richardhutnik said:
Jay520 said:
ninetailschris said:
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.
|
Yes, it's great that the man is obligated to take care of the woman after he raped her. That's fine and all. I think it's a great rule there to protect the woman.
However, raping is still a horrible act, and the Bible allows it. The bible just says "You can rape a woman, but you gotta take care of her later." Seriously? Do you not see the immoralty with that? Yeah, it's a good rule in place that makes the man take care of the woman. But it still condones raping. It gives men permission to rape, in the first place. So, according to the bible, you can do something as disgusting as rape, as long as you make up for your actions. The rule shouldn't be "You have to take care of the woman you raped." It should say, "Do not rape!"
That's like saying "You can stab someone, but you must pay for their medical billls." Do you not see absurd that is?
|
If you want to end up making this about the Christian religion, then show where in line with what Jesus said, and New Testament texts say, that there is allowing rape? If the ideal is waiting until one is married for sex, and that, where the heck do you fit in rape? Can you make out anywhere, where rape would end up being an acceptable practice by a Christian? If not, then why are you even arguing this point? I don't see the Bible saying anything about software piracy either, so that means Jesus condones it?
If you want to take the Christian religion, and people having Jesus as their Lord/Boss/superior, they respond to, and the idea is people do this genuinely, then show your understanding of what the Christian faith DOES say about how individuals are to live, if they are Christians, and what they are to strive for. Focus on what is there, not what is permitted, condoned, etc....
|
