Robert gives me the "last word," and so I will accept his offer.
"Burgy considers these verses to be proof positive that we ought to consider
these verses (and any others that don't suit our innate moral =
sensibilities) as the response of "inspired" men but not as representing the
mind or will of God."
You have attributed words to me that I did not write.
The term "proof positive" is yours, not mine.
"Burgy certainly will not change his mind,... ."
I have changed my mind many times. As I said in one post, I wrestle with
these (and other) verses. I do not have, nor do I claim, final answers.
Your answer to #4 is pretty clear, and I think I have no problems with it.
In your answer to #4 you said:
"Women were not the property of men as far as God was concerned, then or
now."
I agree, of course. I should have said "as far as Moses was concerned."
In number 5, you said (about the Deu text):
"... the advice does not assume that women are property."
I find that claim to be unacceptable. Your subsequent discussion argues the
point using other scripture, and, so, misses the point entirely.
In #6 you write: " I view it as a forced marriage rather than a rape, and
believe there is a difference; others may disagree."
Yeah. Perhaps that's where we can leave it. Have you asked your wife?
"Of course, Burgy, should you come out with some other outrageous ideas I
will feel free to respond to them, and trust you will do the same with me.
Iron does sharpen iron, and I think that the exchange has been useful up to
this point."
I probably will have more "outrageous ideas." I hope that when I display
them you will take them for what I mean them to be, ideas, speculations,
possibilities, and seldom "proof positives." I remain after all this rather
convinced that Ps 137 is to be taken as a representative song of mourning of
an exiled people, and that no doctrine ought to be extracted from it --
probably not from any other Psalm either, although I'm less sure of this. I
also remain convinced that the most reasonable reading of the Deu passage is
that it is Moses speaking, not God, and that Moses most certainly did regard
women as property, and that God neither did nor does. But being convinced
that these are proper readings is not to be equated with making a claim that
my position is necessarily true. It is simply a factual statement of my own
position on the matter. And, of course, all this has nothing at all to do
with scriptural infallability/inerrancy, the first of which I accept; the
second of which I do not accept.
Thanks for the dialog.
One more thing. Writing "you may have the last word," a practice I have
chided my good friend Glenn about, can be seen as a somewhat insulting
statement, for it, implicitly, claims the "high ground." I don't use it for
that very reason, and I generally say to one who has used it, "I don't hold
you to it if you want to reply again."
I won't hold you to it if you want to reply again.
<G>
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 15:37:08 EDT