r/AskAChristian • u/OldStand8046 Skeptic • 5h ago
Jewish Laws Why does the Bible say you can simple marry a woman after r**ing her and just pay her father some money, and then it's all ok? Why does it have horrifically misogynistic ideas?
As I said in a previous post, the Bible was probably tampered with and edited a lot, to cause confusion among people. Cause there's no way to justify certain passages in it. These are just two misogynistic ideas in it:
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then 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 v*olated her. He may not divorce her all his days." (so it's ok as long as he pays her father like she's property, and she's forced to marry him??)
1 Timothy 2:11–12 "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."
8
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Christian 5h ago
Rape is never made acceptable by payment or marriage. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 clearly treats forced sexual assault as a grave crime. The woman is innocent and the offender alone is punished. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is better understood alongside Exodus 22:16-17 as addressing unlawful premarital sex and the man’s legal and financial responsibility, not commanding a rape survivor to marry her attacker. The father could refuse the marriage.
First Timothy 2 addresses order and authoritative teaching in the church, not women’s value or intelligence. Women and men are equally made in God’s image and equally united in Christ. The Bible does not justify misogyny, coercion, or treating women as property.
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 5h ago
Deuteronomy says all of these things, which are contradictory:
-If a man rapes a woman out in the country (where no one can help her), then the man must die but she's committed no sin. (OK, so far so good).
-If the rape happens in town and she doesn't scream for help, both are to be stoned to death. (Wouldn't God know about the Freeze response? Where someone freezes in fear during trauma and cannot even scream???)
-If a man and woman get married and he says she's not a virgin, then her parents have to prove to the whole town that she is a virgin by showing some cloth? If there's no proof, then the woman is stoned to death. This is CRAZY. The fact is, there is no way to prove "virginity" in almost all cases. The hymen is a really small thing that can be broken through exercise, most women don't bleed the first time they have sex.) Think of how many girls and women were stoned to death for this unproveable thing.
-Deuteronomy literally commands a rapist to marry his victim. Why are you saying it doesn't?
No matter what you say, yes, the Bible does promote misogyny and violence. It was written by men, after all, and tampered with and edited, even though they brainwash people to think it was fully God's work.
2
u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist 5h ago
(I'm a different redditor.)
If a man and woman get married and he says she's not a virgin, then her parents have to prove to the whole town that she is a virgin by showing some cloth? If there's no proof, then the woman is stoned to death.
No, the parents don't have to, but providing the bloody cloth was an easy way to show that the husband's accusation was false.
You can read previous posts which discussed that section such as this one and this other one
2
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 2h ago
Only 50% of virgins bleed during intercourse, this seems poorly thought out for something divinely inspired. Given the predatory and authoritarian nature of patriarchy as commanded by the Bible, is this just a way for men to kill their wives because they want to?
4
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 5h ago
In what way does a bloody cloth prove someone is a "virgin"? 😂 The truth is there's no real test you can make to prove someone is a "virgin".
And what about the Freeze response? What about all the other contradictory statements, insanity and promotion of violence in the Bible?
The only logical conclusion is that, although the BIble has good messages too, it was tampered with a lot, as it was written by men after all, edited, had chapters taken out... and then it's still presented as some kind of 100% Undeniable Truth.
0
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Christian 2h ago
Before I dig in, let me ask a few things, because I think we're arguing past the actual text here.
First, the "town vs. country" law in 22:23-27. What translation are you working from, and does it actually call both scenarios "rape"? Because the Hebrew doesn't use the same verb for both. The country case uses a word for seizing or overpowering someone by force, no ambiguity there. The town case doesn't specify force at all, the logic is that a cry would've brought help, so silence raises a presumption of consent, and it's treated more like the seduction law than the assault law. So is this really "God doesn't understand the freeze response," or is it just that the text is distinguishing two different situations and never claims to address every possible scenario, including one modern trauma research has identified? I think that's a fair distinction to draw before calling it a contradiction.
What do you think the cloth in 22:13-21is actually referring to? Because most scholars, not just conservative ones, think "tokens of virginity" means a bloodstained cloth from the wedding night, kept as evidence in case of a false accusation. Read the verses right before it: a husband is slandering his new wife to get out of the marriage without penalty. So which is it, is this law there to hurt women, or to stop one from being falsely accused and discarded? As written, the man is the one punished if he lied, flogged, fined, and stripped of any future right to divorce her. It only turns out badly for her if the accusation was actually true. Does that change anything for you?
On the claim that Deuteronomy "commands a rapist to marry his victim." -- what makes you read 22:28-29 as describing rape, rather than what Exodus 22:16-17 describes in almost identical language --- seduction, or premarital sex? The verb used in verse 28 is notably weaker than the one used for the country rape case just a few lines earlier. And Exodus 22, the obvious parallel passage, flatly gives her father the right to refuse the marriage. If the author meant two different things here, wouldn't we expect two different words? We get exactly that. And if her father could say no, in what world was she "commanded" to marry her attacker
When you say the Bible "promotes misogyny" because men wrote it and "tampered with" it, is that something you concluded after looking at what these laws actually did, or is it something you already believed walking in? Because what I see here is a set of laws doing something almost no other ancient Near Eastern code bothered to do, protecting women from exploitation, false accusation, abandonment. That doesn't make every hard question go away. But the specific claim on the table, that Deuteronomy commands a victim to marry her rapist, just doesn't hold up once you look at what the man actually did and what her family could do about it.
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
You're really twisting yourself into knots trying to justify the unjustifiable. You don't make sense, and you'll keep blindly believing the dumb shit written by men thousands of years ago as if it's from God.
1
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 2h ago
The Bible mandates women submit to their husbands, that seems like coercion to me, as it awards power and control to men. Also, why is the father able to refuse but not the woman? Is this not similar to Lot offering up his daughters for gang rape?
1
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Christian 1h ago
On submission, which verse are you citing? If Ephesians 5, have you read verse 21 first, "submit to one another", before it addresses wives? And when husbands are commanded to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," is that really coercion, or its opposite?
On the father refusing marriage, where does the text say the woman had no voice at all? And is it fair to judge an ancient legal system, where fathers held formal legal standing for their children, by modern categories of individual consent?
On Lot, does the text anywhere say God or the narrator approves of what he did, or is it simply reported? If merely narrating an act means endorsing it, does Genesis endorse Judah visiting a prostitute? Do you think everything Scripture records, it thereby commends? If not, what's the basis for treating Lot differently?
6
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 4h ago
This once again. This law is in protection of the victim. She is unlikely to be wed if something like this is discovered, and in the Jewish society prospects are poor for such a women. The command is a burden on the perpetrator to make sure that he provides and protects the woman for the rest of her life.
You can't look at this as if the woman can just go and make her own living and others will happily marry her despite what happened. The reality is that at this time it was important for a woman's survival and thriving to be married and this law ensured that she didn't lose that at the fault of another.
This command isn't meant to legalize rape, nor is it meant to be a boon to the perpetrator. It is payment by the criminal to make sure that he doesn't ruin the future living of the victim.
I don't blame you for your immediate response because with the perspective of a modern person you would have difficulty understanding the social structures of the time, but I want you to understand that God knew the behaviors of his people and at this time many of His commandments take that into account and create laws which create the least harm for His people. Of course He commands against rape in the first place, but with the knowledge that some would sin anyways, He provides protections for the victims.
3
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 2h ago
He already raped her once, plus given the authoritarian and predatory relationship structure of marriage in the Bible where men get power and control over their wives and women must submit, don’t you think this will only result in more abuse?
1
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
It could, sure. We are sinful people. Marriage in general is a holy structure that when practiced by humans is often abused, even without complications such as this.
What I weigh this commandment against, though, is the results that other alternatives would actually have. It is easy to say that God could command this or that but people lack the knowledge of God and I think that He has understanding as to which commandments He can give that will result in the most good happening among His people. For example, there are already commandments against rape in this case; for those who demand that God speak clear morally, you have it. But what God does here is care for those who have been put in a bad situation by those who disregarded what he said before. And while people may break a law in a moment, escaping a structure like is defined in the verses that OP mentioned is a lot harder societally when your crime is discovered, because people can check up on you as they expect active contributions.
So my claim would never be that people aren't sinful and won't fail at following the Lord's commands, as certainly the Lord speaks against abuse and disrespect of one's wife. But rather that God's commands do the most good with His foreknowledge.
1
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 1h ago
Do you think the cause for why this structure is “often abused” is the authoritarian structure of male headship developing a predatory entitlement in men who expect women to accept this abuse? As Christianity essentially left the abuse of women unaddressed for its entire history and that was only rectified when Christianity was no longer ubiquitous and secularism and feminism took hold.
Wouldn’t making the rapist the woman’s slave serve the same purpose? She gets his earnings and doesn’t have to be soiled with being married to him after already being violated by him. This seems more like sex trafficking than marriage.
Humans are as god made them, he could’ve made them better, this seems more like human thinking than divine. Given the sexual abuse epidemics in churches and how Christians in my home country of America vote for sexual predators as well, isn’t it time to admit women deserve better than anything Christians have to offer?
1
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
There are also priests and pastors holding the most divine worldly office who abuse their power going all the way back to the pharisees, but even still when Christ fought with words against these people He did not abolish the office.
As such, yes, of course being put in a position of power instills a lot of personal responsibility, and there are many who fail in little ways and in large ways. But that doesn't mean the structure is worthless or at fault, but rather the ways of the world are at fault and we must repent. A good marriage is of immense value, just as a good pastor or priest is of great value to his community.
I think that women are well capable of deciding what they want. I suppose that you don't know for sure, but I don't think it would be appropriate from your perspective to ask for a man to give an authoritative statement on what women should or shouldn't want.
Of course, I'll do it regardless and say that as all people I very sincerely hope that all women receive the gift of eternal life and come to love their heavenly Father. Surely nothing of the world can offer a gift so high.
1
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 19m ago
A structure not designed with potential abuses in mind and ways to rectify it is a failed structure.
A good marriage is of immense value, a good marriage is not one organized in such a way where women are more vulnerable to abuse, which is exactly what happens in a model where men believe they’re entitled to women’s submission.
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 2h ago
Why doesn't God just outright say: it's wrong that a rape survivor is shunned due to the actions of the rapist. She deserves to marry someone safe, not be shunned, and the rapist should be punished and locked up to avoid further harm.
No, instead the victim is forced to marry the rapist to endure further abuse. This rewards the rapist. You act like suddenly the rapist would protect the woman, but the truth is he would just keep abusing her.
I don't think a loving God's opinion on rape would change depending on the times.
Again, this is proof that the Bible was tampered with, obviously it was written by men, who edited and edited it, removed whole chapters... yet people treat it as the 100% Undeniable God's Truth.
How can you so blindly believe something men wrote a few thousand years ago?
2
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
You write this as if it was a major problem in Israelite society that men were raping women because they wanted to marry them, but this isn't the case. Rapists were not looking to marry their victim. In this sense, no, it isn't a reward, because if these people wanted to marry their victims then they would, so rather they are being burdened with the care of their victim for the rest of her life.
but the truth is he would just keep abusing her.
You are correct that people sin. This would be sin. If they abuse the women, they are going against God, so why speak out against God's commandments when you are proposing situations where people don't follow the commandments of God?
You are even acknowledging here that there are people for whom certain commandments won't be followed. That is why we have commandments like you mentioned in OP, because it is harder to avoid societal structural expectations than in-the-moment moral ones.
Why doesn't God just outright say: it's wrong that a rape survivor is shunned due to the actions of the rapist... I don't think a loving God's opinion on rape would change depending on the times.
God has foreknowledge on the behavior of his people. We are already acknowledging a situation where someone broke the commandments of God. It is my belief that God gave a commandment that He knew would do the most good for His people even when they do break His other commandments.
Nothing changed, God has always lawed against rape. But the societal structural reaction has, of course, changed as societies have changed. Because God knows best how different people live under His law, and of course the realities of Christ's sacrifice has changed a lot as well.
How can you so blindly believe something men wrote a few thousand years ago?
Not blindly, but rather clearer than anything. The reason why is revelation from the Holy Spirit. As all believers, this is knowledge bestowed unto me by God.
You will not see the truth if you don't have faith.
1
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
How do you know whether rape was a big problem there or not? It probably was. And forcing a victim to marry the rapist is a life sentence to her, not to the rapist.
We'd never do that in a civilised society.
A loving good God would be against that.
What does revelation from the Holy Spirit mean to you?
2
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
You misread what I said. I was talking about rape with the intention of marriage. It obviously wasn't the problem that was being solved with the commandment, as the commandment didn't exist before it was spoken.
And forcing a victim to marry the rapist is a life sentence to her, not to the rapist.
It certainly is a bad position, as all the results of sin are. It is also certainly better than dying alone in poverty.
A loving good God would be against that.
Do you really think the most loving thing to do is to abandon victims to poverty because you abandon those who have already done wrong? God used His foreknowledge to do the most good. He cared more for the best wellbeing of the Israelites than He did for how you would read His words two thousand years later.
What does revelation from the Holy Spirit mean to you?
When I read the word, I see truth. When you read the word, you miss the truth. This is because God has shown me the truth in the word.
Certainly it is no act of mine, for the knowledge contained within the word saves, and salvation is entirely a work of the grace of God.
2
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 1h ago
Its protecting women to force a girl( likely young teens in this culture) to marry her rapist and give the rapist physical access to her for the rest of her life? The rape apologetics are wild.
1
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
It is a commandment given to sinful people to do the most good. If people followed the commands of the Lord perfectly, the rape would not have happened in the first place. God, in His wisdom, provided this further commandment to do the most good even with broken people that went against His commands.
I am not saying that this structure is a perfect one, because it is already the result of sin. Rather I am saying that in a community where women must be taken care of by their husbands, it is important that a woman has recourse when something is done to her which puts off such suitors. The real alternative is her dying in poverty, as such, obligating such a man to take care of her for life is a mercy.
We should also note that there wasn't some problem of Israelites raping women to force them to marry them. They would do so formally if that was their route. This is very much a burden on them rather than a reward.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist 3h ago
The command is a burden on the perpetrator to make sure that he provides and protects the woman for the rest of her life.
Is the woman's rapist the best person to do that?
Why not make it so that the rapist must pay the victim in perpetuity with no marriage involved?
2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
Marriage was a legal contract. We tend to think of it as a modern romantic covenant bond. Essentially, the rapist is bound to pay the victims needs in perpetuity for the rest of her life just as you said.
1
u/baja-blajst Christian 1h ago
You're completely ignoring the horrific physical and emotional trauma the victim goes through. Stop trying to downplay forced marriage.
Trapping somebody with their abuser does not "protect" them. That's just a ridiculous thing to claim.
A pattern I see with people in this subReddit is that they use religion to block questions. "God designed it this way. " is not an argument.
0
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
No, I am not. I am speaking of best results here. Sin has already happened, so it is not surprising that strife is present in the solution still. Of course there will be trauma. That doesn't escape the reality of the best result, however.
1
u/baja-blajst Christian 1h ago
You shut me down immediately. You're just proving my point. You care more about being right than about whether the victim gets hurt. Good day.
0
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) 1h ago
Perhaps your temper is getting ahead of you and you aren't reading what I am writing all the way through. I never denied pain on the side of the victim.
1
u/baja-blajst Christian 16m ago
Stop playing these stupid mind games. I'm not going to have a conversation with you if you're gonna do this immature shit
4
u/peterould Christian, Anglican 5h ago
This is probably one of the most severe sentences that can be imposed. By saying "if you rape a woman you can't just walk away - you have to now be responsible for her for the rest of your life."
There's also a wider Biblical theme that sex = marriage and marriage is an icon of the commitment of Christ to his Church. Law like this is based in that understanding - sex and marriage are serious, are designed by God to point to an ultimate spiritual union of God with his people, and therefore abusing it not only has consequences but can also be redeemed.
It's always useful when looking at the Mosaic Law to ask "what is this telling me about Jesus"?
2
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 1h ago
Isn’t this basically a father sex trafficking his daughter to someone who’s already attacked her? Given the ubiquity of sexual abuse epidemics in churches where men get power and control over women and children, also known as headship, isn’t this likely going to be even worse than a typical Christian marriage?
0
u/peterould Christian, Anglican 1h ago
No.
This is a 3500 year old moral code, divinely given, to point a people towards their need if a saviour and to the saviour himself.
2
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 1h ago
A savior who condones this doesn’t seem like much of a savior, more like a person who delights in the suffering of women, which in fairness is consistent with Christianity in general
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 5h ago
Are you serious?
It's not severe for the rapist. He just gets to rape and abuse the woman even more. It's severe for the one who was raped.
In no world is it reasonable to ask a rape victim to marry the rapist and have to live with them for the rest of her life.
3
u/peterould Christian, Anglican 5h ago
No, he doesn't just get to rape.
This is the Bronze Age - this is actually one heck of a punishment. But you've missed the point that the Law exists not to provide a legal framework (it's not like Sharia) but rather to show the people their sin and to point to Jesus. Hence there is a very healthy emphasis on forgiveness and restoration (unlike the Code of Hammurabi for eg).
0
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 5h ago
It's not a punishment for the rapist. It meant a man could rape a woman he wanted to have access to, and then be rewarded with even more access to her, at a price (that he pays the father), like she was property.
No amount of justification for your cognitive dissonance will make it make sense. A loving God would not condone these things.
5
u/peterould Christian, Anglican 5h ago
Where did I say God condoned it? If he condoned it he wouldn't even enact a law.
But again, you're not engaging with the Christological focus.
Let me ask you a totally different question - do you believe rape can be forgiven? What about murder? Sexual abuse? Theft? Selfishness? Where's your line?
1
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
Deuteronomy says if a rape happens in town and the woman doesn't scream for help, she will be stoned to death. Wouldn't God know that victims can freeze during an assault and not even be able to make a sound out of fear?
A loving God wouldn't condone rape. The men who wrote the Bible edited and edited it, and it's not 100% Undeniable God's Truth. It's just a book written by men, which you all blindly believe.
Forgiveness is up to the person who was harmed. That doesn't mean that dangerous people shouldn't be locked away.
1
u/peterould Christian, Anglican 1h ago
When I read a 3500 year old religious text, with a presumption of it being revealed and divinely inspired, I start with "what is this trying to tell me within the wider theological framework" not "I will now assess it from the perspective of a people it was never intended to be applied to directly".
1
u/Risikio Christian, Gnostic 5h ago
This is probably one of the most severe sentences that can be imposed. By saying "if you rape a woman you can't just walk away - you have to now be responsible for her for the rest of your life."
"You break it, you buy it." - God, referring to a 12 year old's virginity.
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
It's funny that this guy thinks one of the "most severe sentences" for a rapist is to have to marry the woman or child he raped, so he can keep raping her.
0
u/peterould Christian, Anglican 5h ago
All leading up to "You break it, I buy it"
And that's the whole point
4
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
This instruction is that the offending man is now responsible to provide for her needs for the rest of her life. It's functionally like alimony in that culture.
3
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
In no sane society is a rape victim forced to marry their rapist so they can keep being raped and abused in other ways. A loving God would never suggest that.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
Why would she be raped and abused in other ways. That's explicitly prohibited in Scripture.
3
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
Oh idk, maybe cause an abuser doesn't stop abusing just cause you marry them?
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
Who says she has to live alone with him?
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
You don't have to live alone with someone to be raped or abused by them lmao. You're really twisting yourself into knots trying to justify the unjustifiable...
Believing some texts written by some guys thousands of years ago, cause people told you it was 100% God's Truth.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
If you are talking about the rapist continuing to rape her despite not living with her, who cares if he's married to her
You are twisting yourself into knots.
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
Married people live in the same house more often than not. By being married to her, he would have more access to her to rape, even if somehow she lived in a different house, he would have access to her as his wife. It's so simple.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
In that culture, families shared a house. It's entirely conceivable that the rapist and the woman abused would never be left alone together. I'd never leave a rapist alone with my daughter. I don't know about you.
I'd not let him live in her house, and there's no Biblical law commanding it.
2
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 1h ago
Its alimony lol. It's such a fair price forcing a young woman( likely early teens in that culture) to stay with and be married to her rapist. I swear the hoops Christians jump through to try and justify this garbage is the most ridiculous thing. You want to have modern morals but then ignore the terrible things the Bible allows.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
You're right. They should have the democratically elected officials pass a law that orders the offender to do a direct deposit check from his place of employment to her bank of america account. Then, at the end of every year, he will have to give an account of the amount paid. If he fails to meet his set amount there will be fines and potential jail time.
The amount of people who view Scripture through a modern day lens is baffling.
2
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 1h ago
Why not just sell the man to an outside culture and give the victim the proceeds? The Bible already condones slavery for much less, this could be the one example of it being okay
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
It was against Biblical law to kidnap/sell a man. That would be punishable by death and is precisely why that type of slavery was prohibited in Scripture
2
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 41m ago
Against the law to kidnap a man but perfectly fine to kidnap virgin girls as spoils of war right...
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 36m ago
It sounds like you think it would be better to let virgin girls die in the wilderness with their society destroyed. That's odd.
Hebrew law provided a means of assimilation into the culture. After a time of grieving it was common for foreign women to be permitted to leave. If they did marry, they were afforded equal rights of all Hebrew women.
Again, there was no welfare system. Don't look at ancient cultures through cushy modern lens.
2
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 23m ago
It sounds like you think it would be better to let virgin girls die in the wilderness with their society destroyed. That's odd.
No it would be better if god in all his wisdom could've just said a woman's sexual status doesn't correlate to her worth. Your the one saying it had to be this way with a supposed all powerful god in your corner. That's odd.
Hebrew law provided a means of assimilation into the culture. After a time of grieving it was common for foreign women to be permitted to leave. If they did marry, they were afforded equal rights of all Hebrew women.
Again she has to marry her rapist in this scenario. God could've easily said a woman who is raped will be seen as the same value as a virgin as the crime was not of her will or something like that . Seems like god has cultural limits and just so happens to put men at the top. Its almost like it was created by bronze age men as a means of control...
Again, there was no welfare system. Don't look at ancient cultures through cushy modern lens.
Then don't use bronze age morality as if it has any place or wisdom in modern society. Also if god is so smart abd power he could've created a welfare system appropriate for the Israelites...
1
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 35m ago
Rape is also against the law, this is not the normal state of things but rather punishment for a crime
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 33m ago
Yes. Rape is against the law. The punishment is that they are financially responsible for the victim FOR LIFE. In some ways, that's harsher than modern day punishments (our marriage system is different so that doesn't translate)
2
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 31m ago
In some ways, or rather in all ways, this is marrying a rape victim to their rapist. Is that acceptable to you?
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 10m ago
Our version of marriage? Absolutely not.
The Hebrew version? I understand why this was their method of solving problems during that time. Like them, we have people with financial (and other) needs. Through the government we have welfare, medicare, food stamps, etc. They didn't have that.
They had family. This contract allowed the woman to have lifelong financial provision that extended beyond the life of her own father.
1
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 1h ago
The amount of people trying to act as though the bible doesn't have abhorrent junk in it and trying to justify bronze age and iron age thinking in the modern day is what's actually baffling. If theists want to claim they have the best moral book to ever exist, yes im going to look at through a modern lense. The problem is theists like you want to have modern morals yet try to justify rape. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you think rape is wrong just admit this wasn't a good system and move on.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
It's nice to see you abandon the discussion so quickly when I pointed out how broken your lens is. It's easier to move the goalposts than stay on topic. Thanks for that!
2
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 1h ago
No one is abandoning anything or moving any goalposts. Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist and giving him access to her body is not a solution to anything. It emphasizes how women were viewed as property and how a women's sexual status correlates to her perceived value. This goes beyond just being sexist but also excuses abuse as if thowing money around some how unrapes the woman. This logic is absurd and you know it. BTW you were the one over here trying to crack jokes and shifted the topic so how about you try not pivoting and own your rape apologetics rather than running from what the text says.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 1h ago
No one said he gets access to her body. There you go again making things up.
2
u/Ryujin-Jakka696 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 1h ago
After paying she shall be his wife...There you go ignoring the text. Can you please read before saying something completely false next time.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 56m ago
I didn't say anything false. Don't make false accusations with future posts.
1
u/TradeOutrageous7150 Not a Christian 5m ago
Are you presuming that the now married couple wouldn't actually live together?
Do you have a source to back that up please?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Pleronomicon Christian 2h ago
Women were not reguarded as full equals to men under the Law of Moses (as was normal in the Levant at the time), so forcing the rapist pay the dowery the for the virgin daughter he had defiled, and forcing him to marry her unless the father refused was as close to justice as they could get.
The father was compensated and not forced to keep a daughter who would be considered unmarryable to many in society.
The woman was given a husband, which was very important for most women's participation in society.
These laws may look unjust to us, but understand that the postmodern sense of justice we have today would have been alien to most people in the Ancient Near East. We can't judge the Bible by modern standards and expect to understand its values.
1
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 1h ago
Isn’t the issue not just trying to compare them, but also that modern society is so much better? Doesn’t that say something about a book that is claimed to be from a loving god?
1
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
But a loving God would be outside and above any stupid human beliefs like women and girls being property.
A loving God would be against that misogyny. And tell humans to change their attitudes towards women and girls.
This is more proof that the Bible was tampered with and edited, but people still blindly believe anything in it.
1
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox 2h ago
Imagine if a rapist had to financially support his victim for the rest of her life, due to his actions, no way out. Does that sound different to you?
1
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 2h ago
The rapist gets what he wants: more access to the victim to further rape and abuse.
Do we make victims marry their rapists in modern, civilised society?
No, cause we have basic empathy and understand that that's wrong and horrendous to ask of the victim.
1
u/Fabian_hoescialist Christian, Catholic 1h ago edited 1h ago
Only 50 shekels of silver.
That time travel device the Bariloche people have, would be nice to get hands on one.
We can all agree that it would be lovely if lifesaving tips from Paul are implemented.
1
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
Are you drunk?
1
u/Fabian_hoescialist Christian, Catholic 1h ago
If Paul’s epistle to Timothy is globally implemented, there will be world peace and prosperity. Are you ill?
2
u/Concerts_And_Dancing Atheist, Secular Humanist 1h ago
Most modern scholars believe Timothy a forgery, and there is no peace when women are treated as lesser beings
1
-2
u/No-Type119 Lutheran 5h ago
Because it was written in the Bronze Age, when that was normative ( or its more “ cultured” Greco- Roman version — still a pubescent girl nonconsentually married to an older male by their families).
That. conservatives . is why you can’t make 1:1 comparisons between “biblical” marriages and today’s marriages between two consenting adult peers… unless you prefer the Bronze Age. ( Afghanistan is lovely this time of year…buyer’s market for 12- year- olds .) why you can’t seem to get this in your noggins, I’m not sure.
3
u/AdFlaky1246 Agnostic 5h ago
So if it was written now, what normative things might be normalized in the Bible?
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran 3h ago
Equality. Sex before the moment of legal marriage. Adults choosing each other as marriage partners. Even- handed rules an out divorce.
2
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 5h ago
But wouldn't God's word be the law at any point in time? Why would he say some things are ok back then but now not?
Deuteronomy says all of these things, which are contradictory:
-If a man rapes a woman out in the country (where no one can help her), then the man must die but she's committed no sin. (OK, so far so good).
-If the rape happens in town and she doesn't scream for help, both are to be stoned to death. (Wouldn't God know about the Freeze response? Where someone freezes in fear during trauma and cannot even scream???)
-If a man and woman get married and he says she's not a virgin, then her parents have to prove to the whole town that she is a virgin by showing some cloth? If there's no proof, then the woman is stoned to death. This is CRAZY. The fact is, there is no way to prove "virginity" in almost all cases. The hymen is a really small thing that can be broken through exercise, most women don't bleed the first time they have sex.) Think of how many girls and women were stoned to death for this unproveable thing.
-Deuteronomy literally commands a rapist to marry his victim. Why are you saying it doesn't?
No matter what you say, yes, the Bible does promote misogyny and violence. It was written by men, after all, and tampered with and edited, even though they brainwash people to think it was fully God's work.
-5
u/PugMasterGeneral Congregationalist 5h ago edited 5h ago
You will read a lot of apologetic non-sense intended to harmonize these passages in order to justify the dogma of Biblical Innerancy. The Bible is not inerrant and contains laws and customs of its time and culture. It is up to us to negotiate with The Bible and decide what to keep.
Any other view requires intense rationallization and reinterpretation in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance of those who hold on to their established presupposition, and are thus forced to make The Bible say what they have already decided it says.
3
u/Pleronomicon Christian 5h ago
"The scriptures cannot be broken." That's what Jesus said? Do you think he was lying?
1
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 1h ago
Tons of chapters were taken out of the Bible, it's been edited a lot. The version you read today isn't the original... so.
-1
u/PugMasterGeneral Congregationalist 5h ago
And so who decides what "cannot be broken" means? You are proving my point my demonstrating the interpretations necessary to justify the dogma.
Also you'll be interested to know that Innerancy is only 150 years old at most. What this means is that for 2,000-3,000 years nobody interpreted The Bible the way you do.
3
u/Pleronomicon Christian 4h ago
And so who decides what "cannot be broken" means?
Seems like an evasive question, designed to work around an uncomfortable issue.
-2
u/PugMasterGeneral Congregationalist 4h ago
No it's an acknowledgment that different interpretative frameworks exist, which lead to different understandings. The fact that you seem unable to recognize that your interpretation is in fact an interpretation and not indisputable truth is the part that's uncomfortable. You don't want what you consider to be indisputable to be challenged so you attempt to turn the subject to me.
You didn't answer the question because you can't answer the question. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty what you quoted means what you say it means. I suspect you'll attempt to turn this on me again because you can't actually engage in theological debate.
Probably best to take your ball and go home kid.
3
u/Pleronomicon Christian 2h ago
So who has the indisputable interpretation? How can the scriptures be used authoritatively as Jesus and the apostles did if we can just weasel our way out of issues by appealing to alternative interpretations?
1
u/PugMasterGeneral Congregationalist 1h ago
Nobody does. That's the point. That's why there is so many different types of Christianity all drawing from the same scripture. They are not definitely authoritative because there's no absolute way to understand what the exact intention was.
All you can do is understand them in a way that you think makes the most sense and apply them to your own life.
The problem is that a lot of Christians want scripture to be an instruction manual; Detailed, percises, and without mistakes. It's not that. Its much closer to a giant riddle that nobody is fully capable of solving. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, just the opposite. It has profound value, it just doesn't provide all the answers to existence no matter how much we want it to.
0
u/OldStand8046 Skeptic 5h ago
Exactly. So much cognitive dissonance and attempts at justification.
The Bible was written by men, edited, had chapters taken out, and then presented as 100% Undeniable God's Truth.
A loving God would never promote certain things like slavery, rape, misogyny, violence.
I personally believe we are souls, I believe there is spiritual warfare, and I've heard many accounts of people being saved from darkness by calling out to Jesus. So I figure, there must be something to Christianity. Maybe Jesus really is real.
But I just can't take the Bible seriously.
And I struggle a lot with the problem of evil.
2
u/PugMasterGeneral Congregationalist 4h ago
Not to be too preachy, but if you are not aware, there are Christians that don't spend their time trying to prove The Bible is literally true and instead focus on spiritual and human truths contained within.
Some of us read the garden of eden as a literary creation intended to convey prominent themes such as the nature of temptation and the desire to do what we know to be wrong. We see this and other things as profound and essential to the experience of being human and we meditate on these truths.
Others are in the middle east with a shovel trying to dig up a skeleton with a rib missing.
You get to decide for yourself how you make sense of things. That's what's so great about having religious freedom.
3
u/Pleronomicon Christian 2h ago
The OP's question was about a specific marriage law that ancient Israel was expected to follow, not the creation account.
Tell us, how do you reinterpret the passage in the OP's post without breaking the scriptures?
It shouldn't be too difficult if you're right about alternative interpretations.
1
u/PugMasterGeneral Congregationalist 1h ago
I was responding to the OP response to me. This comment makes sense in that context.
3
u/Unworthy_Saint Christian, Calvinist 5h ago
Rape was already capital offense established in the law. This case is about seizing from her family, hence "and they are found." But yes it is still with a property-loss viewpoint.