Hey guys, I was pressing a guy on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in a discussion elsewhere

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 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."


I asked him if society would be more moral if people obeyed this law, and he came back with this:

Quote:First of all, this is a Jewish Civil Law. I would encourage you to see the brilliance of the law. Much like America's civil law that makes men who get women pregnant, have to pay child support, this law make men pay for the crime of rap. If a woman in Jewish culture was found not to a virgin, she was disregarded by other men and had no future for marriage. This took care of this problem. Again, they may or may not be more moral, but they would be healthier and more civil.

I just wanted some help developing my thoughts in regard to this apologetic. What do you guys make of this? How might you respond to it?

I do have a few ideas on how I might reply, the main problem with the passage is that it doesn't give the rape victim any say in what happens, but I just thought I'd post this here and see if you guys thought of anything that didn't occur to me; I have been somewhat sleep deprived lately so it wouldn't surprise me.

As far as I'm aware, this was considered a property crime. The daughter belongs to the father, which is why he must pay him. He doesn't pay her, so it has nothing to do with child support.

It's an absolutely disgusting idea where the rape victim has no rights and is passed from her father's property to her new husband's. Trying to pretend this has anything to do with civilised society is absurd.

No, society would far worse. People could rape virgins they liked the look of in order to secure a lifetime with them, and not even be punished for it. If he wants to live in a society like that, he is sick.

I would ask him firstly if he considers rape to be on a par with a pregnancy resulting from consensual sex. If not, congratulations, hes more more "civil" than the holy prophets who wrote Jewish law.

Secondly I would ask how it is that Jewish law changed and became "healthier" if the bible is the unchanging and inexorable word of god. If it was simply the work of man then what is it doing in the bible? If man changed the bible how can we ever distinguish between what is gods word and what isn't? If we simply go with what *feels* like gods word and thats different from what other people *feel* is gods word isn't that evidence we are simply cherry-picking from a book using our own morale preference thus making the book irrelevant?

I would bet that by "violated" it does not mean done her harm, it means spoiled her for other potential husbands. So he must take the faulty product for himself.

Maybe in the fucked up society that existed at the time this made some sort of sense. What is and isn't socially accepted is dictated by society, after all. Anyone who still thinks this is acceptable is not compatible with current civilisation.

This, of course, leads to a rather interesting conundrum. I'm not overly familiar with Jewish civil law at the time Deuteronomy was made up, but consider this:

A man rapes a virgin, pays 50 shekels (which is the equivalent of roughly NZ$700) and marries the girl. What happens if six months later, he rapes a second virgin? He can pay the fine, sure, but Jewish law forbids plural marriage (unless you're lucky enough to be king, I mean), so he can't marry the second girl, since he isn't allowed to divorce the first one. Can he kill the first one, pay some sort of a murder fine, and marry the second one. If he can't, who is going to marry the second one? Does she have to go out and find a single man to rape her so she can get married (although this is problematic, since she's no longer a virgin)? If she does, will her da have to refund the 50 shekels paid to him by the first rapist? If there is a gang rape, do the gang pay 50 shekels each, or can they pro-rate it? And which one is going to be forced to marry the girl?

Geez, who knew that treating women like commodities would be such a pain?

Boru

I wouldn't respond to it at all. I'd just stand there, blinking, until he sensed the awkwardness and backed away.

And let's not forget, the woman has to spend the rest of her life bearing children for her rapist. Yay for her!

Is the rape a beat her senseless in the alley behind Denny's kinda thing, or the date rape Pat Robertson committed on the future Mes. Pat Robertson ?

(September 21, 2015 at 4:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: He can pay the fine, sure, but Jewish law forbids plural marriage (unless you're lucky enough to be king, I mean), so he can't marry the second girl, since he isn't allowed to divorce the first one.

Boru

I looked it up on some jewish sites to be sure. The Torah didn't ban polygamy.

The bible has main characters having several, even hundreds of wives. God never steps in to remedy that situation.