Quote:Here's where the argument fails. Instead of making the women marry their rapist, why doesn't the bible tell people not to ostracize women who were raped?What exactly do you mean by "ostracize"?
Like exclude them? It wouldn't work. Take for example a case where the raped woman became pregnant.
In that case, it's almost certain that no one would marry her, as such marriages are even problematic for our times. The husband may not be willing to look after the child of some other person, and not willing to leave behind any property to that child at all.
And of course, if the rapist is unwilling to marry the woman he had raped, by mosaic law, he'd be stoned to death, it's all there.
But the woman would still not be able to marry, and mind you, the bible does not make any distinction between rape and consensual sex, other than in the case for the woman and man who engaged in relations inside and outside of inhabited areas, so this also applies to things like for example;
a woman who wants to marry a guy, allows herself to be abducted by him, and is therefore "raped". In this case, the "rapist" has to pay dowry to the father, and must marry her or face death.
This is so akin to the bride abduction thing that we have in Turkey.
Even if there are no relations between the abducter, and the abducted, they are given consent(or forced) to marry.
This is an ageold tradition that also held true for the Israelites.
And yes, also was applicable to people who were raped.
Quote:Because the people who wrote it were sexist bigots by today's standards, and their book reflects their views.Code:If you want to look at it that way, be my guest.
I just think that it has been written to fit as best as it could with the standards of that time.
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?