Proselytizing

[Alceste]

So if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her still? Still?

In something I read about some benighted corner of Africa, there are still parts of the world where kidnapping and raping yourself a wife is still a common "traditional" practice. Plus you can have as many as you can afford. Seems we haven't all made it out of the dark ages.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The verses in question do not use the word rape.

The original text doesn't use the word "rape" (it's in an English word and the text is Hebrew), but it describes forcible sex. Some translations render this in similar terms to the original; some translate it straightforwardly as "rape". However, since I think any forcible sex qualifies as rape, it's a distinction without difference.

I think It could have included rape and also consensual fornication.

But you do agree that it includes rape.

A girl being raped was required to scream and resist. In any case, the man would not be allowed to divorce her if the father insisted they be married. He would be required to pay the full bride price whether he was forced to marry the girl or not.

So you agree: in some cases, the Old Testament law implies that a woman should be married to her rapist after paying money for her to her father?

I'm trying to figure out where you're going with all this. Earlier, it seemed like you were objecting to my claim about what the Bible says here. What you've said above implies (AFAICT) that you agree with me. Is your issue that I didn't preface what I said with "in some cases..."?

Judges in Israel could also administer a beating if the offense warranted this. (Deuteronomy 25:2,3) and in the case of an engaged girl, the rapist would be executed.

My main concern was the well-being of the rape victim. The question of whether the rapist's punishment was severe enough is secondary to me.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

The verses in question do not use the word rape. I think It could have included rape and also consensual fornication. A girl being raped was required to scream and resist. In any case, the man would not be allowed to divorce her if the father insisted they be married. He would be required to pay the full bride price whether he was forced to marry the girl or not.
Judges in Israel could also administer a beating if the offense warranted this. (Deuteronomy 25:2,3) and in the case of an engaged girl, the rapist would be executed.

Maybe you should just admit you that you clearly do not know. Was the girl really required to scream?

 

[Debater Slayer]

In something I read about some benighted corner of Africa, there are still parts of the world where kidnapping and raping yourself a wife is still a common "traditional" practice. Plus you can have as many as you can afford. Seems we haven't all made it out of the dark ages.

It does seem to me a sad indictment of the world we live in when some people still jump through hoops to avoid agreeing outright that forcing a rape victim to marry the rapist is an absolutely barbaric and inhuman practice. I mean, do we seriously need to refer to some book before deciding on something like that? One would think the ramifications of that would be obvious enough for people to make up their minds, but that's apparently still not the case for some.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It does seem to me a sad indictment of the world we live in when some people still jump through hoops to avoid agreeing outright that forcing a rape victim to marry the rapist is an absolutely barbaric and inhuman practice. I mean, do we seriously need to refer to some book before deciding on something like that? One would think the ramifications of that would be obvious enough for people to make up their minds, but that's apparently still not the case for some.

But if we believe that God gave us a law about forcing rape victims to marry us, then we have no choice but to follow that law.

It's why I find bibliolatry to be behind much of the world's troubles. The idea that words can come from God and that we can trust those words even beyond our own sense of right and wrong? That seems problematic.

 

[rusra02]

Maybe you should just admit you that you clearly do not know. Was the girl really required to scream?

Sorry my post was not clear. The Bible does say that an engaged woman must scream and resist to the degree possible. (Deuteronomy 22:23,24) I think the requirement to marry a person you seduce would be a strong deterrent to rape or sexual immorality by mutual consent. The awful harm done to victims of rape is shown in the Bible account of Tamar, who was raped by her half-brother. (2Samuel 13:11-20)

 

[averageJOE]

Sorry my post was not clear. The Bible does say that an engaged woman must scream and resist to the degree possible. (Deuteronomy 22:23,24) I think the requirement to marry a person you seduce would be a strong deterrent to rape or sexual immorality by mutual consent. The awful harm done to victims of rape is shown in the Bible account of Tamar, who was raped by her half-brother. (2Samuel 13:11-20)

Really???? You truly, and honestly believe that forced marriage would be the strongest deterrent to rape????

 

[McBell]

Really???? You truly, and honestly believe that forced marriage would be the strongest deterrent to rape????

If you are forced to marry the one you rape, one would think that people would be out raping celebrities left and right....

What happens when more than one person rapes the same celebrity?
Who gets to marry the celebrity?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Sorry my post was not clear. The Bible does say that an engaged woman must scream and resist to the degree possible. (Deuteronomy 22:23,24)

Since there is no word for rape here, do you think you may be reading it too literally? It could be describing consensual sex, the woman didn't scream because she wanted to have sex, not that you literally have to scream as much as you possible if you're being raped or you'll be stoned to death.

I think the requirement to marry a person you seduce would be a strong deterrent to rape or sexual immorality by mutual consent.

What are you talking about here?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you are forced to marry the one you rape, one would think that people would be out raping celebrities left and right....

What happens when more than one person rapes the same celebrity?
Who gets to marry the celebrity?

I wouldn't want to be the Virgin Queen in biblical days.

 

[Pegg]

Really???? You truly, and honestly believe that forced marriage would be the strongest deterrent to rape????

i think the point of that mosaic law was to ensure that every man in Isreal knew that they could only have sexual relations (whether it was forced or consensual) with a woman they were married to.

Sex outside of marriage was not permitted which shows that God does not tolerate men taking advantage of women and then leaving them. If they had sex with a women, they were expected to show honour to her by marrying her.

In cases where a married/engaged women was obviously raped, the man was to be executed. If she was a single woman/girl, the man had to marry her by law.

 

[Sunstone]

i think the point of that mosaic law was to ensure that every man in Isreal knew that they could only have sexual relations (whether it was forced or consensual) with a woman they were married to.

If that was indeed the point, why was it not stated that way? Why not, "Don't have sexual relations outside of marriage." Was God tongue tied?

If she was a single woman/girl, the man had to marry her by law.

Barbaric.

 

[sojourner]

i think the point of that mosaic law was to ensure that every man in Isreal knew that they could only have sexual relations (whether it was forced or consensual) with a woman they were married to.

The point of the Mosaic law is to ensure that women (who had little means to care for themselves) were taken care of. It also insures that males, who embody honor, act honorably and, through marriage, extend that honor to women, who embody shame.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i think the point of that mosaic law was to ensure that every man in Isreal knew that they could only have sexual relations (whether it was forced or consensual) with a woman they were married to.

... to the detriment of rape victims.

Sex outside of marriage was not permitted which shows that God does not tolerate men taking advantage of women and then leaving them. If they had sex with a women, they were expected to show honour to her by marrying her.

Selling a woman to her rapist shows her no honour. This rule treats women as property and is based on no higher principle than "you break it, you buy it."

 

[Pegg]

If that was indeed the point, why was it not stated that way? Why not, "Don't have sexual relations outside of marriage." Was God tongue tied?

it does say that... all sexual intercourse outside of marriage was called 'fornication'
and a married person who had sex with someone other then his/her marriage mate was called an adulterer.

both were against the law.

Hence it shows that sex outside of marriage was forbidden by God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hence it shows that sex outside of marriage was forbidden by God.

Not always. Numbers 31:17-18:

17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

 

[Pegg]

Not always. Numbers 31:17-18:

switching subjects and contexts does nothing to help understand the subject being discussed.

 

[averageJOE]

i think the point of that mosaic law was to ensure that every man in Isreal knew that they could only have sexual relations (whether it was forced or consensual) with a woman they were married to.

Sex outside of marriage was not permitted which shows that God does not tolerate men taking advantage of women and then leaving them. If they had sex with a women, they were expected to show honour to her by marrying her.

In cases where a married/engaged women was obviously raped, the man was to be executed. If she was a single woman/girl, the man had to marry her by law.

I've heard this argument over and over. But it still does not justify the reasoning of a victim being forced, yes forced!, to marry her attacker. As if "marriage" if a deterrent to rape.

 

[Ingledsva]

Not always. Numbers 31:17-18:

Yep, plus what is actually being said there?


As they obviously didn't have to marry most women they raped -


They could as pointed out, bring home and rape prisoners, - they could buy sex slaves, which is rape, - they could have concubines, which is another type of sex slave, etc.


These are, as pointed out - first - damaged goods laws, with compensation to the male family members, and second, - forced food and lodging for a women whom through no fault of her own is now an unmarriageable pariah, and of course this law thus does free her father from supporting unsalable damaged goods. Thus only applying to Hebrew women raped by Hebrew men.


*

 

[Sunstone]

Since when is rape a form of proselytizing? I mean, this thread is about proselytizing, right?