Challenge regarding Christian morality

[YGninja]

That law is for the protection of the girl and her child.

The law regarding rape of a betrothed girl is thus:

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."

But for an unmarried girl it is this:

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

We see, the man is only allowed to live, so that the girl and her offspring do not suffer more, or die. Instead his punishment is to support her unto his death. In those days, a unmarried girl with child was effectively a death sentence, she would not have been able to get another man to work and support her and her family, so the rapist must do it. It made the best of a bad situation, and was a law formed to protect the victims or rape.

Let me get this straight... your god made rules about not mixing different fibers but couldn't put in a simple rule to treat women like they have thoughts and feelings? Your god could have created a system where the rapist had to pay the girl monthly payments for the care of the child he created and left her alone. Bible god could have even made a rule that rape was forbidden. Why the hell not? Is your god all powerful or not?

A young woman or girl is humiliated and degraded. For the rest of her life she must serve and obey some asshole that thinks so little of her that he raped her in the first place. Because Hebrew women had little rights, she would have had to continue to have sex with him. Yet, you believe that the rapist is somehow the one being punished in this system?

You can drag your heels if you like but the biblical and historical context is unavoidably clear.

This was 3-3500 years ago, there was no choice, for any man or woman. 99% of partnerships would have been to the nearest neighbors daughter/son, living over the hill a few miles away. What mattered was survival. The woman could have never married a different man, after she'd had a child with one, the best she could have hoped for is for the original man to stick with and support her and her child. The reason the rapist of a married woman gets death, yet an unmarried woman is forced to marry and support that woman, is clearly because the married woman has no need of support from rapist, so he can receive full punishment. The law, which is created for the benefit of unmarried rape victims, assumes the victim will need the support of the rapist. But if that weren't the case, the most reasonable inference from the context is that the rapist would receive full punishment.