Question For Christians

[Chava]

That verse in Deuteronomy is almost completely void within Judaism also. Judaism is a time adapting religion.We're not stringent. True you will not see an Orthodox Jew eat pork though it is permissable if it would in some way save a life. But the point is that life is the most important entity within Judaism.
Even within the time period in which that was written the woman who were violated were given a choice as to whether or not they would marry them or not (though if she chose not to she might not have been allowed to marry at all). Women in that time weren't given alot of rights and the rules were written in light of that, yet now-a-days, women are allowed to become Rabbis. Judaism respects life and the laws of Judaism are written to respect life.
All this to ask: How can you expect Christians to follow something that the People who wrote it don't even follow?

[Chava]

Quote by: zynner I ran across this gem from Deuteronomy (22:28-29): "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed [married/engaged], and seizes her and lies with her [rapes her], and they are found [oops!], then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver [whew! not too bad], and she shall be his wife [uh-oh...], because he has violated her [raped her]; he may not put her away [no divorce, bro] all his days [like...ever]. Here's my question to Christians: Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced? If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position? ~ zynner

Quote by: bob60292 ______________________________________________________________ This is an Old Testament concept, not a New Testament concept. Ask our Jewish friends instead of us; but I would wonder if it is not an error to read the Bible without taking the cultural implications of the day and age in which it was written into consideration. Perhaps there are symbolic or idiomatic implications between the lines.

I was happy to assist.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: zynner I ran across this gem from Deuteronomy (22:28-29): "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed [married/engaged], and seizes her and lies with her [rapes her], and they are found [oops!], then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver [whew! not too bad], and she shall be his wife [uh-oh...], because he has violated her [raped her]; he may not put her away [no divorce, bro] all his days [like...ever]. Here's my question to Christians: Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced? If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position? ~ zynner

I don't, and I will still use the Old Testament of the Bible to support my stand. This is only one of several laws applied to rape in the OT. Others include that the man be stoned. If sex can be proven, but rape is found negative (in other words, the woman was in a densely populated area), both could possibly be stoned because no evidence for rape could be established and that would make it adultery. Thus, it would all lie in the rapee and her family to make the decision as to which would happen.

Looking at this from a psychological point of view, it does make sense. Most rapists have a tendency to only hit a person once and then move on to the next. They rarely go back to the victims afterwards. This being a law would act as a deterrent because the prospect of living a life filled with guilt from the person you yourself raped would be, well, :eek: !

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Chava That verse in Deuteronomy is almost completely void within Judaism also. Judaism is a time adapting religion.We're not stringent. True you will not see an Orthodox Jew eat pork though it is permissable if it would in some way save a life. But the point is that life is the most important entity within Judaism. Even within the time period in which that was written the woman who were violated were given a choice as to whether or not they would marry them or not (though if she chose not to she might not have been allowed to marry at all). Women in that time weren't given alot of rights and the rules were written in light of that, yet now-a-days, women are allowed to become Rabbis. Judaism respects life and the laws of Judaism are written to respect life. All this to ask: How can you expect Christians to follow something that the People who wrote it don't even follow?

Wow, I guess I did agree with someone here without looking first.

I personally would not appreciate it being a law, but, hey, if the woman wants to marry the one who raped her, she can have at. Seems kind of counterintuitive to what she wants though.

A little off-topic, yet related, exactly how much was a shekel? I always heard it was a day's wages.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Zynner, that law was more a protection for the girl than anything else. Once an unmarried girl was no longer a virgin, no respectable man would want to marry her (and the unrespectable ones wouldn't want to marry anyway). She would almost certainly be cast out of her family and be destitute. Since women couldn't provide for their own livelihoods, they would be reduced to begging or starving. The law was practical for its time and place and socially just because it forced the offender to provide for the woman he had wronged and provided the woman protection.

I do agree with everything except it providing her protection. Protection from death, yes. However, the woman would be forced to a life of being raped constantly to fulfill the urges of this monster who is her husband. That is why, given the other laws pertaining to rape, I would say it was an option.

[ItsDarts]

zauhiyq,

Good post with some very good questions, and please remember I'm an atheist and I lack belief in your god as well, and with that said, I was only repeating what other Christian apologists have told me in regards to the OP. I will however bring this post to an apologist and see what he has to say. It should be interesting to say the least. I will get back to you on this.

I also have to ask, Are you Zynner and Leveller as well?

[Clarence]

Question for christians...Instead of having Jesus take the wheel, why not just use some sort of Jesus Positioning System. You know, JPS directions instead of auto pilot. Chances are if you've handed over the wheel recently, it wasn't to Jesus.

[zynner]

To Christians --

This passage in the Bible says something about what your god thinks about what should be the concequences of rape. You might agree or disagree. But it is in the Bible (not from some other source).

Now ...

If you do not agree that a rapist and his victim should (a) be required to be married and (b) that they can never be allowed to divorce -- if you do not agree with that position -- then there is only one question I ask you to answer:

On what moral basis do you claim your position?

If your morality is based on your god and your Bible, but your god and your Bible take a position with which you disagree ... then ...

you must be appealing to some higher moral authority other than your god or your Bible so that you can answer the question posed.

What is that higher authority?

(And ... need I say? ... if you claim that it is, in fact, your god that you appeal to, then we can all see that you are being dishonest in your answer. So, what is your moral authority that allows you to trump your god's word?)

Thanks.

~ zynner

ps: Yes, ItsDarts, I am an atheist, not a Christian -- I do not believe in superstition (and I think it is unhealthy to do so).

[ItsDarts]

But are you also Leveller and zauhiyq? They both seem to be arguing in the same manor as you, so I have to ask... if you are the other people as well, why all the names?

[zynner]

ItsDarts --

No, I don't post under any other name(s).

~ zynner

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: ItsDarts zauhiyq, Good post with some very good questions, and please remember I'm an atheist and I lack belief in your god as well, and with that said, I was only repeating what other Christian apologists have told me in regards to the OP. I will however bring this post to an apologist and see what he has to say. It should be interesting to say the least. I will get back to you on this. I also have to ask, Are you Zynner and Leveller as well?

The God in the bible is no tmy God.

Am I Zynner and Leveller as well? No I'm Zauhiyq I'm not an apologist if that's what you're asking. Nor do I accept the contradictory god concept and biblical mistranslations. The bible story is only reference to me. If you say this or that according to the bible to me, you're in trouble, I will reply with this or that according to the bible, research on prebiblical text, etemology, language, history, innovations, contradictions, and facts.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zauhiyq The God in the bible is no tmy God. Am I Zynner and Leveller as well? No I'm Zauhiyq I'm not an apologist if that's what you're asking. Nor do I accept the contradictory god concept and biblical mistranslations. The bible story is only reference to me. If you say this or that according to the bible to me, you're in trouble, I will reply with this or that according to the bible, research on prebiblical text, etemology, language, history, innovations, contradictions, and facts.

Thats fine with me, I'm here to learn and remember I'm on your side. Again I was merely stating in my OP what has been told to me and it made sense even if I don't believe in god(s) or the bible as anything more than some historical facts mixed with a lot of myths. Have you tried the debate forums over at ODN, (Onlinedebate.net)? I'd love to see you present your last long post on that forum and debate it there.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: zynner I ran across this gem from Deuteronomy (22:28-29): "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed [married/engaged], and seizes her and lies with her [rapes her], and they are found [oops!], then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver [whew! not too bad], and she shall be his wife [uh-oh...], because he has violated her [raped her]; he may not put her away [no divorce, bro] all his days [like...ever]. Here's my question to Christians: Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced? If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position? ~ zynner

Here are a few points to consider, to help understand the event fully.

1) While I don't have the time to delve into the importance of virginity and marriage in the ancient world, both were nothing like we view them today. Both were essential and "sacred" to the ancient civilizations, especially Hebraic cultures. To violate either was a very serious offense.

a) The rapist has effectlivly done 2 things here that not only affect the woman of course, but affect society. He has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.

I'll have to rely on someone else explaining the significance of this, I just don't have the time atm (at work), and I understand if this point comes across lacking any conviction. I'm responding here as a request by a member.

2) The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of: a ‘well off’ husband. The girl is disgraced in the sense that her essential role as a matriarch has been compromised. It will be extremely difficult if not possible for her to be married. This man will now be responsible for her and be held accountable accordingly.

3) The reason they must be "found" for the punishment to stick, was because there needed to be witnesses of the event as evidence. Back then, it was merely word vs word. The forensic technology we have available today, was unavailable to the ancient world. The verse in no way says that it is acceptable to do as long as one isn't caught.

4) The fifty shekels bride-price (or mohar) is five years worth of average wages. This is a standard payment of "dowry" for virgins, and is what would have otherwise been received in an arranged marriage. The father is the holder of the monies, but he is not the owner. He holds it as a deposit, for his daughter, out of the hands of the husband.

5) "Violated her" =/= rape her. It's much more than that. It's a violation of her to have sex with her not being married (forced or otherwise). As such, he must take care of her for the rest of his life. The girl’s future is now assured—she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her) and a hefty bride-price deposit. The law has protected someone who was attempting to help the community (the victim), by preserving her virginity.

This law is intended as a protection for the woman victim as a community member and for the protection of the community (as needing stable succession processes for survival).

-----------

Now, as far as it being applicable to modern day Christians...given the context/reasoning above, how would it be applicable? Is it your position that every law given to ancient Israel is or should be applicable? Do you believe that there are no qualifying directives that state who the law(s) is/are for specifically?

Futhermore, is it not possible to be a Christian who does not support theocracy? That is, can't a Christian support certain morals without forcing those morals down the throats of others?

[Apokalupsis]

The following is a very old post I made elsewhere. I have edited it to be applicable for this discussion.

As far as OT laws being applicable to modern day Christians, one of the more well known books of law, is the book of Leviticus. It is primarily civil law. Civil law is like the speed limit being 55 on I-95. It is not a moral law, but a law for the country. Civil laws are applicable only to a specific group of people at a specific time. They were not meant to be practiced by non-Jews back then, nor are they intended for modern day Christians to be bound by them. If it is argued that they were not specifically directed at a group, then it cannot be said that only Jews and Christians are bound by them. Either there is specific designation or there is not. If modern day Christians are bound by them because there is no designation otherwise, then all people everywhere, at all times are bound by them. A faulty argument, but one that is consistent with the critic's here when followed through. If it is argued that only Jews and Christians are bound by such laws...where is the evidence of this?

Back to OT Law...

One example of civil law that we do not abide by is found in Deuteronomy.

DT 23:12 “Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. [13] As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.”

Moral laws usually apply to all people (Thou shalt not murder) in all places. Civil laws, never will. They are specific, they are exclusive.

These are only a few categories of law. There is also sacrificial, ceremonial, military, etc...

What you are speaking of above, is a civil law. Laws change with the times. This is true in any legal system in any country of laws. The Laws of Israel are no different.

Also, Jesus created a new covenant with Christians, that supersedes that of the Laws of Moses.

An illustration: The area we now call the United States was once ruled by Britain, then it was under the Articles of Confederation, and now we are under the Constitution. Likewise God provided for man first, the patriarchal rule, then the laws at Sinai, and now the gospel or New Testament. We are no more subject to the Old Testament laws than we are to the Articles of Confederation.

See:
Hebrews chapters 7-10
2 Corinthians 3:6-11
Galatians chapters 3-5
Romans 7:1-7
Ephesians 2:11-18

Another example would be "food laws". Colossians 2:13-17. Paul speaks of the Old Laws concerning food, drink, festivals, and the sabbath. He, like Christ, often talked about the erroneous view that the law was the most important thing...when in fact, it was always the "spirit of the law".

Click here for source to all of above

[underbear1]

The spirit of the law remains, women are property, and 4 days a month they are so unclean they can't handle food.

[zynner]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Now, as far as it being applicable to modern day Christians...given the context/reasoning above, how would it be applicable? Is it your position that every law given to ancient Israel is or should be applicable? Do you believe that there are no qualifying directives that state who the law(s) is/are for specifically?

Christian morality is based on God and the Bible. Right?

The Bible that says that rapists or their victims should be handled in a certain way.

So, if you are a Christian and you choose to disagree with God's word, then on what moral basis are you doing that?

What morality is a higher authority than your god?

If you say there isn't any, then you are not being honest because you have already stated that you do not agree with this particular part of your god's morality.

So, what is your higher moral authority?

~ zynner

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zynner Christian morality is based on God and the Bible. Right?

Right.

The Bible that says that rapists or their victims should be handled in a certain way.

Correct, for the jews of that time. Not to mention this isn't a "moral" law, it is civil law and Apok explained above that Christians aren't bound by OT civil laws, Morality is not the issue here.

So, if you are a Christian and you choose to disagree with God's word, then on what moral basis are you doing that?

You're confusing the issue, mixing morals with civil laws and this is where your argument will break down. Unless the NT has specifics about rape and what to do, christians are free to decide what to do about rape, and in our modern times, the perp goes to jail in most cases, the father gets nothing and the woman may get counseling. Your argument may hold up better if you can find NT scripture to support civil/morality concerning rape. If you can find scripture in the OT that says that rape is a sin, then you may ask a christian if they agree or disagree, but I think this would be pretty obvious.

[zynner]

ItsDarts,

Civil laws are based on morality. The reason people have different views of what laws should be or not be is because of their different views of morality.

You say that Christians are free to decide what to do about rape. Why decide anything at all? Are you saying there SHOULD be a law that deals with rape?

Yes, you are. And the fact that you are saying there SHOULD be such and such is a statement of morality. "Should" implies a moral view.

So, you are taking a moral stance on what laws should exist to deal with rape. How would you feel if there were no laws at all regarding rape? What would you think about that? What would be the consequences to your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, or daughter? So, you are taking a stand that there SHOULD be certain laws. That is a moral judgement call.

So, I ask: If your god and Bible say, "Here's what to do with rapists and their victims," and if there is not some other passage that trumps this, then on what basis can you claim to disagree with the morality of your god's recommendation when that god is the source of your morality (assuming you are a Christian)?

What moral principle trumps your god's moral recommendation?

~ zynner

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zynner ItsDarts, Civil laws are based on morality.

So speeding on the freeway is a moral law? The fines imposed for speeding are a moral judgement? I'm sorry but I disagree. Like I said, the act of raping is a sin, or immoral, the judgement, i.e. what we should do with the rapist is civil law.

The reason people have different views of what laws should be or not be is because of their different views of morality.

I disagree, civil laws are in place to maintain civility, not morality.

You say that Christians are free to decide what to do about rape. Why decide anything at all? Are you saying there SHOULD be a law that deals with rape?

I said no such thing. what I did say was this.....

You're confusing the issue, mixing morals with civil laws and this is where your argument will break down. Unless the NT has specifics about rape and what to do, christians are free to decide what to do about rape, and in our modern times, the perp goes to jail in most cases, the father gets nothing and the woman may get counseling.

This means I'm not sure what the NT says about rape. I can only assume that the act is a sin. I don't know what the NT says about how to handle the rapist.

Yes, you are. And the fact that you are saying there SHOULD be such and such is a statement of morality. "Should" implies a moral view.

No I'm not, see above.

So, you are taking a moral stance on what laws should exist to deal with rape. How would you feel if there were no laws at all regarding rape? What would you think about that? What would be the consequences to your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, or daughter? So, you are taking a stand that there SHOULD be certain laws. That is a moral judgement call.

Do I have my own personal views on the act of rape? Yes, I think its immoral. What they do with rapists is not a morallity issue, it is a civil issue. Its up to society to decide. I live in a place that society decided to incarcerate rapists. Is this good enough for me? Not really, I'd like to see his balls cut off as well.

So, I ask: If your god and Bible say, "Here's what to do with rapists and their victims," and if there is not some other passage that trumps this, then on what basis can you claim to disagree with the morality of your god's recommendation when that god is the source of your morality (assuming you are a Christian)? What moral principle trumps your god's moral recommendation? ~ zynner

Apok gave you examples, did you even read his post? Here is one....

"DT 23:12 “Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. [13] As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.”

Are you implying that christians are bound by this law as well??? You said that that civil laws, (which DT23:12 is) are based on morality, then christians should be covering their poo in a hole outside of the city. This exact same logic can be applied to the law in your original post. Rape is immoral, how to handle it is civil.

What would be interesting is to see how a Jew would respond to your original question. Should They continue to follow this civil law to the letter? Do they?

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: zynner Christian morality is based on God and the Bible. Right? The Bible that says that rapists or their victims should be handled in a certain way. So, if you are a Christian and you choose to disagree with God's word, then on what moral basis are you doing that?

As shown in the post by putting the event into historical context, there is no disagreement. It's a faulty question, it doesn't apply to the event.

Also, you must also believe that Jews are "guilty" of disobeying God because no Jew follows that law, nor most of the other OT laws that scholars universally agree no longer apply for what should be, obvious reasons (reasons shown in the post above). Do you hold Jews in contempt of God's Law too?

And you ignored the fact that since you do not believe there is any particular designation for the Law, that this would mean that all people would be held to this standard, meaning that you as a non-believer would also be breaking this Law. Your moral code would not need to come from God in order for you to be breaking this law. Do you believe you are a law breaker in this instance?

If not, why not?