From Fred over at Hip and Thigh...
Now, if you want to define “forced” in that she doesn’t get to marry the man of her choosing, in which she falls in love, and all that other sappy romantic American sentiment, yeah, I guess she was “forced.” But under the circumstances of an ANE world some 3,000 years ago, a woman who is attractive to a Jewish man so that he would take her as a wife is a pretty good deal.
This came about as part of a conversation on whether or not there is God-approved slavery of the more modern/Civil War type of slavery (as opposed to indentured servitude, to pay off debts.)
I had said that there were a variety of types of slavery, including the indentured servitude (which allows for selling off one's chldren [!!] to pay off these debts, so even this is not a pollyanna sort of slavery), but certainly also including the forced against one's will, owned by another human being kind of slavery similar to the American type.
I also mentioned the case of "God-approved" (if you take the stories literally) kidnapping or "taking" of orphaned virgin girls after Israel had killed off their families, which I called forced marriage.
I pointed out that, of course, if the woman doesn't have the choice to say yes or no, to come or go, of course it is forced, by definition. What else could it be?
Fred insisted there wasn't and, at one point, responded with the funny/sad quote above.
I mean, come on, seriously... doesn't that sound like a "joke quote" that Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert would have made up? The only difference is that they would have included more scare quotes, like this...
Now, if you want to define “forced” in that she "doesn’t get to" marry the man "of her choosing," in which she "falls in love," and all that other sappy romantic American sentiment, yeah, I guess she was “forced.” But under the circumstances of an ANE world some 3,000 years ago, a woman who is attractive to a Jewish man so that he would take her as a wife is a pretty good deal.
That was so ludicrously over-the-top evil-sounding that I asked him about my posting it on my blog and giving him the benefit of the doubt, asking if he wouldn't want to clarify or back down at least a bit... He did not.
In fact, he appears to be at least hinting at defending the notion that "personal choice" is not a good thing for women (or men??) even today. I've asked him to clarify and am waiting. Surely he must agree with the individual's right to self-determination? Surely??
3 comments:
Still no answer from Fred on the question, despite repeated requests for clarification. He DID assure me "all your questions HAVE been answered..." but when I pointed out that I traveled throughout the whole comment thread and could find no direct answer to this question, he just ignored it. I even offered that I could be mistaken and I would pay $20 to the charity of his choice if he could just locate, copy and paste the answer to that question.
Nothing.
The closest I could find to addressing the question was when he said...
Have you even traveled outside the United States? Specifically in the “real” world, not Paris or London, but say Africa, Rural India, or even Nepal? I know this may be a shock to you, but what is considered love, and choosing, and romance, and all the other inklings we think here in the modern western world about such thing, is entirely unique to us.
So, I agreed, our western world notion of liberty IS not universal. BUT, I said, it is clearly a good thing... do you NOT agree?
No answer.
I can't tell you how very amazing and interesting this phenomenon is... do these conservative types really believe they have answered the questions asked of them, when anyone can read and see there are no direct answers? Is it the case that they said "XYZ" in response to my question about ABC and considered that a response, even though it was an answer to a different question than the one asked? I recently had someone assure me that they DID answer my question (another question) and when we looked at the response that came after my question, it was quite literally an answer to an entirely different and unrelated question.
(I had asked, "Do you understand that what you inferred is not what I was implying?" and he responded with, "What I believe about you Dan is that you are filled with unbelief concerning the Bible, the teachings of historic Christianity, and the God described in Scripture." - That is simply, factually NOT an answer to my question. At all.)
What is happening with that?
I can't imagine my real world conservative friends would have this difficulty in a face-to-face conversation. That might be an interesting idea... to walk through one of these threads with a conservative friend in person and ask him what he sees...
Interesting...
Dan's views are so far removed from Christianity it is hardly worth an engagement. The views he puts forth are simply his own philosophy adopted in place of an authoritative revelation that binds the Christian, who willingly receives and embraces it for what it is.
Ed, you are welcome to comment here, Ed, but I do ask that you actually engage in conversation, not merely utter attacks that only serve to embarrass yourself.
Do you have any comments on the topic being discussed? Do you, like Fred, have no problem with forced marriages? Do you, like Fred, have problems with the notion of personal liberty?
Feel free to make a point on topic. If you are only going to engage in slander, and bear false witness, I'll respectfully ask you to do that on your own time.
Post a Comment