RE: Why are you Against Homosexuality (to theists)
August 31, 2016 at 5:49 pm
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2016 at 5:53 pm by Simon Moon.)
(August 31, 2016 at 4:58 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Suppose I will comment on this, guess I just can't stand prosperity.
Agreed, this story in Deuteronomy is difficult. I would state there is a similar story where the man and a betrothed or married woman do the deed and if it is consensual they are both put to death, if it is not consensual on the woman's part, the man is. This situation would be between two adults and is a warning against adultery.
As for the one Simon cited, it is left for the father to decide if the two are to be married or if the young man is to pay the 50 pcs of silver.
The OT placed the fathers in a position of authority over daughters until marriage. There was a cultural value place upon virgins and a woman that was not considered a virgin could have difficulty in marrying or making her way in life. It was considered a punishment of sorts to make the man marry her and not divorce her for all of his days.
Personally, I would accept 50 pcs of silver, in today's dollars indexed for inflation, from someone that did such an unspeakable act on one of my daughters. It should help with their imminent hospital bills and subsequent funeral.
All of that said I have never seen an instance where this actually took place. Not saying that it didn't, just that I am unaware of any passages in the bible that document such an event.
Sorry but none of that is any help to make this law any more moral.
Not moral - death for adultery.
Not moral - having the father decide what the punishment is to be for the perpetrator of a crime against his daughter.
Not moral - paying the father off for the loss of marriage value of his daughter.
Not moral - forcing his daughter to marry the perpetrator of a crime against her.
Not moral - the father being the authority or his daughter's marriage.
Not moral - having any sort of value placed on a woman's virginity.
Not moral - 'punishing' the perpetrator by forcing him to marry his victim.
Cultural context should not make a difference to a god who would know this.
It does, however, make perfect sense to a bunch of tribal, superstitious, Bronze Age, barbarians making crap up.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
