posted
Where in the Bible can one get that daughters are to remain at home until they marry?
I've been going to this Southern Baptist church, and the folks there seem really hung up on gender. I've been talking to a young woman who is quite engaging, and we've covered many issues about faith. The other day, I asked if she'd be moving out of the family home when she got a job. She told me that she had decided the Bible said for her not to do that. She said she might get a job in Florida with some friends - but that her friend's father would be "in authority over her" in the place of her father.
I was shocked, and somewhat dismayed. I guess I thought she was the perfect woman. She's far from a shrinking violet, so this took me completely by surprise.
Where does this come from? How is it justified? It has to be by inference, since I don't recall ever seeing something direct.
I was totally smitten, but now I'm not so sure. I'm in my mid 20s, as is she, and I don't want to be "supervised" like a teenager. I need to find out more, though, because the way she put it made me think that it's almost authority in name only. She did say that her parents only advise, and that she makes her own choices.
I came from a non-denominational Evangelical "Charismatic" church where gender wasn't an issue. This doesn't directly relate to this post, but to my eyes, this church is really hung up on seperating the genders. I happen to believe that Galatians 3:28 is a Constitutional statement for the Kingdom of God.
posted
I think strongly different religious views tend to be a warning sign for the possibility of a healthy relationship. You can argue with your partner, but you can't argue with their religious beliefs, not unless you want to sleep on the couch. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my old church, one of my pastors preached a sermon about how any sex with a unmarried woman was automatically rape because she didn't have authority to give consent, only her father did. The rationale was that a woman remains under her father's authority until she marries at which point she passes to her husbands authority. All women married in our church pledged to love, honor and obey.
In my church's defense a friend and I called him on it afterword, and he apologized for using the word rape, but maintained the sentiment. One of the things I loved about the church was it was perfectly acceptable and even encouraged for two high school senior girls to call an associate pastor on something we disagreed with.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that this sort of patriarchal belief is still around in western society. Even more, I'm surprised that modern, western women are willing to go along with it.
I can understand people deferring to God, but an adult woman under the authority of her father, or her husband, seems old fashioned to me. And I use that as a kind way of putting it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my old church, one of my pastors preached a sermon about how any sex with a unmarried woman was automatically rape because she didn't have authority to give consent, only her father did.
In my church's defense a friend and I called him on it afterword, and he apologized for using the word rape, but maintained the sentiment.
You could have pointed out that if one can't give consent, than they can't withhold it, either. Daddy pimps, you know what church to join.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: You could have pointed out that if one can't give consent, than they can't withhold it, either. Daddy pimps, you know what church to join.
I really wish I'd thought of that.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't necessarily follow. By way of analogy, there are plenty of laws that make it so people under a certain age can't do something without their legal guardian's consent. In most cases, that doesn't mean that their legal guardian can force them to do it either.
Of course that still doesn't make the idea of women requiring their father's consent in their sexual lives any less creepy.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:She told me that she had decided the Bible said for her not to do that.
quote:Where does this come from? How is it justified?
Why are you asking us instead of her? Even if somebody had a good idea (I don't) we'd still be guessing that it's where it came from for her and how she justifies it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't the question you asked, but it sounds like you're hoping someone can show you a verse which you can use to change her mind. Unlikely.
I've found that many beliefs people hold are never explicitly stated in the Bible, or their holy book. That doesn't change their beliefs
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. Anyone of any age can withhold consent. That's an axiom.
Fine, but the inverse must also be true. Anyone of any age can give consent.
Not at all! Why should one follow from the other?
Because the president has veto power over bills passed by the legislature, does it follow that he can shove them through without legislative approval?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...so, does that mean her father can only sell her to a husband, or can sell her to any acceptable bidder?
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, The concept of consent is our society trying to express its distaste for certain sexual activities. It does contain these logical binds because it is an after the fact justification of us simply not liking adults sleeping with children.
The pastor is trying to shoe-horn a concept manufactured in the 20th century west into a text written a few thousand years ago. Of course his attempt will result in an absurdity or two.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm with Tatiana (and Gwen). There's no logical reason to assume that an inability to give consent implies an inability to not give consent. It has nothing to do with projecting 20th century sensibilities onto the Bible. It's simply logic; your assertion doesn't follow from your assumption.
<edit>For instance, consider the logical "and" operation for the preferences of the two actors:
Father (no) & Daughter (no) -> no Father (no) & Daughter (yes) -> no Father (yes) & Daughter (no) -> no Father (yes) & Daughter (yes) -> yes
In this case, the Daughter is unable to consent, because her father's "no" overrules her. However, she is able to deny consent, even when her father says "yes." Following this logical rule, the daughter would be unable to consent to a marriage, but would still be able to deny consent to a marriage. </edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not particularly informed about the history here and I could be quite wrong, but from my understanding, during much of the history of the Jewish people, Father (yes), Daughter (no) -> yes in terms of marriage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only if she were in a very specific age range (I think it was, had reached puberty, but was not yet 12 (because then she was an adult)) was this true. (At least in theory -- certainly there were fathers who abused their authority. But they were in violation of the law if they forced a daughter (or son) into a marriage they did not want.)
It is one of the specific things one may do in violation of parental wishes.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that most churches that do the wife under the authority of the husband thing do so within the morals of the Bible and usually say something like the husband submits to the will of God and strives to be Godly and has authority over the wife within those confines. So, telling his wife to give sex to others is a no-no as that would be adultery. This also prohibits ignoring the well-being and welfare of your wife in favour of yourself.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's certainly possible for someone (Jewish, Christian, or other) to be unable to consent and also be unable to deny consent. My point was that an inability to consent does not necessarily imply an inability to deny consent.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
