Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[drfuzzy]

As someone who has spent some time doing genealogy research, I can tell you that the status of most women in America in the 1800's was not so different.  A woman was the property of her father, then her husband.  It is difficult to find parent information for a lot of American women, because once they were married, they had no rights, no property, and no name.  It was either John Doe and wife, or Mrs. Doe.   In most cases, a woman could not make money - and if she did earn money, they gave it to her husband.  It was almost unthinkable for a woman in her 20's to turn down a suitor.  She married him if her father told her to do so.  Marriage wasn't about love, in the vast majority of cases.   These women were in no better situation than the raped virgins forced to marry their rapist.

Women have been "property" for millennia.  It's amazing to live in a world where most men know that women are human beings who deserve to be treated as almost-equals.   -- At least, here in the USA.  Most Muslim countries STILL think of women as property, and marry them off at the age of 8 -

[robvalue]

I'm of the opinion that many people just go along with what the norm is. They get taught how their society works, and they absorb what they are taught. It takes a strong mind to question the very basics. It's always a lot less effort to go with the flow.

So once the overall position changes, then new generations grow up with it, and it becomes "obvious". But getting society to make that change is far from easy.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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

Indeed, David had two wives the whole time he was running around and hiding from King Saul. He married more once he became king, himself, of course.

[Minimalist]

As someone who has spent some time doing genealogy research, I can tell you that the status of most women in America in the 1800's was not so different.

Yep...what the republicunts consider "the good old days."

[abaris]

And ancient Greece does make Saudi Arabia look liberal as far as women's rights are concerned.

[Chad32]

Whether a rapist has to pay child support or not (which assumes that the woman will keep the child, and that's unlikely), the woman shouldn't be made to marry and move in with him. After which forcing sex on her wouldn't be considered rape.

The problem is Yahweh didn't inspire people to start treating woen equally, and stop valuing them solely on their virginity. Instead of protecting women, it just gives men a sure-fire means of finding a wife. Get 500 silver ready, and catch an unprotected girl out in the field.

It doesn't solve the real problem. It just mitigates it slightly. Like telling slave owners not do straight up beat your slave to death, instead of telling slave owners to free your slaves because treating people like property is wrong.

[robvalue]

Instead of that shit, how about:

"Don't even think about raping anyone, ever. As soon as you start anything like that, I'll be down there to bust your balls clean off."

And then he would follow through. No need for pansy laws.

[Chad32]

Consenting same sex adults get stoned to death. Rapists get to marry their victim.

[Minimalist]

Consenting same sex adults get stoned to death. Rapists get to marry their victim.

Aye.




I'm sure some theistic asswipe will be along shortly to explain it to you.

[Godscreated]

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:

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.

 With the advice you were given and the response from the guy you challenged, you're between a rock and a hard place. Next time maybe you'll consider staying quite before challenge Christians who have studied the Bible.

GC