General What do we know about TTWCM?

[The Revolting Man]

@The Revolting Man, if we don't use the word "ownership", but instead say "authority", would you agree that a father is in authority over his daughter? If so, would you agree that a father who willingly gives his daughter to a man is willingly handing that authority to him? (if not, what is he doing when he "gives his daughter away"?)

I agree that he doesn't have to do so for a "valid one flesh relationship" to form - that's about sex. I'm entirely talking about this other thing.

You probably know my take on this almost as well as I do, you’ve had to read it so much.

Of course a father is the only authority in his house and of course any wise man would ask for a father’s permission to take his daughter. I asked @windblown ‘s father for his permission and I’m very glad I did. It came in handy in fights a few times.

But I can’t see where it’s necessary for a marriage, or whatever we call it now. It’s just not in the text. If it’s not in the text then I refuse to read it in to the text.

Besides, there are some important metaphorical reasons why it can’t be true.

 

[MemeFan]

Besides, there are some important metaphorical reasons why it can’t be true.

Because ownership implies usage of free will for your own purpose. Owning another person implies you have greater right for what purpose another's person will use it's body automatically creating conflict when such person disagree with you which is unsolvable in practical sense.

So if daughter and father disagree should daughter marry someone there is extremely high likehood nobody is able to create finite amount of rules to solve whom daughter should marry.

Important, since humanity was able to find finite rules for property disputes (from creation of humanity same as whom to marriage), meanwhile to such theorical approaches exist for love.

So daughter and, by implication wife, can belong to some man who can't own them. Same as with grown son. He belongs to family, has it's own free will.

 

[steve]

A man has to work 7 years in exchange for a man’s daughter and you can’t see ownership?

 

[The Revolting Man]

A man has to work 7 years in exchange for a man’s daughter and you can’t see ownership?
View attachment 10016

Which is why if scripture doesn’t say it it’s not a thing, because the principle one man thinks is blindingly obvious another man doesn’t think is there. So God has to say it.

And remember, I say that a father’s permission should be sought and is very valuable. I have 8 daughters and a drive for dominance. I would love I if I had some kind of iron clad authority to make young men bend to my will.

I can’t see where it’s required in scripture, assumed maybe, encouraged possibly, suggested for sure. But it’s not a requirement.

 

[MemeFan]

A man has to work 7 years in exchange for a man’s daughter and you can’t see ownership?
View attachment 10016

Because anything involving humans becomes special case.

Regarding borders, goods go where they are wanted, horewer people can go where they are unwanted.

Regarding buying commodities for business, material goods don't care for respect, horewer unrespected workers may sabotage/burn down your whole business.

Regarding ownership, almost everything can't run away, while daughter can run away with fancy boy.

 

[Maddog]

The word Authority is implicit in the word Owner. It is correctly stated that it does not necessarily mean control. Teenage daughters are indeed a special case(I lived that one) as daddy needs to live in the reality of the moment. Even though I had the authority to say no, daughter also made decisions that I disagree with. That disagreement met with removing the cell phone, keys to the car, etc. Rebellion in any form results in the removal of dad's blessing(a universal concept). A life of rebellion bring along a host of other issues but, Rebellion to what? You can't have rebellion without the semblance of authority. I know those words are exclusive in meaning but still interrelated.
Guard rails are instituted in the lives of children as a protective measure and as they mature the guard rails are gradually removed. I met a young lady in the grocery store the other day who had a dog with her. You wouldn't know it at first but the dog was off leash but still totally controlled. Buddy the dog was always within a foot of master and never distracted. Incredibly well trained as a working dog and all but ignored us UNTIL she gave the relax command and he was a puppy all over again. let me be clear, daughters are NOT dogs but I bring up the principle, "My sheep hear my voice..." the word "my" directly implies ownership. We are God's (possessive) children, or the Bride in the macro sense.

 

[MemeFan]

The word Authority is implicit in the word Owner. It is correctly stated that it does not necessarily mean control. Teenage daughters are indeed a special case(I lived that one) as daddy needs to live in the reality of the moment. Even though I had the authority to say no, daughter also made decisions that I disagree with. That disagreement met with removing the cell phone, keys to the car, etc. Rebellion in any form results in the removal of dad's blessing(a universal concept). A life of rebellion bring along a host of other issues but, Rebellion to what? You can't have rebellion without the semblance of authority. I know those words are exclusive in meaning but still interrelated.
Guard rails are instituted in the lives of children as a protective measure and as they mature the guard rails are gradually removed. I met a young lady in the grocery store the other day who had a dog with her. You wouldn't know it at first but the dog was off leash but still totally controlled. Buddy the dog was always within a foot of master and never distracted. Incredibly well trained as a working dog and all but ignored us UNTIL she gave the relax command and he was a puppy all over again. let me be clear, daughters are NOT dogs but I bring up the principle, "My sheep hear my voice..." the word "my" directly implies ownership. We are God's (possessive) children, or the Bride in the macro sense.

You can have authority over somebody without owning them: employee for example.

 

[FollowingHim]

Of course a father is the only authority in his house and of course any wise man would ask for a father’s permission to take his daughter. I asked @windblown ‘s father for his permission and I’m very glad I did. It came in handy in fights a few times.

But I can’t see where it’s necessary for a marriage, or whatever we call it now. It’s just not in the text. If it’s not in the text then I refuse to read it in to the text.

Besides, there are some important metaphorical reasons why it can’t be true.

If a father is in authority over his daughter, then for a daughter to marry without his permission is disobedience of authority. If that disobedience is permissible, then he was never truly in authority in the first place. So either permission is mandatory, or there is no such thing as parental authority.

Having said that, I fully agree that a marriage can be formed without that permission - but in saying that, your car can become my car without your permission either, if I steal it and manage to get away with it. Theft is a thing also. But the fact that theft is possible does not negate the fact that authority existed in the first place.

So your daughter requires your permission to marry, because you are in authority over her. Disobedience to your authority is sin. Yet, she is fully capable of sinning, as is her lover, and of running away and forming a marriage without your blessing. This is however still sin.

 

[MemeFan]

If a father is in authority over his daughter, then for a daughter to marry without his permission is disobedience of authority. If that disobedience is permissible, then he was never truly in authority in the first place. So either permission is mandatory, or there is no such thing as parental authority.

There is hidden assumption here: father's authority covers every aspect of daughter's life.

Point of raising child is to enable child to be able to take care of themselves. Which implies that both parents have less and less authority over children throught time.

What I think real issue here is that only daughter can provide special suprise. You see, if teen son makes a baby and you find out, well son we have to pay some child raising costs.

Horewer, if daughter's darling dissapears then daughter will have all fun and you will get all the bills.

Haven't you noticed topic is always disobedient daughter, never son, despite sons naturally way way more prefering going their own way.

 

[FollowingHim]

Point of raising child is to enable child to be able to take care of themselves. Which implies that both parents have less and less authority over children throught time.

@MemeFan, where in scripture does it state what age a child can now marry without consent?

It's a silly question, I know it's not there. My point is that you are making things up at least as much as the other "side" of this debate is. You cannot claim to be just following scripture, you are applying your own logic and coming up with rules that make sense to you. Even if you're right, it's not purely scripture, you (and @The Revolting Man) can't claim any moral high ground on that basis.

You're actually right to do so, because scripture does not outline everything clearly in black and white. We have to take account of all relevant scripture and come to an understanding that is consistent with it all, even if that understanding includes a few gap-filling assumptions like you are making.

Where you are erring is simply in failing to take into account all relevant matters raised in scripture before forming your conclusions.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is however still sin.

Oh, you see I hadn’t read that verse. If I knew it was sin, an infraction of a rule promulgated by God, I would have never taken the stance. Just show me the verse and I’ll post a very groveling retraction.

I wonder why no one one told us this was sin before….that seems like a major oversight.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You're actually right to do so, because scripture does not outline everything clearly in black and white. We

So why are we trying to outline something in black and white that scripture doesn’t? How can you draw a hard fast rule, declare a sin, that God doesn’t?

You can’t. You know this. You can’t show me a verse saying a father’s permission is required. You can’t show me a verse that says it’s a sin to “steal” a daughter. It’s not.

Just like it’s not a sin for Christ to steal a daughter without her father’s permission. The husband is a senior position to father.

 

[Maddog]

It is either/or regarding permission giving. Father's authority stops when given or purchased with bride-price to new husband. The young woman has value to the family she came from. Removing her from the family leaves a gaping hole in the family dynamics. Dad now has to fill that gap somehow maybe by schooling up the next daughter in line or hire a person. Where does he get the capital for that? In my situation, daughter STOPPED costing me money and resources by running away with boyfriend(phone, car, gas and ins, school, unchecked libido, etc). OK dude, she is YOUR problem now!

 

[FollowingHim]

Fair point @The Revolting Man, let's remove the word sin. What is your response to this?

If a father is in authority over his daughter, then for a daughter to marry without his permission is disobedience of authority. If that disobedience is permissible, then he was never truly in authority in the first place. So either permission is mandatory, or there is no such thing as parental authority.

 

[Mark C]

How can you draw a hard fast rule, declare a sin, that God doesn’t?

'Cause He just changes His mind -- ALL the time!

You say so over and over. Or is it just whenever it seems Revolting enough?

 

[Mark C]

Just show me the verse and I’ll post a very groveling retraction.

No you won't. You'll claim He doesn't mean what it says.

 

[MemeFan]

It is either/or regarding permission giving. Father's authority stops when given or purchased with bride-price to new husband. The young woman has value to the family she came from. Removing her from the family leaves a gaping hole in the family dynamics. Dad now has to fill that gap somehow maybe by schooling up the next daughter in line or hire a person. Where does he get the capital for that? In my situation, daughter STOPPED costing me money and resources by running away with boyfriend(phone, car, gas and ins, school, unchecked libido, etc). OK dude, she is YOUR problem now!

I wonder didn't your daughter on purpose made problem for you.

What will teenage girl desire most? Opportunity to be loved. And if you as father stands in her way, well she has only one option. To cause trouble to you.

Interesting is that post is missing daughter's perspective. She has value to you and family, but what she is getting?

Strange that daughter leaving house is seem in smaller bills and not in, finally, she found her family. Off course, father could expect becoming granpa, so there is something for him too.

 

[MemeFan]

@MemeFan, where in scripture does it state what age a child can now marry without consent?

It's a silly question, I know it's not there. My point is that you are making things up at least as much as the other "side" of this debate is. You cannot claim to be just following scripture, you are applying your own logic and coming up with rules that make sense to you. Even if you're right, it's not purely scripture, you (and @The Revolting Man) can't claim any moral high ground on that basis.

I don't need to make rules or inventing them. I just follow what comes from nature.

Here I start with basic observation that everyone has free will. And breaking other's person's free will are known act of crime like rape, assailt, murder and theft.

So, I must be standing on solid ground.

You're actually right to do so, because scripture does not outline everything clearly in black and white. We have to take account of all relevant scripture and come to an understanding that is consistent with it all, even if that understanding includes a few gap-filling assumptions like you are making.

Where you are erring is simply in failing to take into account all relevant matters raised in scripture before forming your conclusions.

We already talked about father's permission for marriage endlessly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is either/or regarding permission giving. Father's authority stops when given or purchased with bride-price to new husband. The young woman has value to the family she came from. Removing her from the family leaves a gaping hole in the family dynamics. Dad now has to fill that gap somehow maybe by schooling up the next daughter in line or hire a person. Where does he get the capital for that? In my situation, daughter STOPPED costing me money and resources by running away with boyfriend(phone, car, gas and ins, school, unchecked libido, etc). OK dude, she is YOUR problem now!

I get the hurt and even bitterness this causes in a father. I’ve been there, more than once. We can’t put a theological band aid on our pain though. Your daughter gave up an incredible blessing and benefit when she eschewed your blessing. It doesn’t invalidate the one flesh though.

I have retroactively given my blessing to the daughters who rejected it. Why would I withhold a blessing from them? They made a choice that I would have agreed with had they asked me my opinion. It would have been selfish pride to try and punish them.

That being said, the young man who did come and ask my permission will always hold a special place in my heart. It’s appropriate that his wife is named “Father’s Joy”.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Fair point @The Revolting Man, let's remove the word sin. What is your response to this?

I would have to point out that obedience to parents is not a command. The command is to honor your father and your mother. Obedience is strongly implied, but it isn’t quite commanded. And the protection that gives children from misguided or unbelieving parents should be obvious.