Divorce--moral & ethical perspectives

I would assume that the "proof" indicated is referring to the hymen being intact. But that being absent (as you mentioned, some are born without it), the provision for other "proof" may be introduced by her parents, although I have no idea what an undergarment would reveal about a girl's virginity. Basically, I think this test is introduced because it's easy and feasible for a nomadic people wandering around the Middle Eastern wasteland circa 3000 B.C. At the same time, other than testimony there is no real way to prove a man's virginity, is there? I see and concede your point about the man's status not even being mentioned, but I still see some very practical reasons behind the wording of the law. And besides, it's not like either side could lie about it and get away with it completely scot-free. God knows, and they'll have that on their consciences.

Another possible reason. Bloodlines were very important to that culture.

Promiscuous, adulterous... potato, potahto. Sex out of wedlock is sex out of wedlock.

I really think it boils down to purity. Purity to an extreme degree, for the purpose of being a human picture of God for all the world to see.

 

Indeed. Apply that to our other discussion regarding Joseph and Mary's situation before Jesus was born.

We're talking about a nomadic people of a couple million, comprised of large families. It's not like people lived that far apart from each other, and you have to think at least a few people were either at, or around the house almost 24/7. Screaming for help and not being heard under those circumstances would be extremely rare.

 

Yeah, this one threw me too. I found a commentary here that adds the caveat, "If the father and daughter agreed to it." Of course this is tough to imagine ever ocurring, but the commentary specifically cites examples of young girls who might be diseased, disfigured, or retarded. Granted, even that is far less than an ideal situation, but for the rare situation of a family who will eventually be unable to care for a daughter with special needs, at least this is a way for someone to be forced to take care of her for the rest of his life. I have to think this option wasn't invoked very often.

 

(Re: Isaiah 50:1) You're probably right, AK. Calling out Israel for her unfaithfulness to God was a major and reoccurring theme in Isaiah's messages.

 

The things you have to keep in mind are 1) How old those scriptures are, and 2) who they were originally intended for. I'd venture to guess that God didn't have 21st century America in mind when he gave Moses most of those laws, rules, and regulations. It's not just about us. To other cultures -- even today -- those passages may have very significant meaning.

 

Ironically, it was about the time this thread happened that the events leading to my own divorce started to take shape and fall into place -- the first of my ex-wife's multiple affairs. And I wouldn't have a clue about any of them until 2 weeks after she left me in May 2013 (swearing there was no one else before she left).

 

Sorry to hear that man.




Hate to be blunt, but shit like this is why I'll never get married. I don't think you can trust another person and I don't think it's worth the risk of trying. Women are inherently dishonest people and the courts, for whatever reason, are still always going to take their side when it comes to dividing shit up. I know a guy who recently went though something similar and he got totally screwed in the settlement. I hope that at least didn't happen to you.

 

Hang in there, dude.

 

Ouch. Sorry