Do you support enforcing a law such as that against 11 year olds?
As I said, not while they're eleven. Enforce it when they're adults.
Can you show me where the Old Testament imposes that law? Because I'm honestly not familiar with it.
If a man finds a young woman
who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty
shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
-Deuteronomy 22:28-29
You mean the 11 year old in this case?
He would be 11 at the time.
I'm pretty sure you're correct about this, but... why? Why is the man more guilty than the woman? Again, I'm not questioning your Biblical correctness (And that I don't agree with theonomy isn't the point here) but I'm just curious... do you actually have any idea why this particular law?
I think in this particular law it was because the man was seen as the dominant one who lead the woman into having sex. And OT Israel was a patriarchal society, so the man was held as the most responsible when a man and a woman committed a sin together. And if the dominance were reversed then the man had to pay because he didn't act as the man and he let the woman dominate him.
Now, how this would pay out regarding minors of this young an age is maybe another matter, honestly. Because, as I said, I would suspect at least one of them was being molested and then talked the other one into this.
For instance, I heard a story once of a kid who was molested by some of his older female cousins. The things they told him to do made it seem clear to me that they were molested themselves and reenacting with him. I couldn't fathom them coming up with these ideas at their ages at the time unless they had either been molested or had somehow seen some pornography and were just old enough to be interested in trying it for themselves.
I've heard of some of it happening in my brother's middle school. I've never heard of it happening in the elementary schools, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me either. I'm mostly joking here, but part of me wants to say execute the public school administrators for brainwashing students into secular humanism.
Just another reason I want to eliminate public schools:indoctrination.
I'm not generally one to blame anyone but the participant for sin... but frankly, if 2 11 year olds are having sex, I'm almost certain there are more than two people responsible for that sin, in some manner or another. I can't imagine God wanting to force two 11 year olds in such an obviously dysfunctional situation to get married. Particularly if one party is from a Christian home and the other is not, in which case the marriage could very likely violate the "Don't get unequally yoked" passage.
I'm not particularly certain that passage actually pertains directly to marriage, but I otherwise agree with you.
However, it does make sense to apply it to marriage, especially in cases where the two are of different religions [for lack of a better term]. I just think it goes beyond that.
For curiosity, do you believe that fornication itself creates a marriage bond, or do you believe that fornicators should be required to marry later? Because I have seen some Christians who have tried to argue that fornication inherently leads to marriage, with some truly bizarre conclusions.
As far as Adam and Eve were concerned it seemed that they were considered married from the start, and had sex to consummate it. And I couldn't tell you from memory where and when the first marriage ceremony took place.
I do know that people aren't fully considered married until consummation has taken place in at least some cultures and religions.
So is the argument that fornication is then consummation? I think to a degree that argument could be made, and based on the law in discussion God did not require a ceremony. If there's a separate law regarding ceremonies that I'm missing I would appreciate someone pointing it out.
It does appear there were certificates of divorce, but not of marriage.
That's true. Most of my interactions with him have been on political topics, but the only "evidence" I have of him being a heathen/pagan are aCW declaring it so. Which is actually evidence AGAINST him being so. Do you know something that I don't?
He is a fairly recent convert and was not a professing Christian when he joined TOL, IIRC.
Beyond that there are his positions on a number of things. I think he supports homosexuality, for instance.
But my comment was really just to simply point out that just because someone professes to be a Christian doesn't mean they know Him, or He knows them.
You have been reading godrulz's obfuscations too long.
Then you explain the purpose of the question mark at the end of the sentence you quoted [out of context].
This is what he actually posted, Nick:
Can someone who considers themselves pro-life argue that it should be legal for an
11-year-old rape victim to legally obtain an abortion?
And if you follow the link you'll see why he asked the question.
He may be a heathen but he is adamantly pro-life, quote probably as much as you or I. If he is any less it is because he agrees with Ron Paul that the states should be able to choose their own laws regarding it. I do not recall him having any exceptions.
