Welcome to Gaia! ::

Question: How did you come to the conclusion that I believed that this was an actual paper contract? I do not. I find the agreement to be one that does not work well for the daughter. I honestly cannot name many daughters who would tell their fathers "no" to making a promise to not sleep with anyone before marriage. Hell, even I would not be able to say no to my father. Whether or not I keep the promise is another issue, but backing a daughter into that situation seems completely unfair.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
"...all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder..."

That he is, but he still has no control over your personal life. However, what I was contesting was your little rant about recieving no privileges, and only financial burdens.

Anecdotal evidence means nothing in debate. Please refrain from using it. You will need to provide some hard proof that your friend is an accurate representation of a large fraction of those in her own situation. Perhaps a scholarly essay or some kind of graph measuring the amount of American teenaged girls who have sex before 18 who regret it, as opposed to those who do not. Best of luck finding something like that. A "large fraction" is also vague, and obviously disregards the majority, despite it's apparent significance.

Overprotective/controlling parents won't have any psychological impact? How so?

Also, please kindly refrain from twisting my words. "There's also over-protective fathers. They might deny their daughters something they yearn for for too long, which could have psychological consequences. Certainly this would be a rare case, but a case nevertheless." =/= "Well, they're going to get metally messed up by it."

You certainly are fond of changing your argument quite a bit. Is it 16, 18, or marriage that you feel is a sound boundary for sexual privileges?

Also, again, I didn't say that not allowing a 13-16 year old to have sex is going to innevitably scar them... I said that over-protective, controlling fathers might take it too far and end up doing some harm to their daughter by denying them such things. I also quite clearly stated that the case is rare but is a case nonetheless. Do me a favour and try reading what I'm saying before you give me your knee-jerk reactions. Thanks.

See previous notes.

If you are married, you are not committing adultery. Will you kindly provide a verse from the NT that says you are to have only one wife? I have admittedly done little research on that particular topic. Or perhaps Burny has a quote since you seem to be less-than-fond of reading your Bible. ^.~

Buurrnnnyyy?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

that's an issue of grammar. it could be read as "all the women, children, livestock and other plunder..." where plunder refers to just the livestock.

and i don't think that children were looked at as property either ...

as for having only one wife, for the most part monogamy is implied, such as the "two coming together and becoming one flesh" part in Genesis 2.

what does spoils refer to?

how does one "enjoy" children?
and no ***** comments.

And while I hate to ignore your wishes, burny, perhaps ***** was an issue. It wasn't unheard of...

I just lost EVERYTHING i said. sad So this one may be a bit shorter cause I don't wanna really rewrite it all.

@Se Ga Tak

Read my words clearly, biblical PRINCIABLE

There a BIG difference between what god WANTS his people to do, and what they DO. A perfect example of this is this. "I'm a christian if I go kill someone and rape there wife, does that make it an acceptable Godly thing." Hell no.


-Sigh- I didn't want to spend extreme large amounts of time getting exact scriptural backing, but if you want me to. I will. And as for ED elete, pride before the fall, pride before the fall. I've spent my fair share of time in the ED, and I understand my scriptures fully. I know of rapes, but I didn't assume you meant OT. I mean that kind of thing went on but for good reason.

Deuteronomy 22:25-26
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,
There you go, death for rape. What do you know, I was scripturally right that they got killed for it.

@pirate -- some of your stuff I'm not nearly going to write what I did before.

-I think the artical said it was a paper contract.
-Promise are easily broken. Stop complaining, it a daughter father bonding thing, you're making stupid arguement here. Seriously. Don't like it don't keep it and don't tell him.


Exactly. Womand and CHILDREN where PLUNDER or SPOILS or WINNING from WAR. Think males where amongst those children? The womand and children where taken for slaves. All slaves where property. This doesn't say woman are property. It saying Slaves are property. Bad example. Very bad one on your behalf.


16 - 18 you have no privilages and all the cost, that what I was tlaking about.


Alright. Whatever, I won't. I know my truth. But you saying this is going to cut you up later. biggrin


Hypocrit. Get me PROOF if I need to get more than my friends proof you gotta get more than your assumptions. =)
-Over protectives father will be OVERPROTECTIVE regardless of such a promise. They'll just be a rebel. What you have to say is unlikely to happen. And if it does the father would of done it if they made the promise or not.


I don't spent any time proof checking if what I said is right. I meant by marriage. Didn't proof read sorry. =) And I can't promise, I have a rather hectic life. And you do the same, remember I can't understand exactly what your saying. It text, I see no facial experssion, you can't express yourself with words exactly how your mind is thinking, I may think of words in a different context to you imediatly, and we even have a language barrier with words seeming I'm Australian and your whatever, some words have less meaning here than in American and other countries etc. So settle down. It's the internet.


Grow up. If you wanna debate keep faults out of this, assuming and insulting my knowedge of the bible is considered flaming, or trolling, or whatever you want. ANd I rather not sink to the five year old current insulting level your at. So just grow up and have a big girl debate. =/
"Pro EDers" my foot, it sounds more GDers to me.

Matthew 19:4-6
Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I'm pretty sure that implied he married one girl and stays with her.

1 Tim 3:8
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
Deacons are holy men. We are all called to be more than Decons but Christ like, decans are called to have one wife, to be holy and have greater understanding of Christ, the only way not to have good understanding of Christ is to not communicate and to not follow what he wants. Them having one wife is following what he wants.


Nice point but you're looking at it in a totally wrong prespective. There was a VERY good reason for this. The money was a penity for what he did, the only way without killing him of getting him back for the horrible thing he'd done. But she needed to marry him. She'd be deflowered so to say, no man will marry her now, her parents can't support her forever. It was the only thing to do so she could live a life that was semi okay.

I know. Horrible unjust. But they wheren't selling her. They where punishing the man without killing him because he also ISN'T allowed to devoice. He has to support her now. That the catch to what he was doing. And I bet you the father would of made sure she was supported well. It all has to do with the time. That scripture doesn't prove it was a biblical princable that raping and selling your daughter to the rapist was a must.

It was something the Jewish people had set up to make sure the law was kept. =/ And the women had some chance when raped for a more finacially secure future.


Grow up.


It was something not to be done, lev 20 says all that kind of junk is a sexual perversion. They say daughter-in-law there and it has to do with age as well as the fact there in the family.


Exactly, I love how you don't allow us to assume but your allowed to assume from scripture, real double standards.

Probably not. I'm sure it meant something more along the lines of what Takai said. Slavery and servantry (pretend that's a word) seems to be a common theme in the OT.

Wow... I smell a butt head... and it angers me how stupid he is for not considering anything except for the fact that the agreement should bring a father and daughter closer together, and that in a marriage the father'll be giving all of his daughter to the groom... Oops, that sounds like a property issue to me.
Having to make sure that the father gives the groom his daughters virginity at marriage is insane, and to me a total property thing.
It screams to me "I've made sure she's clean for you. now she's yours and you can do whatever you want with her" kinda thing.

Personally, I would NEVER want to be cornered by my dad like that, ever. I had all intentions of keeping my virginity till marriage... and when I was younger I probably would have stupidly agreed to take the contract... but things change, people change... and crap happens. I don't regret any choice I've made. I've praied forgiveness a dozen times or more, and I know I'm still loved.
But... if I had made the promise to my dad say... ten years ago (I would have been 10), I'm afraid I wouldn't have been able to keep it, because I found the guy (at 17) who would have my love and a year later, my virginity. We're still together, it's been almost four years now. But we couldn't help ourselves anymore... it just felt like the right thing to do... to plege our love for eachother in a way that we would never be able to say we didn't love one another. First time for both of us.
Now. If I had made that agreement with my father... and then all that happened... I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I'm not one to easily break a promise or anything like that. But some things, you just can't control. And a persons actions/feelings are usually one of those things.

Now, I also don't believe virginity is everything anymore... and actually, this topic just made me think that way. Even though saving it for marriage is a good thing, and what God wants you to do, I don't believe it's nessisary to be all wound up about it being the only thing a bride can give her groom. I mean, even if she isn't a virgin, she's still agreeing to give him all of her, her heart, her soul, her body. And no other man can take those things anymore. Everything she is, would become his. And vice-versa. It's a huge step either way. Sex is something that should come from love... and you don't have to be married to love each other.
If I was to ever brake up with my boyfriend, I would only carry proof on my body of how much we loved each other... and if I could let any other man that close to me again, then I'd have to love them more. That's just the way it would have to be, or I wouldn't feel right doing it.