0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[The Revolting Man]

Moses was not going to leave that prohibition in the background. It makes no sense that he would forbid coveting other men's animals, but not specifically forbid coveting other men's daughters.

I see that last part as referring to objects.

This is fascinating. Every man here would say that it’s completely acceptable to desire to possess an eligible woman . That of course would be coveting your neighbor’s daughter. That heavily implies then that a daughter can’t be described as a possession of her father the way a wife clearly is.

You’ve given me some wonderful ammunition, I mean food for thought, @Yan .

 

[fadi]

Moses was not going to leave that prohibition in the background. It makes no sense that he would forbid coveting other men's animals, but not specifically forbid coveting other men's daughters.

I see that last part as referring to objects.

I couldn’t help but comment on this statement. The most simple yet intelligent analysis I’ve read in this thread.

 

[MeganC]

Every man here would say that it’s completely acceptable to desire to possess an eligible woman . That of course would be coveting your neighbor’s daughter.

The word 'covet' has two contexts to it that I've observed.

One is like when I say "I covet your prayers" it doesn't mean I want to take them from you but that I'd appreciate them.

The other is when you covet your neighbor's car (for instance). That doesn't mean you want a car like his, no it means you want to take it away from your neighbor for yourself. It's implied that killing your neighbor in order to get his car is a possibility. I'd recommend first asking him to sell it to you.

Coveting your neighbor's daughter could possibly fall into that latter and sinful category if one is not careful with their heart.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The word 'covet' has two contexts to it that I've observed.

One is like when I say "I covet your prayers" it doesn't mean I want to take them from you but that I'd appreciate them.

The other is when you covet your neighbor's car (for instance). That doesn't mean you want a car like his, no it means you want to take it away from your neighbor for yourself. It's implied that killing your neighbor in order to get his car is a possibility. I'd recommend first asking him to sell it to you.

Coveting your neighbor's daughter could possibly fall into that latter and sinful category if one is not careful with their heart.

But wanting a man’s daughter is wanting to take something specific. It is more in line with your second example than the first.

 

[Pacman]

[QUOTE = "Keith Martin, post: 226569, membro: 2108"] Como [USER = 2318] @Pacman [/ USER] escreveu acima, acho que você acabou de perder o Exodus 20: 17g: "sem fundo. .. ou qualquer coisa que é do seu associado. "A filha de um vizinho é de seu vizinho. [/ QUOTE]

Moisés não iria deixar essa proibição em segundo plano. Não faz sentido que ele proíba cobiçar os animais de outros homens, mas não proíbe especificamente cobiçar as filhas de outros homens.

Eu vejo essa última parte como se referindo a objetos.

Not sure what this says.

 

[Pacman]

But wanting a man’s daughter is wanting to take something specific. It is more in line with your second example than the first.

And wanting to take her unlawfully is what's prohibited...

Is it wrong to desire your neighbor's donkey? Not if you desire to purchase it... But it is if you desire to steal it...

 

[Pacman]

the ultimate choice being the woman's

This is supported by exactly zero scripture. And is only viewed as reasonable because of our feminist culture.

 

[SonoLumen]

This is supported by exactly zero scripture. And is only viewed as reasonable because of our feminist culture.

To be fair, I am not saying this is what I believe. I’m more so speaking about what I observe in the world. That’s why I said “lends credibility” to the "ultimate choice". It is a fact that most of the time two people choose each other until they don’t. Then they choose again. Their family and friends go along with it. Nobody is getting stoned to death.

Also, the choice is not entirely spelled out in scripture, but there is a bunch of it happening. I do see men making agreements for marriage, but I also see women willingly going along.

If the father doesn't like the guy, and the woman follows the man anyway - showing submissiveness to her 'captor', do you think that her choosing and wanting that man as her husband is the wrong choice? What if he is a much stronger believer than the father. What if the father eventually comes around after some time and space?

Some honest questions:

I wonder what the case is in your marriage. Did she choose you, or did her father choose you, or did you all get in sync with the choice through time and space?

If you met a great woman, and she wanted to join your family and everything clicked, but she had some questionable breakups from the past - what do you do?

If you met a great woman, and she wanted to join your family and everything clicked, but she had a father that didn't care two cents about how she lived her life and certainly not who with - what would you do?

 

[Keith Martin]

"Where have all the flowers gone? Long time passing.....the girls have picked them, everyone. "

Flowers being capable husbands/fathers.

Better be careful with that song. Pete Seeger was an avowed communist, and he wrote the song to be an anti-war folk song. Someone else added additional verses before Peter, Paul and Mary recorded it as a bona fide fatalistic defeatism vehicle with a misleadingly pleasant melody. There's nothing in it about the husbands being capable, and every part of the ultimate circle created by the final version points to disposability: the girls kill the flowers, the husbands kill the spirit of the young girls, being soldiers kills the joy of the marriage; war kills the soldiers, putting them in graveyards; graveyards then produce more flowers, which begins the horror anew!

Moses was not going to leave that prohibition in the background. It makes no sense that he would forbid coveting other men's animals, but not specifically forbid coveting other men's daughters.

I see that last part as referring to objects.

I was going to let this one pass, until I read @SonoLumen's read on what you wrote:

That is an very cool observation that certainly lends credibility to the ultimate choice being the woman's from my perspective, she seems to be caught between two authorities.

I specifically quoted the Concordant Version of the Old Testament for its literal interpretation of Exodus 20:17g on purpose; note that the non-bolded parts are added by the translators for easier reading in our modern style of writing, but the bolded parts are what was translated directly from the Hebrew: ". . . or anything which is your associate's," which thus more literally becomes, ". . . or any which your associate's." One can see it as just meaning objects, but the literal Hebrew does not indicate a limitation to objects only. @Yan, you state and then later re-emphasize,

He would not leave this prohibition in the background.

, but it is even more relevant that He would not have left such a prominent exception as one's daughter unexpressed. The entirety of Exodus 20:17 follows the standard discourse pattern of Torah: (a) general rule; (b) examples; followed by (c) clarification and exceptions. No exceptions are listed. In fact, the verse ends the topic at hand with a phrase that states that no exceptions exist. None of one's associate's possession is to be coveted.

@Pacman makes a necessary clarification in this discussion, because some are conflating 'desire' with 'covetousness' or 'coveting.'

And wanting to take her unlawfully is what's prohibited...

Is it wrong to desire your neighbor's donkey? Not if you desire to purchase it... But it is if you desire to steal it...

Any person who reads the final commandment here or in what we call the Decalogue as prohibiting desire is adding to Scripture. The commandment is, like @MeganC points out, against taking action to steal something from one's associate.

Thus, @The Revolting Man With Tongue Firmly Implanted In Cheek is headed down a dead-end rabbit hole by asserting that this has anything to do with desiring an eligible woman.

@Yan, for your assertion to gain validity, you'll have to uncover the scripture passage(s) that either (a) indicate that children are not possessions of parents [Hillary Clinton and her Children's Defense Fund will be delighted to hear about this], or (b) indicate the age at which a daughter no longer becomes her father's possession.

Some honest questions:

I wonder what the case is in your marriage. Did she choose you, or did her father choose you, or did you all get in sync with the choice through time and space?

If you met a great woman, and she wanted to join your family and everything clicked, but she had some questionable breakups from the past - what do you do?

If you met a great woman, and she wanted to join your family and everything clicked, but she had a father that didn't care two cents about how she lived her life and certainly not who with - what would you do?

Some great questions, @SonoLumen, worthy of each of us answering them for ourselves.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And wanting to take her unlawfully is what's prohibited...

Is it wrong to desire your neighbor's donkey? Not if you desire to purchase it... But it is if you desire to steal it...

And where is that either forbidden or declared unlawful?

 

[Keith Martin]

And where is that either forbidden or declared unlawful?

I know you're not asking me that question, but the answer, if we're talking about Scripture being the context, is nowhere. It isn't even forbidden or unlawful to desire to steal one's neighbor's (or anyone else's) donkey. What is forbidden is either actually stealing the donkey or anything involved in the process of making plans to steal the donkey, because that is, by definition, coveting.

For whatever dumb reason, what we were taught in Sunday School was that just wanting one's neighbor's wife or donkey or Erector Set or Easy Bake Oven was coveting, but, in essence, that type of teaching itself is an example of bearing false witness against the freedom to desire.

 

[FollowingHim]

It isn't even forbidden or unlawful to desire to steal one's neighbor's (or anyone else's) donkey. What is forbidden is either actually stealing the donkey or anything involved in the process of making plans to steal the donkey, because that is, by definition, coveting.

The definition of covet in Brown-Driver-Briggs (which is essentially the same as Genesius and Strongs) is "desire, take pleasure in". NOT "make concrete plans to steal". The word itself is very specifically about desire. Where are you getting your far more limited definition from?

 

[Mark C]

...what we were taught in Sunday School was that just wanting one's neighbor's wife or donkey or Erector Set or Easy Bake Oven was coveting, but, in essence, that type of teaching itself is an example of bearing false witness against the freedom to desire.

@Pacman makes a necessary clarification in this discussion, because some are conflating 'desire' with 'covetousness' or 'coveting.'

The definition of covet in Brown-Driver-Briggs (which is essentially the same as Genesius and Strongs) is "desire, take pleasure in". NOT "make concrete plans to steal". The word itself is very specifically about desire. Where are you getting your far more limited definition from?

...and so on...

I like the clarification that is implied in the concept 'to LUST for', or to desire to the point of lust something that is "beyond your permitted REACH".

It is usually, perhaps not universally, a unique single thing: a neighbor's specific car, or his wife, or donkey.

I note that discussion, so far anyway, hasn't reference the problematic teaching (only to 'sun-god day schoolers, perhaps of Yahushua that connects BOTH the prohibition against adultery (which REQUIRES a married woman, isha, of course) and the command not to "covet" - er, lust for - "anything that is your NEIGHBOR's" -- and thus, since it is his -- beyond your permitted reach.

I suggest that a big part of the point He is teaching - and neither 'adding to', nor 'subtracting from' but instead CONNECTING DOTS - is the very Hebrew understanding that some type of thought, especially beyond your permitted reach, LEADS directly, even inevitably, to action.

Shaul, notably, suggested the answer was to "take every thought captive," in obedience to Him.

 

[Mark C]

PS> I can't help but note, too, that eventually -- unlike his car or his wife -- a father must "give away" his daughter...

 

[Keith Martin]

@Pacman makes a necessary clarification in this discussion, because some are conflating 'desire' with 'covetousness' or 'coveting.'

Amen.

 

[Keith Martin]

PS> I can't help but note, too, that eventually -- unlike his car or his wife -- a father must "give away" his daughter...

So, Mark, does a father ever own his daughter? Does a father own his daughter in this modern age? Did a father own his daughter in the times of Moses? And, if a father does ever own his daughter, when does that ownership end? When she reaches a certain age? When he sells her?

I do not ask these questions out of facetiousness.

The manner in which desire and covetousness are conflated is also interesting to me, but it's also a distraction from the degree to which the answers to these questions I've just (again) posed can impinge on the discussion at hand in this thread: when does marriage begin? And what do we do in situations in which the guidelines haven't been entirely adhered to?

 

[Mark C]

So, Mark, does a father ever own his daughter?

I don't like the term "own," and won't use it in this context. But he has been given authority - without question - by Yah, and has "stewardship." He's supposed to be a good one.

That authority includes the power to cast down 'vows' or words, that she shouldn't oughta spoken...

Primarily, and Scripturally, as we have seen, that includes "veto authority" over a potential husband. But veto essentially means the power to say, 'No!' (I.e., NOT to command "yes.")

[And as for 'sale', that's another story entirely. There is much midrash, which I find persuasive, that the general idea of a father betrothing a daughter into a wealthier family as a maid is to secure a better life for her. (See Tevye... )

I would even suggest that the term 'bride price' (dowry, etc) is at least as much related to the idea that 'anything free is worth what you pay for it,' and thus a wife who's price is "dear" might be treated as such. More valuable than rubies, even... ]

 

[Mark C]

Oh - and he TRANSFERS that authority to her husband when 'the marriage begins'...

 

[Keith Martin]

Continuing your logic of no ownership but only veto-only authority, that would mean that the only power a husband has over his wife is power of veto?

I don't doubt that a large amount of midrash and other human writing would portray a bride price as being "for her own good," but one also has to follow the money, because one could just as effectively secure a daughter's brighter future in a wealthy, prominent or popular family by just permitting her to work for or marry one of them -- without expecting a bride price.

I'm still seeing angels moving like break dancers on the head of a pin to scurry away from addressing the issue of ownership -- and even authority. I get it: you don't like the word 'own;' neither do I, but either it's not in Scripture, or it is, in which case it simply doesn't matter if I don't like it. And, more and more, I don't at all care what the rabbis or the popes or the Talmud or the President or Strong's or Clarke's or any other human 'authority' has to say about these matters. Those high-and-mightinesses clearly poop in their face diapers just like the rest of the us, and if their only 'authority' is limited to veto power, their chief operational power is that of the tyrant, which is more despicable than ownership.

On the other hand, I will bow to Fiddler on the Roof!

 

[Keith Martin]

P.S. I'm feeling a bit irascible today. I'm hoping it's just a temporary way station on the path from Sensitive New Age Guy pussy to Real Man patriarch.