Jesus Christ of Nazareth loves you!

[ninetailschris]

Scoobes said:

ninetailschris said:

pezus said:
"Deuteronomy 22:28-29
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[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Did you miss this?

What he quoted wasn't that so your point invailded.

The passages deal with two different issues.

But to answer this question.

First, you seem to think that is helping the rapist or screwing over the victum because she has to marry the rapist who raped. Your argument if we were talking modern times this would be great objection. But in OT days this was the best choice because she would no longer be regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support. No one would marry her because she wasn't a virgin and therefor like previous stated she would be left to herself and mostly die. (note: there is nothing in the time as women fully supporting herself during those times because it would have been impossible.)In the passage we read "[He must] marry the girl, for he has [violated her]. [He can never] divorce her as long as he lives."  First,  we can see that the rapist is FORCED to marry the woman because he did in fact VIOLATE her and must support the women  FOREVER by never divorcing her. The woman/father/community leader at the time would have most likely demanded this happen because in this way the rapist would have been forced to support the woman and the woman would have financial support. Back in the OT times it wasn't about modern love and special feeling in your stomach it was about surviving and honor. This was a punishment to the man and is even phased as so.

Second,  with the father and the money related  to another ancient practice, the dowry. A girl who is married becomes part of a new family, which she goes on to support of her own means, and now relies upon for support; at the same time, her former family loses her support and assistance in daily survival, but gains nothing practical in return - hence the dowry.

 

This should answer the question.

 

 

 

So if a bloke really liked a girl, but neither she nor her family wanted the bloke, all he had to do was rape her and they could be married. I'm failing to see the punishment, especially considering that divorce back then was seen as reprehensible anyway and if you did divorce then you'd be shuned by the local community. 

It sounds more like the bloke has to marry the girl because, as a non-virgin, she wouldn't be able to marry anyone anyway so the bloke must. Not really much of a punishment if he desires her anyway. More like a punishment for the girl.

By marrying her he must support the woman being forced to never marry someone else. Plus he pay the father would is provider of woman previously. This is punished not only with his money in current but forever.  If he tried to date/whatever sexual anyone else while married he would have broke another law which would lead to a futher punishment which would have been death/prisionment most likely. Most rapist don't want JUST one girl as this is very black and white view in the moment. You competely ignore the long term effect of this. Basically losing his freedom of marriage and never able to diviorce.

On the point of punishing her you ignored all my points and side-steped everything. You ignored that she would left without support and would die quicker without a husband at all. You ignore that she  will know that she will have income until she dies. You act like this nothing 

better than  going weeks  with food and water see how fast you think that the alterinative is better. It's real nice in your house where you can go get a job if you need money or get help from the government. But back in time there isn't much food or water(sometimes and the only you get food is contributing to the society and if you don't you don't eat. So, right now your saying is better she not eat than have food and the man made sure to pay forever for you. The man will forced to work to pay both families so he has work harder to bring in more money then if he was single. 

Your view is so black and white and a little of light hearted joking about something that was very serious and life altering. I can't imagine if I was raped and told " well you will never have food/children. You can't work so you may as well kill yourself, good luck"  It's just pure ego to make it seem like woman would want that. This reality not walfare state.