It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Instead of making a completely fresh start, he takes the customs that they’ve got already and allows time to change them in a gradual way.
He is prepared to deal with people in ways they can understand, before trying to lead them further.
I don't recall of any "Gods" ever writing any laws...
I have heard of "men" writing laws and claiming it was under
God's instruction, but that's something less than an
actual God taking pen to paper.
What can these laws tell us about the God who endorses them?
We may think these laws are imperfect, and don’t match up to other principles found in the Bible.
"What can these laws tell us about the God who endorses them?"
That he believes violence is always the answer?
…Or our sense of morality and justice today
And, that he has no regard for romantic love.
Obviously that depends on your definition of "romantic love".
Nothing suggests an objection to "romantic love" as part of a marriage relationship.
Since you bring up the question in the context of these laws, I take it that you identify "romantic love" with adulterous relationships.
But could it not have been both? With the young man taking a fancy to a young girl and accepting that paying the bride-price was part of what he had to do to get consent?
31 When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben,[c] for she said, “Because the Lord has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.” 33 She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the Lord has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also.” And she called his name Simeon.[d] 34 Again she conceived and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi.[e] 35 And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” Therefore she called his name Judah.[f] Then she ceased bearing.
Given that the absence of Hollywood-style "falling in love" does not necessarily mean the absence of affection.
"MIRYAI am I, of the Kings of Babel a daughter, a daughter of Jerusalem's mighty rulers. They have given me birth; the priests brought me up. In the fold of their robe they carried me up into the dark house, into the temple. Adonai laid a charge on my hands and on my two arms: I must scour and cleanse the house [that is] without firmness. There is naught therein for supporting the poor, naught to revive the tormented souls."—Ancient Scroll of Miryai
"She ran away from the priests, fell in love with a man, and they took hold of each other’s hands. Hold of each other’s hands they took, went forth and settled at the mouth of Frash. (Euphrates)"—Ancient Scroll of Miryai
"We will slay them and make Miryai scorned in Jerusalem. A stake (Cross) will we set up for the man who has ruined Miryai and led her away. There shall be no day in the world when a stranger enters Jerusalem."—Sidra d’Yahya, Book of John the Baptist from Mandaic Doctrines of Kings
129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slave.
– The cognates sitting in judgment with the husband ... were given power to pass sentence in cases of adultery and ... if any wife was found drinking wine Romulus allowed the death penalty for both crimes.
131. If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.
132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.
137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.
139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.
140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.
141. If a man's wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband's house.
142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house.
143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water
Third point; This modern sense of morality and justice that you're so proud of- where do you think it came from in the first place?
If you track it back through the history of our culture, it is Christian teaching stripped of the more obvious Christian identifiers. Without that Christian background to our society, the idea that the death penalty was a bad thing would never have entered into your head.
The law does not prevent her from becoming another man’s wife.
However, if the second husband also gives her a bill of divorce, the first husband must not take her back.