• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Pros and Cons of the Pro-Life Issue— Part Two

cnystrom

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
In the blog post:

"The Bible, on any fair reading, has what would be called today a rather strict sexual ethic. The basic position is no sexual activity outside the context of marriage, and marriage is defined, going all the way back to Gen. 1-2, and reiterated by Jesus (see Mark 10/Matt. 19) as involving one man and one woman. No, polygamy is not endorsed in the Bible, though it is described in places as an existing condition."

I challenge his assumptions in the comment section.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bible...pros-and-cons-of-the-pro-life-issue-part-two/
 
Ya, Ben3W's head is buried firmly in the sand. Reason won't work with him. Cudo's to him though for entertaining the discussion and not censoring it, yet.
 
That was hilarious! Levirate marriage was like being a sperm donor? I wonder if his face is straight while writing that one.

So, in Levirate situations, he gets to have sex with her (presumably not one flesh, right?) then discards her as soon as she bares a male heir? Is that a divorce? Maybe not, because it wasn't a real marriage, right? If she doesn't produce a male heir, or doesn't produce one for a while, he gets to knock boots with her as often as he sees fit, with no provision or protection from him, because that belongs to his "proper wife"? Sounds more disgusting and immoral than the prostitute situation. At least the prostitute gets money each time. The widow gets no provision, recognition, or status and the boot after she gets knocked up, I guess.

Looks like Bens head is buried, but in something darker and dirtier than sand.
 
The widow gets no provision, recognition, or status and the boot after she gets knocked up, I guess.

Looks like Bens head is buried, but in something darker and dirtier than sand.

I was thinking similar thoughts.
I thought about commenting on his perspective that obviously does not consider how all these supposed moral boundries he has concocted would impact the woman and child.
Remember David's daughter that was humbled (raped) by her half brother? She said that him loathing her after intimacy was worse then him forcing her. Now I know that is not a universal law of God that should be regarded as authoritative, but it does show that women bond and develop attachment even in less than ideal situations. The idea that she should just be subjected to a temporary non marriage situation, and the man should father a child he doesn't raise and care for does extreme damage to the real nature of leverit marriage, providing an heir for a deceased brother, AND caring for the widow and heir.

That man's arguments just show how blind someone can be.
 
Back
Top