- This topic is empty.
- Posts
According to Mosaic Law, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29). Isn’t that barbaric?
First, the Mosaic Law is hardly about letting a rapist off easy. The consequence for raping a woman engaged to be married was stoning (Deuteronomy 22:25). If the woman was not engaged, the rapist was spared for the sake of the woman’s security. Having lost her virginity, she would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in the culture of the day, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. As such, the rapist was compelled to provide for the rape victim for as long as he lived. Thus, far from barbaric, the law was a cultural means of protection and provision.
Furthermore, there was precedent under the Mosaic Law for the victimized woman not to marry the victimizer if her father determined that she could be provided for in a more suitable manner (Exodus 22:16–17). Thus, the law was not designed to force the rape victim into an unbearable marriage, but to secure her future and that of her children.
Finally, neither then nor now, there is no perfect resolution for a woman who has been violated through the horror of rape. The modern–day solution of aborting a child conceived through rape only compounds the horror. Indeed, if we are completely satisfied by any earthly solution—even the death penalty—our moral sensibilities are seriously skewed. Ultimately, only eternity will make all wrongs right.
And what is todays punishment for rape in most Western countries? 2-4 real years!!! And you lot dare mock the bible over this far far harsher punishment? It should be noted that the victim is ALLOWED to terminate the marriage at any time she likes, a privilege no other Jewish woman is afforded mind you!
And don’t even bother comparing with the muslim nations, they are extremely fond of stoning the rape victim and protecting the rapists…since so many of them are all so lustful and perverted (child brides, permission to rape ANY non-muslim, allowed wife BEATINGS and KILLINGS), we don’t even listen to that group, no credibility whatsoever in that neo nazi political cult.You said ” It should be noted that the victim is ALLOWED to terminate the marriage at any time she likes, a privilege no other Jewish woman is afforded mind you!”
Where is that written in scriptures?
Are you just making this stuff up as you go?Wouldn't it have been better for God to have merely commanded, Thou shalt not rape?
Tim
Devolution,
You say:
Quote Having lost her virginity, she would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in the culture of the day, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. That's odd. Then why did “Moses” see it necessary to include the following law only a couple of chapters after the law about rape?
Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.“Clearly, even women who had been divorced were able to re-marry. Otherwise, this law is just taking up space and is totally meaningless. Would it not have been easier to simply declare the victim of rape innocent and allow her to get married on the same terms as a virgin – or at least on the same terms as a divorced woman?
The bible does not shy away from the death penalty for rape, as you know.
Deuteronomy 22:25-26
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.“Note that there is nothing in this law that says that her betrothed husband can't divorce her. What do you think the odds are that a man with a rape victim for a fiance is going to want to trade up?
In any case, let me ask you this question, because you seem to be casually accepting this premise.
Are you really saying that it is an acceptable outcome to give a rape victim to the man who raped her?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 31 2012,01:21) Devolution, You say:
Quote Having lost her virginity, she would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in the culture of the day, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. That's odd. Then why did “Moses” see it necessary to include the following law only a couple of chapters after the law about rape?
Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.“Clearly, even women who had been divorced were able to re-marry. Otherwise, this law is just taking up space and is totally meaningless. Would it not have been easier to simply declare the victim of rape innocent and allow her to get married on the same terms as a virgin – or at least on the same terms as a divorced woman?
The bible does not shy away from the death penalty for rape, as you know.
Deuteronomy 22:25-26
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.“Note that there is nothing in this law that says that her betrothed husband can't divorce her. What do you think the odds are that a man with a rape victim for a fiance is going to want to trade up?
In any case, let me ask you this question, because you seem to be casually accepting this premise.
Are you really saying that it is an acceptable outcome to give a rape victim to the man who raped her?
Tis is not really about rape it is about seduction if you would have honestly read it says that if a man takes a woman and she does not scream out then the man shall be obligated to be with her it says when a woman has been taken by force with evidence of shouting for help the man shall be put to death.Quote Tis is not really about rape it is about seduction K, BD you keep on trying to fit the camel through the needle, should keep you busy for a while. Until then, be silent and learn and if you have any questions ask your wife. Unreal.
Quote Are you really saying that it is an acceptable outcome to give a rape victim to the man who raped her? I have always thought it to be good practice to give the rapist to the victim, perhaps with a shock collar of some sort. Just saying.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 05 2012,06:47) Tis is not really about rape it is about seduction if you would have honestly read it says that if a man takes a woman and she does not scream out then the man shall be obligated to be with her it says when a woman has been taken by force with evidence of shouting for help the man shall be put to death.
Are you serious?Deuteronomy 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her … .How much clearer can this be?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 06 2012,01:11) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 05 2012,06:47) Tis is not really about rape it is about seduction if you would have honestly read it says that if a man takes a woman and she does not scream out then the man shall be obligated to be with her it says when a woman has been taken by force with evidence of shouting for help the man shall be put to death.
Are you serious?Deuteronomy 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her … .How much clearer can this be?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Where is the word rape? What version is that in?
Basically in America we would call that a Shotgun wedding
Come on Bod.
You are being less than honest now.You know full well that the Hebrew words taphas and shakab
used in that verse mean to “sieze” and “have sex” with.In America we would not call that a shotgun wedding.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 12 2012,22:13) Come on Bod.
You are being less than honest now.You know full well that the Hebrew words taphas and shakab
used in that verse mean to “sieze” and “have sex” with.In America we would not call that a shotgun wedding.
Tim
Hi Tim,I don't believe BD does know this, but then again he does NOT study God's word.
But you are right, (in that) muslims “are” taught to be deceitful (in their 'book of fraud')!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Ok bodhitharta, if you want to play dumb, I will accommodate you – for now.
Let's do some good old fashioned exegesis!
What happens to a woman, who is married or engaged, who willingly has sex with someone who is not her husband? And what happens to the man who sleeps with her.
Deuteronomy 22:22:
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.Deuteronomy 22:23-24:
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death – the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.OK, so far, things are pretty clear.
Now, what happens when a man forces himself on another man's wife or fiance? What happens to the unwilling woman?
Deuteronomy 22:25-26:
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor … .OK, still clear.
What about a woman who has sex before she is married or engaged? What happens to her? What happens to the man who sleeps with her?
Deuteronomy 22:20-21:
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.Hhmmm, interesting. So a woman who is promiscuous, by having sex even just one time, is an evil thing that must be purged. Note that no attempt is made to find the man that she slept with. Apparently, he need not be purged.
So what's going on here:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and [?]s her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.No stoning for the woman? How can that be if she has been “promiscuous in her father's house”? Did we not just learn that such women are an evil thing and must be purged?
What is the only exception that we have seen in these verses that allows a woman to live after having sex with a man to whom she is not married? That's right folks! She has to be an unwilling participant!
I think that we can remove the question mark from the verse above, and fill in the word rape – just like the NIV (and a few other translations) do.
If you don't understand this, bodhitharta, I can only assume that your “playing dumb” bit is not an act.
As for the man, his “punishment” is to get the woman that he lusted after. Problem solved!
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 12 2012,22:13) Come on Bod.
You are being less than honest now.You know full well that the Hebrew words taphas and shakab
used in that verse mean to “sieze” and “have sex” with.In America we would not call that a shotgun wedding.
Tim
Actually I was talking about in America when a man was caught having intercourse with a mans daughter he would often force that man to marry her, hence the phrase “Shotgun Wedding”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
