It's a framework for social stability and integrity, just not in the way that a lot of modern social conservatives think. For instance, the proscription on (only male!) homosexuality was because the law was directed towards adult men, nominally independent heads of households or younger men eligible for such status. Two men sleeping together would breed interfamilial conflict, and also violate notions of ritual purity (due to what sodomy specifically entails). So its not that God specifically hates the notion of men lying with men, but the act of doing so is ritually unclean and damaging to the social fabric of a society where all free men had responsibilities as heads of households and such. The Jewish notions of ritual purity were often rather blatant efforts to keep themselves and their culture distinct and different from those around them, so that their people did not get "absorbed" into some other culture. Incest was big in the Egyptian royal family, for one.

In the case of the rape of a virgin, it's just about being able to make sure your daughter gets a home and a husband, which in their mind was more important than the trauma of rape or any of that, it was more important to see that she was looked-after. That's why the punishment for raping a married woman is death, because at that point you've assaulted the established integrity of a family.

@bold. It's explained by the first 3 sentences, but I still don't get it.

Also, are you only considering the mosaic law when saying bold or are you also taking into account the writings of Paul?

Talmudic law. Paul was working in a completely different context, and arguably in a context different from Jesus himself.

Talmudic? That's not what we're talking about though. The talmud is a seperate line of teaching than the bible itself as far as I know.

The rabbis were not necessarily hand in hand with the writings of Moses, since we know at least a few cases where God in the bible called the teachers out. 1) with Jesus where he said they were preaching the traditions of men, and 2) I believe in the prophets wher God says that the teachers are teaching against his commands so as to please the ear.

Also, when saying "God this...", it would be good to clarify which context you're in. Because from the new testament its pretty clear bold is not true. As for Jesus per se, through his words we can't know. But as I explained in the Chik-fil-A thread it's difficult to dissociate Christ's words from Paul's.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.  I don't actively seek Christian-related things on the internet and interject my opinion.  In fact this is the first time I've ever talked about religion on a blog. 

-

Thanks for that, he makes a lot of points that I fear my Christian friends are guilty of.  I myself prefer Penn Jillette over Bill Maher as a good one to listen to.  His approach is more my personality, which is to "kill with kindness" as opposed to insulting people and not expecting insults back.