since Christ) only bound by the "moral" law, then where do you find this law? New Testament only? If that be your position, then how under the new testatment law, is marriage defined and initiated?

Not man. God has. The apostle Paul, in particular, makes this distinction throughout just about all of his epistles, if not all of them. I basically did a Cliff Notes condescension of his various rants against going back to "dead works," "the Law", and railing vehemently against Judaizers who literally wanted to restore Old Covenant customs like dietary restrictions, circumcision, etc.

Colossians 2, particularly in verses 14-23, is a prime example of this. Nevertheless the earlier verses in the chapter give much needed context that explains the effect of Jesus' sacrifice doing away with pedantically getting into slap fights over Sabbaths, Holy Days, eating restrictions, etc.

Another example is Galatians 5, in which Paul calls the creeping back in of the Old Covenant Law, literally a hindrance.

Speaking of Galatians, chapter 2 has one of the strongest admonishments of the Old Covenant Law and it's hopeless incompatibility with the New Covenant: “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing” - Galatians 2:21.

Any time the New Testament speaks on things Christians should actually do, it's almost always about morality and our internal state: "Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27. Also Romans 12:1-2, Colossians 3:1-3, etc. Overall, there is a greater emphasis on morality and internal heart/mind purity, than ritualistic purity or trying to obey 3,327 different regulations and ordinances. When Galations 5:14 sums up keeping the whole of the law, there is nothing about not flicking a light switch on Fridays after dark, or avoiding mixed fabrics: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Do you love your neighbor by making sure you don't walk more than a mile away from your home on the Saturday Sabbath? Or by not murdering him, stealing from him, sleeping with his wife, healing and caring for him if he's been assaulted and left for dead by the side of the road, etc.?

Romans 14, in particular, deals with the concept of Christian Liberty in some limited grey areas. With an emphasis on sometimes following a Law for the sake of not offending a weaker believer. But the subtext is clear: a strong, maturing believer growing in the faith is to eventually outgrow this dependence on the crutch of ceremonial law. In Acts 16, Paul, in spite of his vehement and passionate rants against circumcision, acquiesces to the Jews in the area, and circumcises Timothy, because he ultimately values saving Timothy's soul, than being stubborn on aspects of the Law.

If you're looking for a hyper-specific verse of scripture that literally says "Ceremonial Law gone; Moral Law In." You're not going to find it. This distinction is inferred from reading the New Testament, as well as the Bible, as a whole in context via exegesis of scripture.

Perhaps this article might help in offering a deeper dive on the subject:

https://weddingincana.com/the-ceremonial-law-and-the-moral-law-in-the-bible



As for the girl whom is denied marriage to a seducer or a rapist by her Father, what happens can go in a myriad of directions. Since the option of marrying her rapist was on the table in the event that no man wanted her, then it is inferred that the rape victim is not disqualified from proper marriage, but rather may have a difficult time, or even be unable to find a man willing to marry her. Thus, it's an issue of men not wanting to marry what they view as "damaged goods," not an issue of the rape victim being disqualified from marriage. Thus if the father refuses, and no one marries her, she may be taken care of by relatives, finding some form of work or labor, or she may end up becoming a homeless spinster; possibly doomed to begging or death, or even selling herself into prostitution in desperation. The Old Covenant was often harsh, and partially meant to show us how life is garbage without Jesus and reconciliation with God. Probably why God in many verses and His own actions emphasizes care for the orphans, widows, resident aliens, the poor, the crippled and the outcast, etc. Hopefully, she's able to find a particularly Christ-like kindhearted man like Hosea or Joseph.

Since we've established that due to a Father being able to block it, that a rape or even a seduction by a Lothario is not an immutable binding ground for marriage, we can safely infer that marriage is defined and initiated in a traditional manner.

It's sort of like how homosexual apologists like to point to Jesus' apparent silence on homosexuality as a "smoking gun" for approval of their sin (in spite of God speaking through Paul and further admonishing homosexuality, which is why there is a current among theological Liberals who would love to either minimize Paul or have him removed from the Bible entirely.) Jesus, in general came to correct the overreach and out of control legalistic errors of the Pharisees, as well as addressing issues of lack of mercy and preparing hearts and souls for the New Covenant. In other words, if He was silent on a particular issue, it can be inferred that Jesus had no issues with the stance of Hebrew culture on homosexuality. In a similar manner, it can be inferred that rape and seduction are still non-binding, and that marriage is initiated by courtship, fatherly approval, etc.

 

[[email protected].]

Excellent article. Thank you Roosh. May many read it.

 

[StratKruzer]

It’s a great article, as usual. However, Roosh, and I ask this with respect, will you consider writing articles with a more proactive flavor? I like all your articles and you inspired me greatly in the past year, but they are becoming repetitive in nature. They are focusing nearly exclusively on sin, recommended reading, and self-reflection. I believe they can be a turnoff with such a repetitive nature for lost men. Me, I’m married, in RCIA, attend mass regularly, have two kids, and a career, and friends. I’m already on a track, so I can absorb the self-loathing, dark tone.

But why not add in variety on what should be done?! What about an article on the Parable of Talents? God wants men to use their talents and fulfill potential.

What about these topics?
Self defense
Survivalism, prepping
Fitness, health
Investing
Career
Marriage, child raising
Gardening
Anything DIY
Education, homeschooling
Investing

The lord does not want most of us simply praying, mourning, and repenting all day! That’s part of it but he wants most of us doing something and multiplying!

I’m interested in other input on this.

I think you've got some good points here.

 

[DanielaEverheart]

What if your first time was when you were raped as a child by an adult? Then what happens?

That’s not the case addressed here.

 

[Gabriela]

There's no maybe about it.

And their feelings are immaterial. They should marry.

God never intended sex to be without commitment. Period.

No, they don't have to marry. A friend of mine had a child with her then boyfriend, they considered getting married but he had some sins he did not overcome so she refused to marry him.

 

[Pilgrim]

No, they don't have to marry.

God says they do.

As Jesus said, if they were one flesh, then they should stay together.

When a man has sex with a virgin, in God's eyes she becomes that man's property, and he must commit to her --- whether they have a big white wedding, exchange rings and vows, or sign some civil contract or not is immaterial. He is not to divorce her, nor is she to divorce him. He should provide for her and she must stay faithful to him. You find this principle from the beginning of the Old Testament right through to the end of the New.

God always intended sex to mean commitment.

Anything else is fornication --- sex without commitment --- and in God's eyes is no better than whoredom.

A friend of mine had a child with her then boyfriend, they considered getting married but he had some sins he did not overcome so she refused to marry him.

Then, according to the Bible, she is a fornicator and is in sin.

 

[Rob Banks]

Old Covenant ceremonial law, prescribed for a particular people (Old Covenant Hebrews) in a particular context (the ancient Middle East) is being applied in a well intentioned but incorrect way.

A good example of this is the Old Covenant practice of slavery. It was more akin to indentured servitude or having a soul crushing 9-5 job, than the classic image of the whips and chains and kidnapping of the African slave trade (there are even verses such as Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and 1 Timothy 1:10, that expressly prohibit kidnapping for the purposes of slave trade.) It was usually entered into voluntarily in order to get out of debt. There was even a Jubilee that was enacted every 9 years, that released the slaves and relieved them of their debts. Thus it was never meant to be a permanent condition, but rather a source of security for people during a time when things like unemployment benefits, deferred payments, etc. did not exist. Outside of Old Covenant Hebrew society, far worse fates awaited people who fell into debt.

In a similar manner, the Old Covenant code that dictated a rapist would be compelled to take his victim as his wife, was a form of security for the victim in lieu of a better option at the time. There was a stigma that once a woman lost her virginity, most men would not want her and consider her "ruined." Thus the rapist was quite possibly her only option for future security, support, and offspring. Plus, the verse from Deuteronomy is deeply implied to be a punishment for the rapist as well. He literally cannot divorce her as long as he lives, or else.

There are other similar ceremonial laws designed for their time. Sanctuary cities for those who accidentally commit manslaughter, to run to for refuge from a revenging family, in lieu of police and a more developed modern justice system. Pork was partially prohibited because of it being unclean in not only an Old Covenant spiritual sense, but in a very literal sense. Pork is notorious for being infested with parasites, unless prepared properly.

Also, keep in mind, even in the Old Covenant, there were men who displayed mercy that went far beyond the bare minimum of the Law. Boaz took Ruth to be his wife, though she was a heathen, and even though it would be disadvantageous to him, due to Hebrew custom dictating that Boaz's children through Ruth would essentially be those of Ruth's deceased husband out of duty, and thus his estate would no longer technically be his. (Ruth 4: 1-10.)

Even Jesus says that Old Covenant Laws were designed for a hard hearted and merciless people void of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 19:1-9.)

Joseph wanting to put Mary away quietly and without public scandal, and thus not putting Mary into a position where she could be stoned or even burned to death, when he was doubtful of the holiness of her conception, was an extraordinary act of mercy that went way past the bar set by the Law.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that we are in a period of a Covenant of Grace and Mercy. Going above and beyond the bare minimum set by the Law should be normative for those indwelt with the Holy Spirit (i.e. now even looking at a woman with lust in your eyes is just as bad as actual adultery.) In other words, having mercy on a woman who has been the victim of rape is a no brainer. If even in the Old Covenant, God once commanded the prophet Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer, in order to be a foreshadowing of Jesus' redemption of the spiritual prostitutes that all we saved once were, I fail to see how marrying a woman who was the victim of rape is unscriptural (especially in light of her rapist supposed "husband" being guilty of obvious sexual immorality: one of the conditions Jesus gives for divorce.)

The way you talk makes it seem like the poor women in Biblical times were so oppressed that they were forced into marriages with big bad rapists in order to avoid the even worse fate of being a homeless spinster.

Because a man who raped a woman could never repent, man up, and love her properly (and she grows to love him back).

According to you, a rape victim was nothing more than a victim, forced to choose between marrying a demonic irredeemable man and being a vagrant.

Well, at least that was true until modern democracy and feminism came along and saved those poor women! Nowadays, we have modern police, a justice system, and a welfare system so that a woman won’t be put through the “hell” of actually marrying the man who took their virginity.

In the old days, the best-case scenario is the man would be forced to man up, marry the woman, and they would grow to love each other. Nowadays, the best-case scenario is that the man will be sent to prison and the woman will live her whole life “righteously” hating and resenting this man, and unable to properly pair-bond. And if the woman got pregnant from the rape, the child’s life will be ruined (although modern contraception and abortion “solves” that last “problem”).

For a woman who has just had her virginity forceably taken from her via rape, I can’t think of any better news than to hear that the man responsible has repented and is willing to man up, treat her like a proper wife, and provide for any children that may result from the rape.

I’m sorry, but I’m extremely skeptical of anyone who talks about how the Bible is outdated while extolling the “virtues” of modern civilization.

 

[The Catalyst]

In the old days, the best-case scenario is the man would be forced to man up, marry the woman, and they would grow to love each other. Nowadays, the best-case scenario is that the man will be sent to parison and the woman will live her whole life “righteously” hating and resenting this man, and unable to properly pair-bond. And if the woman got pregnant from the rape, the child’s life will be ruined (although modern contraception and abortion “solves” that problem).

For a woman who has just had her virginity forceably taken from her via rape, I can’t think of any better news than to hear that the man responsible has repented and is willing to man up, treat her like a proper wife, and provide for any children that may result from the rape.

I’m sorry, but I’m extremely skeptical of anyone who talks about how the Bible is outdated while extolling the “virtues” of modern civilization.

Doesn't that give men a really strong incentive to rape a woman who wouldn't otherwise like him back?

 

[Rob Banks]

Doesn't that give men a really strong incentive to rape a woman who wouldn't otherwise like him back?

Yes, I suppose it does.

I guess all we can do is look at how cases like this were handled historically in pre-modern Christian societies.

What would a Medieval priest recommend should be done in the case of a virgin being raped?

I would trust their judgment more than that of modern society.

I doubt that the rapist would just be let off scot-free with no consequences.

Also, maybe fathers should protect their unmarried daughters by not letting them just go out in public by themselves and be around unknown (potentially dangerous) men.

 

[SolitaireZeta]

The way you talk makes it seem like the poor women in Biblical times were so oppressed that they were forced into marriages with big bad rapists in order to avoid the even worse fate of being a homeless spinster.

Because a man who raped a woman could never repent, man up, and love her properly (and she grows to love him back).

According to you, a rape victim was nothing more than a victim, forced to choose between marrying a demonic irredeemable man and being a vagrant.

Well, at least that was true until modern democracy and feminism came along and saved those poor women! Nowadays, we have modern police, a justice system, and a welfare system so that a woman won’t be put through the “hell” of actually marrying the man who took their virginity.

In the old days, the best-case scenario is the man would be forced to man up, marry the woman, and they would grow to love each other. Nowadays, the best-case scenario is that the man will be sent to prison and the woman will live her whole life “righteously” hating and resenting this man, and unable to properly pair-bond. And if the woman got pregnant from the rape, the child’s life will be ruined (although modern contraception and abortion “solves” that last “problem”).

For a woman who has just had her virginity forceably taken from her via rape, I can’t think of any better news than to hear that the man responsible has repented and is willing to man up, treat her like a proper wife, and provide for any children that may result from the rape.

I’m sorry, but I’m extremely skeptical of anyone who talks about how the Bible is outdated while extolling the “virtues” of modern civilization.

Yes, rapists can be redeemed. But let's be real: how many of them really are redeemable? If a man is willing to force a woman to have sex against her will while enjoying it, as she is screaming and in physical and emotional agony, that man isn't exactly the equivalent of just a petty larcenist who needs a hug. How many women really want to marry their rapists? How many fathers wanted to give their daughters to a rapist outside of her having no other option? My daughter's rapist would have to impress me above and beyond before I even thought about giving her away to him, and even then I'd be hesitant. Whether you like it or not, that's the reason why that clause existed. And yes, whether you like it or not, unless you've given up pork, and stone your child to death when they misbehave, some aspects of the Old Covenant are indeed obsolete. Jesus died for a reason.

 

[Rob Banks]

Yes, rapists can be redeemed. But let's be real: how many of them really are redeemable? If a man is willing to force a woman to have sex against her will while enjoying it, as she is screaming and in physical and emotional agony, that man isn't exactly the equivalent of just a petty larcenist who needs a hug. How many women really want to marry their rapists? How many fathers wanted to give their daughters to a rapist outside of her having no other option. My daughter's rapist would have to impress me above and beyond before I even thought about giving her away to him, and even then I'd be hesitant. Whether you like it or not, that's the reason why that clause existed. And yes, whether you like it or not, unless you've given up pork, and stone your child to death when they misbehave, some aspects of the Old Covenant are indeed obsolete. Jesus died for a reason.

Sexual morality is not comparable to eating pork or circumcision or whatever.

Sexual morality is never obsolete. Otherwise, by that logic, leftists can claim that all strict forms of sexual morality are obsolete.

After all, Jesus is all about mercy. So we should be able to screw around in our youth and not suffer any consequences, because “mercy” and “forgiveness.”

Furthermore, you are not only arguing that certain aspects of pre-Jesus sexual morality are obsolete. You are also arguing that certain aspects of medieval (i.e. post-Jesus but pre-Industrial) sexual morality are obsolete. So your argument that it is obsolete due to Jesus’s new covenant doesn’t hold water.

In essence, you are claiming that although Christ taught certain things, his teachings only apply to his specific time and place in history, and that we modern people know better.

 

[SolitaireZeta]

Sexual morality is not comparable to eating pork or circumcision or whatever.

Sexual morality is never obsolete. Otherwise, by that logic, leftists can claim that all strict forms of sexual morality are obsolete.

After all, Jesus is all about mercy. So we should be able to screw around in our youth and not suffer any consequences, because “mercy” and “forgiveness.”

Once again, the fact that the father could refuse the rapist, and typically only allowed the rapist to marry his daughter as a last resort, says it all. The fact that adulterers/adulteresses aren't stoned or burned to death anymore, Jesus Himself personally literally stopping one such occasion, says it all. Sexual morality is indeed not obsolete, but the way it's handled clearly changed within the Bible through Jesus Himself. Comparing your argument implying that a woman should marry her rapist no matter what, when even the Old Covenant Law clearly had this as a last resort and not a binding commitment and thus refutes you, to circumcision is ridiculous.

A woman no longer having to marry her rapist out of desperation is not the same as allowing bestiality or homosexuals to run hog wild. Your argument implying that women no longer having to marry their rapists is a breach of timeless sexual ethics does not hold up even under the scrutiny of the original Old Covenant Law.

 

[Rob Banks]

Once again, the fact that the father could refuse the rapist, and typically only allowed the rapist to marry his daughter as a last resort, says it all. The fact that adulterers/adulteresses aren't stoned or burned to death anymore, Jesus Himself personally literally stopping one such occasion, says it all. Sexual morality is indeed not obsolete, but the way it's handled clearly changed within the Bible through Jesus Himself. Comparing your argument implying that a woman should marry her rapist no matter what, when even the Old Covenant Law clearly had this as a last resort and not a binding commitment and thus refutes you, to circumcision is ridiculous.

A woman no longer having to marry her rapist out of desperation is not the same as allowing bestiality or homosexuals to run hog wild. Your argument implying that women no longer having to marry their rapists is a breach of timeless sexual ethics does not hold up even under the scrutiny of the original Old Covenant Law.

I’m not even arguing that a woman should always have to marry her rapist. I’m merely saying that we should defer to the way things were done in ancient Christian societies, as opposed to thinking we “know better” now.

Also, just because the father had a right to refuse the marriage, that doesn’t mean he would only accept the marriage “out of desperation.” Maybe he legitimately sees the (repentant) rapist as the best candidate to marry his daughter. Maybe the daughter got pregnant from the rape and he sees the marriage as the best possible outcome for his newly-conceived grandchild.

You’re assuming that the rape victim (and her father) would automatically choose for her to marry anyone but the rapist if given the choice.

I don’t necessarily believe the girl should be made to marry the rapist as her only legitimate option. But I do see how in some cases, it may be her best option.

If (God forbid) I had a daughter who was a virgin and got raped, I would rather see the man repent and take responsibility (by marrying her and treating her well) than see the man thrown in jail and my daughter live the rest of her life in hatred and resentment, unable to properly pair-bond with a man.

 

[SolitaireZeta]

I’m not even arguing that a woman should always have to marry her rapist. I’m merely saying that we should defer to the way things were done in ancient Christian societies, as opposed to thinking we “know better” now.

Also, just because the father had a right to refuse the marriage, that doesn’t mean he would only accept the marriage “out of desperation.” Maybe he legitimately sees the (repentant) rapist as the best candidate to marry his daughter. Maybe the daughter got pregnant from the rape and he sees the marriage as the best possible outcome for his newly-conceived grandchild.

You’re assuming that the rape victim (and her father) would automatically choose for her to marry anyone but the rapist if given the choice.

You're right. We should defer to the way things were done during the Old Covenant. Misbehaving children? Stone 'em. Adulterers and adulteresses? Stone or burn 'em. Relative gets accidentally killed? Let's round up the family and go try to honor kill his unintentional killer to satisfy our baser "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" impulses before he has a chance to make it to a sanctuary city.

Are you seriously saying that a modern court system handling a manslaughter case is inferior to "deferring to the Old Covenant?" For crying out loud, even pre-Christian Northern European pagans eventually came up with a weregild system (loosely translated as "man-gold" or "man-price," In other words, a lawsuit system) as well as a court system with the ancient equivalent of lawyers, because honor killings/blood feuds got so out of control that entire clans wiped each other out.

Also, no, things haven't changed because "we know better now." They changed because God's Holy Spirit makes us know better now. As I said before in my previous posts, even Old Covenant figures were praised for going beyond the bare minimum of what the Law expected of them. If it wasn't for the Holy Spirit overshadowing his bride to be with a Holy conception, Joseph would have had every right to turn over Mary as an adulteress to be stoned or burned to death, yet he didn't. Why? Because of mercy. The mercy that Jesus Himself demonstrated towards all of us. As the book of Hosea foreshadows, we are all spiritual whores, like Gomer, who deserve to be left to our slavery to sin and eventual consumption in Gehenna. Yet Jesus bought us at a great and terrible price and humiliation to Himself, because He is that holy, perfect, loving and merciful.

Finally: are you seriously suggesting that a rape victim and her father wouldn't have her choose to marry anyone else if anyone else was an option? That's literally why the option of the father turning down the rapist exists in the first place. Because especially in the Old Covenant, a far less merciful time. most fathers and rape victims, and even now in more merciful times, would not be jumping at the bit to have the rape victim marry the rapist for painfully common sense reasons, unless it was absolutely necessary.

Even now, given the option of marrying his daughter off to her rapist, who is more than likely an utterly depraved individual, or marrying her off to a decent man who's more willing to look past what happened to his daughter than men in the past, what option do you really think the father and daughter are going to go for? Be honest. A repentant rapist is very rare. And once again, a big part of the onus on the rapist is that he would have to pay a financial price to the father regardless.

Even as Christians, mercy must be exercised judiciously. There are people who were a part of my life, whom I've forgiven, and I pray eventually come around, but in their current moral state, I don't trust them to be in my company.

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God..." - 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

"Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”" - 1 Corinthians 15:33

 

[Rob Banks]

You're right. We should defer to the way things were done during the Old Covenant. Misbehaving children? Stone 'em. Adulterers and adulteresses? Stone or burn 'em. Relative gets accidentally killed? Let's round up the family and go try to honor kill his unintentional killer to satisfy our baser "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" impulses before he has a chance to make it to a sanctuary city.

Are you seriously saying that a modern court system handling a manslaughter case is inferior to "deferring to the Old Covenant?" For crying out loud, even pre-Christian Northern European pagans eventually came up with a weregild system (loosely translated as "man-gold" or "man-price," In other words, a lawsuit system) as well as a court system with the ancient equivalent of lawyers, because honor killings/blood feuds got so out of control that entire clans wiped each other out.

Also, no, things haven't changed because "we know better now." They changed because God's Holy Spirit makes us know better now. As I said before in my previous posts, even Old Covenant figures were praised for going beyond the bare minimum of what the Law expected of them. If it wasn't for the Holy Spirit overshadowing his bride to be with a Holy conception, Joseph would have had every right to turn over Mary as an adulteress to be stoned or burned to death, yet he didn't. Why? Because of mercy. The mercy that Jesus Himself demonstrated towards all of us. As the book of Hosea foreshadows, we are all spiritual whores, like Gomer, who deserve to be left to our slavery to sin and eventual consumption in Gehenna. Yet Jesus bought us at a great and terrible price and humiliation to Himself, because He is that holy, perfect, loving and merciful.

Finally: are you seriously suggesting that a rape victim and her father wouldn't have her choose to marry anyone else if anyone else was an option? That's literally why the option of the father turning down the rapist exists in the first place. Because especially in the Old Covenant, a far less merciful time. most fathers and rape victims, and even now in more merciful times, would not be jumping at the bit to have the rape victim marry the rapist for painfully common sense reasons, unless it was absolutely necessary.

Even now, given the option of marrying his daughter off to her rapist, who is more than likely an utterly depraved individual, or marrying her off to a decent man who's more willing to look past what happened to his daughter than men in the past, what option do you really think the father and daughter are going to go for? Be honest. A repentant rapist is very rare. And once again, a big part of the onus on the rapist is that he would have to pay a financial price to the father regardless.

Even as Christians, mercy must be exercised judiciously. There are people who were a part of my life, whom I've forgiven, and I pray eventually come around, but in their current moral state, I don't trust them to be in my company.

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God..." - 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

"Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”" - 1 Corinthians 15:33

Except I didn’t once say we should defer to the old covenant. I specifically said the opposite. We should defer to how things were handled under the NEW covenant in the centuries after Christ.

...
Finally: are you seriously suggesting that a rape victim and her father wouldn't have her choose to marry anyone else if anyone else was an option? That's literally why the option of the father turning down the rapist exists in the first place. Because especially in the Old Covenant, a far less merciful time. most fathers and rape victims, and even now in more merciful times, would not be jumping at the bit to have the rape victim marry the rapist for painfully common sense reasons, unless it was absolutely necessary.
...

You’re going to have to do better than claiming your conclusions are “common sense.”

 

[SolitaireZeta]

Except I didn’t once say we should defer to the old covenant. I specifically said the opposite. We should defer to how things were handled under the NEW covenant in the centuries after Christ.


You’re going to have to do better than claiming your conclusions are “common sense.”

Yet you keep insisting on a Old Covenant manner of dealing with rape, that has been made obsolete. And I'm sorry, but you should be able to discern common sense reasons why a father/rape victim would not want to hand off his daughter to/marry her rapist on your own.

 

[Rob Banks]

Yet you keep insisting on a Old Covenant manner of dealing with rape, that has been made obsolete. And I'm sorry, but you should be able to discern common sense reasons why a father/rape victim would not want to hand off his daughter to/marry her rapist on your own.

Except that I've now said multiple times that I'm not advocating an old covenant way of dealing with things. And I'm not even saying a rape victim should marry her rapist. I'm simply taking issue with many of your arguments that imply that somehow the way thibgs were done in Medieval times is "outdated" and that we know better now.

But keep putting words in my mouth.

All I am saying is that the notion that modern social values are somehow better than Medieval Christian values (and even inspired by God, as you claim) is ludicrous.

You're the one who is stuck on the idea of a rape victim marrying her rapist. It's like when a feminist points at you and screams "rape advocate!" and then ignores you when you try to say you do 't support rape, all while claiming her feminist conclusions are "common sense" and therefore do not need to be justified.