In case you were confused about what you’re supposed to do after being raped, according to the Bible (click here for larger):
The Bible certainly is the beacon of morality!
(Via reddit)
Blag Hag
Atheism, feminism, geekery
In case you were confused about what you’re supposed to do after being raped, according to the Bible (click here for larger):The Bible certainly is the beacon of morality!
(Via reddit)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There’s one missing… “Married?” needs a third item: “To your husband?” — in which case it goes back up to “Cool. Enjoy life.”Pffft. Ugh. *sigh*
Sadly, I was expecting to see that too.
In some parts of the world, unfortunately, that constitutes a marriage proposal when the traditional approach is declined.
Argh, that was meant to be “To your rapist?” — but I think y’all got what I meant…
I’ve just been watching the Hitchens/Blair debate on whether “Religion is a force for good in the world”.This seems as good a refutation as any other…
Quite honestly, we need to make more of these and just present them during debates.
i think modern religion is bad on equality, but let’s be clear: some of those verses explicitly mention rape while others refer only to having sex. you can think that being stoned for fornication is absurd (i sure do) but let’s not confuse it with being stoned for being raped.i also think that the whole “marrying your rapist” thing is often taken out of context. remember that the surrounding cultures, (and israelites, pre-law) called for victims of rape to br basically left for dead, with no way of financially supporting themselves. in the absence of a) prisons and b) a willingness among men to marry women who had been raped, requiring the rapist to marry his victim was a step toward justice, toward offering financial protection to victims. (“He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”)there’s no doubt that’s abhorrent to us. it would have been *infinitely* more just if mosaic law jettisoned that ridiculous standard of sexual purity, particularly with respect to *victims*. but we don’t have to pretend it’s more absurd than it already is. ’cause, seriously, that’s more than enough.
please read my comment below. when understood in context, on balance this law was a force for good.
Sure. You make a good point – one which I’d not considered before. But the problem of religion is that in its necessarily unchanging attitude, this “abhorrent” system of legislature (I won’t use the word “justice” for obvious reasons) is deemed preferable to any more modern, civilised system. Not to mention the fact that these religions’ degradation of women is undoubtedly a cause for such abuse in the first place – as Geopsychic pointed out.
It seems the Hebrew Bible made the strong line for women between sex within marriage and sex outside of marriage and not between forced and unforced sex. 1. The man’s marital status did not matter2. The woman’s marital status did matter (not betrothed virgin, betrothed virgin, married, widow, prostitute)3. Forced sex only mattered in whether a woman was an offender and liable to punishment or notThe Bible doesn’t cover all cases but it does seem to cover some gray areas so by extrapolation one could guess.So sex (forced or unforced) with a non-betrothed virgin required the man to marry and maintain the womanThere may have been questions about whether betrothed virgins should be considered the same as married or as unbetrothed. The Bible comes down on the side of married which means it is adultery punishable by death. However it seems the woman though not the man escaped the death penalty if the sex was forced. Hence another gray area, if the act took place in the country it was assumed to be forced and in the city assumed not to be (I suspect if she could produce witnesses that heard her scream she might still get off). Not ideal since she might not have had the opportunity to scream. One assumes that if the woman was married, a similar rule was in place. The Bible doesn’t cover the rape of widows or prostitutes (my guess is that widows who had voluntary sex were considered prostitutes). Also rape within marriage was not a crime.Note that a lot of this has carried over to very modern times even in western countries. Legally a man forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse was not a crime in Britian or the US among other places until within my lifetime. In some countries (e.g., Chile until 1999) raping a prostitute or a ‘loose woman’ was not a crime. Some South American countries until very recently allowed men to get out of rape charges if they offered to marry their victim (though unlike the situation in the Bible, the man did have to be unmarried to have that out).
uummm… why is a level of purity required for marriage anyway? if it wasn’t for that little tid-bit, then they wouldn’t have to force a marriage (eerrr, justly? ethically?) between the rapist and the victim …let me guess … child birth? their are other ways to hold people accountable for leading to impregnation then marriage, for example, say they (/he, whichever you prefer) have to provide for the victim and the child for the rest of their life with no “Additional benefits” (which include the right to violate your ‘wife’ whenever you please)
Which verses explicitly mention rape?
I will be the one to make the marijuana joke. :-|
Deuteronomy. And I’m sorry M, but I can’t stand when people argue that things were simply a sign of the times. Founding Fathers owned slaves? Well, that’s just the way things were back then. It’s still evil, it’s still wrong, and I’m damn well going to judge it. I refuse to legitimize any practice that is based solely on maintaining material wealth as it applies to inheritance, which is the basis of all sexual purity requirements of women. When men can’t be sure whose baby they are raising, they brutalize women to make sure they aren’t cuckolded.The verses describing so-called “city rape” make it explicitly clear that that the woman is to be stoned to death, because in the city she could have called for help. If she’s raped in the country, her rapist pays her father a fine and then marries her. Women are not people in these scenarios, they are property. The only “justice” you’re speaking of is between the two men — the father whose chattel is now sullied and will never get him a dowry, and the rapist who now has purchased himself a wife at a reduced price. It’s abhorrent and there is no justification for it in civilized society. None.*Edit: I apologize, the majority of my reply is in reference to M’s post above.
Deuteronomy *explicitly* mentions rape? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there’s even a biblical word that specifies rape.
Where does it say anything about the man having to be unmarried? Polygyny is not forbidden by the bible, only polyandry. Solomon had a thousand wives, and this did not break any old testament commandment.It is the woman who must still be unmarried, not the man.
“… is deemed preferable to any more modern, civilised system.”Except of course when God’s unchanging eternal Law only applies eternally to the past, and there’s [i]another[/i] unchanging eternal Law for the present.
like everything in the bible this law was designed to support Men in the knowledge of the parentage of who would inherit the Fathers Property. Actually the bible is a book written to justify the ownership of women and slaves. It has the purpose of justifying the principles of Profit before People or Planet and the concept of personality being far more important than Principles. As in thou shalt not kill and “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”, a witch being most often a land owning single women.
Deuteronomy 22 (NIV)
KJV doesn’t like to use the word rape, so it goes with euphemisms like “lay hold on her.”Deuteronomy 22 at Skeptics Annotated BibleOh, and this isn’t Deut, but P.O.W. virgins are cool to rape. Since the dads are dead you don’t even have to pay the fee and marry them. Score!
Additionally, like everything in the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, this instruction is pertinent only to the Jews of antiquity. It is too easy to judge the contents of historical documents, without context, with the standards of today.
Off-topic, but this image is a good show-case for why JPEG is the wrong format for such diagrams (look at all the icky artifacts, especially around hard edges like text).
Besides being an absolutely horrendous graphic which is even more offensive than anything Jenny doodles has tried to float here…the graphic is incomplete and slanted to suggest something other than what is…women were worthless, back then, etc.Not so.Actually they were held in very high regard.Today, in a time where every woman is a slut, feministas can’t really appreciate the lofty status of women in OT times. The concept of saving oneself and giving oneself only to a cherished beloved is lost on the purely sensate types. Today’s throwaway youth are quite ready for sex, they just aren’t ready for the demands of consuming love. Besides, nothing has ever been special to a slut.Thanks for the laughs though…this blog is always a good place to find those, in the post and in the comments. Only PZ can guarantee more laffs. Erp was a little more fair in his analysis of Deut. 22.
To all those talking about whether these ancient rules have any relevance I say this: as long as Leviticus is being quoted as the reason that homosexuality is immoral and Genesis to say the masturbation and/or birth control are immoral, then we have every right and reason to point out the utter immorality of other biblical laws. This is the book that many today still claim can tell us what is moral, even in its oldest books. That the book is chock full of things that are so completely odious is entirely relevant. No book that condones and even encourages slavery, rape, incest, murder, and genocide should be used to tell us that loving someone with the same sex organs is wrong.
Not really defending anything because I believe it, however according to the part of the Bible that Christians are supposed to listen to, none of that applies since Deut, is part of the old testament, something that Jesus and Paul (the main foundational teachers of which Christianity is supposed to be based on, not always is but is SUPPOSED to be) dismissed upon the creation of Christianity. So when you say “The Bible” you’re also forgetting to point out that this isn’t technically Christian belief, but Jewish. (Since much like the pork eating and other 300 some odd laws of the OT Christians don’t follow, this kind of falls into that category of “not their rules”)Just a nitpick for me since both Christians and Non Christians have the weirdest habit of pointing out old testament laws when they’re arguing for or against something, skipping over the fact that the new testament, blatantly at some points says “Hey, don’t follow that old crap no more” and then no one gets up on Jewish people about this even though it actually is their rules, which they still follow in some places.Sorry, it’s just something that as a scholar in Theology always bothered me when people decided to target just Christians for the odd beliefs found in parts of the Bible.((Anyway, return to what you were doing, nothing really to see here, derp derp derp))
Actually, no one says “Don’t follow that old crap no more”. While the Bible does have Jesus saying he brings a new covenant, it is specifically in the context of an eye for an eye, and he’s actually basically making a more stringent requirement. In the Old Testament you could take the eye of someone who took your eye, in the New Testament you can’t do squat. Otherwise he expressly says that he comes not to destroy the law but to uphold it and that no part of the law shall pass away (sorry, I can’t quote precisely or give chapter and verse, but that’s fundamentally it). This is the quote many Christians will use to explain why Leviticus still applies (to gay people, but not to eating shellfish, for some reason). You’re right that they’re stunningly inconsistent in their application of this, but they’ve got a pretty good case, theologically speaking, that the Bible supports the Old Testament laws continuing to apply. The reason Christians don’t follow all of those rules anymore is because latter Christians stopped following them, probably in part to be different from Jews, not because Jesus said not to. Anyone quoting Leviticus really ought to be living pretty much as a Hasidic Jew.
Oh, I see, you’re purposely being obtuse because you think you’re making a point. Loreleion has got this covered below, but I’ll also add that the modern Bible as we know it has been translated several times and heavily edited so trying to argue semantics over whether the actual word rape is used rather than the spirit of the word is pointless, and you know it.
Also, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah also specifically mentions rape. The “evil” men of Sodom want Lot to give them the angels who are visiting so they can rape them, and the virtuous Lot offers them his daughters instead, telling them that they can do “whatever they want” to them. The story of Lot and his daughters just gets better after that.
You’re right. He says something about upholding all of the previous laws of God. I can’t find the exact scripture on it but you’re exactly right; this is what fundamentalists will quote to anyone who claims that Jesus refuted the laws of the OT.
“Additionally, like everything in the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, this instruction is pertinent only to the Jews of antiquity. It is too easy to judge the contents of historical documents, without context, with the standards of today.”Sure I can buy that, now if we can just convince 33% of the planet that its not a fucking instruction manual for how to treat women, but is rather an outdated and unnecessary fairy tail.
They hate it when you point out that the sermon on the mount loophole doesn’t actually exist.
With regards to “not their rules” two important points.1. They are their rules according to Jesus who spoke out against anybody ignoring or preaching to ignore even one slip of the pen of the old law. It’s Paul that brought up all that “New Covenant” stuff. So, for any law, any Christian can claim that this one is still important.2. By any Christian’s faith, it’s the same all good, all perfect, all powerful, and unchanging God. Acknowledging laws like this is an important address to the belief that Christianity is all about being a good person by following the will of a God that would will such things as human chattel being sold over to their rapists as damaged goods.
Your a scholar in theology? You should really hit the books then because you missed some pretty important parts.
I really shouldn’t feed the troll, but I’m going to anyway. Yes, women were held in high regard… as property. As you read the laws and how they differ between men and women, you can see a clear demarcation, and it is never in favor of the women.I do find it interesting that you have to fall back on terms like “slut” and “feministas” as a way to demean women you don’t agree with, making them in this context less than where you consider yourself. Not too far from dehumanizing…. Take that logic as far as you wish.
NIV is probably one of the most whitewashed versions.The SAB used the KJV for a reason; look at their FAQ. Technically, they probably could have done better by using a Jewish translation for the Old Testament, but in this case it would have made little or no difference. The closest it comes to actual mention of rape is “force her, and lie with her [under certain specific conditions]”. While the implication of action is clear, there is no implication that this in and of itself was considered an unacceptable act, i.e. rape. ~m’s defense of the marry-your-rapist law said that the bible explicitly mentions rape, which it does not, because it doesn’t have a word for rape, in much the same way there was no specific word for forcibly taking milk from a goat, forcibly taking eggs from a chicken, or forcing a mule to transport goods.(No Blitzgal, I was not being obtuse, and I was making a valid point. The bible and the founding fathers are worlds apart; at least some of the founding fathers admitted that what they were doing was wrong, and from such pangs of conscience eventually grew the abolitionist movement, which finally led to the end of the legal slave trade in this country. The bible has no evidence of any such recognition by any of the leadership of that time; its language betrays evidence contrary to such recognition, and because of that, many of the strongest bible believers to this day defend every abuse within it, not only with ~m’s lame “it seemed like a good idea at the time” defense, but with the claim that it is just as relevant today as it was back then. Admittedly, I would have to agree with them on that one point…)
There was, as I’ve said, no word for rape. The Sodomites (and…Gomorrans?) wanted Lot to send the men out so that they could “know” them. It is clear only from context that this “knowing” was intended to be forced upon the men.(In fact, though force is usually accepted as implied, even with the context it was not certain beyond a reasonable doubt; perhaps even an attempt to persuade them to perform homosexual acts would be considered evil. After all, most bible believers today would consider it so. Remember also that at 13 a Jewish male is considered a “man”, so these “men” could conceivably have been as young as 14 years old. If this was the case, perhaps Lot was fearful not that they would be raped, but that they would be corrupted. Or in that case, would the bible be “specifically mentioning” statutory rape?)It is clear that Lot offered his two daughters to the crowd with permission to do as they pleased with both of them, but it certainly doesn’t sound to me like Lot or the story’s narrator had any understanding of the concept of rape. Without such understanding of the concept, there is no possible intention to convey it.(See response to loreleion…)
the founding fathers’ notion that all white men were equal is painfully incomplete. but it was a step toward justice, regardless. the problem is when people stop taking steps forward.
In the Bible yes, in more modern “Christian” countries which allowed rapists to avoid punishment by marrying their victim, the rapist had to be single to take advantage of that out. See http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03…
Sorry, my mistake; I misread your post…
It’s like the morality of the bible sometimes makes more sense when you evaluate it in the context of civilzation three thousand years ago. Weird!
It’s like people still use this book as a supposed source of modern morality. Weird!And societal context makes rape okay? Does it make genital mutilation or forcing women to hide themselves and have male escorts to go anywhere okay in modern societies where those things are practiced? How much context is needed to make those things okay?
*puts on vaguely-knowledgeable-about-this hat*Don’t forget that the laws of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc are the laws of God’s covenant with the Israelites (or whatever name you apply to this group). Taking the Christian bible in toto, for the sake of argument, Christians shouldn’t be applying it unless they’re making some sort of reasoned argument that it actually makes sense, or is in line with the “new covenant” of Christ. The gospels have Christ declaring that the original covenant is ended and he’s starting a new one. That knocks out a lot of Old Testament law, except that explicitly (or possibly implicitly) endorsed by Christ.Of course, those arguments are only necessary (or valid) when dealing with Christians. I don’t know how any modern Jewish groups approach the problem, although ISTR that the Talmud adds extra laws to make various bits of the Torah more palatable. And anyone else shouldn’t need an argument made to ignore the Old Testament, and anyone who doesn’t want to take ancient, possibly mis-translated texts of dubious origin as “Law” can just be reasoned with.PS: Okay, so I was wrong. I did say “vaguely”… problem is the degree to which conflicting information comes from apparently reliable sources…
Not to speak for another, but “makes more sense” doesn’t necessarily mean “okay”. An awful lot of the Bible is by no means okay by any modern (okay, liberal) moral standard (although the Gospels are actually better on that than the Old Testament or any of the Epistles) – and that’s the only standard we can honestly apply. However, one can understand from historical context that the standards of the time were different, and the Old Testament represents some improvements from what we understand of the standards of the day. In terms of people using it today, yeah, that’s just crazy.However, one aspect I feel I must share is the observation that marriage doesn’t absolutely entail further sex in the Old Testament view, IIRC. I don’t know if there’s any commandment requiring a wife to “give herself” to her husband in this way, but there must be exceptions allowed, because one is implied. A man may not sleep with the wife of his brother, or even see her naked, and this has certainly been generally interpreted to apply posthumously. However, there are circumstances where a man must marry his brother’s widow (even if he’s already married). It seems clear thus that “marry” sometimes does simply mean “provide for”. What doesn’t help is that, at least in our translations, there is no differentiation.It’s a bit like the “eye for an eye” thing in some ways. Yes, obviously (to most of us), and “eye for an eye” is insane. However, the status quo it was applied to was continuous escalating vengeance, far more destructive. The law of “eye for an eye” prevented escalation, and cut it short, as the taking of the proverbial (or literal) eye wasn’t a crime in itself, so no recompense was needed against it. It’s been argued that the contextual meaning is “take no more in recompense than was taken from you” – that is, a proscription rather than prescription.The bottom line here is that it’s all less crazy when taken in its original context; that doesn’t stop it being utterly crazy when people try to apply it in a modern context.
Absolutely; to avoid such confusion, one just has to be clear about the context of the discussion. Is it being approached as a historical document, with historical context, or is it being approached as a modern document that people use to justify a point? The aspects that are relevant to each case are different, and confounding if you try to combine them.
This is probably because Christians proselytize while Jews don’t. (The Jewish religion forbids it; anyone that comes to Judaism must come on their own, and the conversion process is designed to weed out the less sincere. This doesn’t stop the Lubavitches from attempting to get anyone who answers yes to the question “are you Jewish?” to perform some Jewish ritual…)Often these criticisms are directed at all Abrahamic believers, but much more often than not, they appear in the context of an answer to some Christian claim of the superiority of either Christianity or religion in general to secularism or atheism. This argument also includes those who answer the brainwashing they received in their own past upbringing; since Jews make up a very small minority, formerly observant Jews who are now atheists (as well as formerly observant Muslims who are now atheists) make up a far smaller portion of the atheist population than formerly observant Christians who are now atheists (though it might be the case that as a percentage of their own religious population, Jews move more rapidly to atheism than Christians, having less excuse to cherry pick, and more rapidly than Muslims as well, having no rational fear that they will be killed for doing so).Also, as others here have pointed out, the Christians who “don’t follow that old crap no more” are just cherry picking. In fact, many Christians do follow that old crap as religiously as a Lubavitch.
also, i was there, and thought the debate was pretty bad. thoughts?
So I don’t have a concept of Germany if I say there is a country just south of Denmark famous for sausages, where die Lehrerin die Schüler unterrichtet, without mentioning it by name?
And for follow-up, what if I call it Tyskland?
No, you don’t have a concept of Germany if you have no name for the place and don’t believe it to be a country, but simply the location of a group of people living in a southern area of Denmark, said people sharing no particular characteristic other than that they happen to live in that area, and to whom you would refer to as, perhaps “the people who live south of South Jutland in the continuous area also bordering the North Sea, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and the Baltic Sea,” not mentioning your belief that they are citizens of Denmark because you take that as a given and assume that others will too.
Well, then you’d have a name for it, wouldn’t you? (See previous post below….)But since “Tyskland” is just a translation of the word “Germany” to another language, a less ambiguous form of your question would be: What if you called it “Waffi-Waffi-Goo-Goo Land”? The fact is it doesn’t really matter what you call it, as long as you have a name that translates well to what “Germany” means in common usage, e.g. the way that “rape” in common usage implies a socially unacceptable act in and of itself, regardless of who the victim is, or what the circumstances are. If “Waffi-Waffi-Goo-Goo Land” was just another name for “Germany”, then obviously, you’d have a concept of Germany. But if you believed that “Waffi-Waffi-Goo-Goo Land” was a part of Denmark as described below, and not a separate state, then you still wouldn’t have any concept of Germany. The same is true for calling it “Tyskland”, and even for calling it “Germany”. But if you don’t even have a name for the place, and even your concept of the place is significantly different from what most people mean when they say “Germany”, then you certainly don’t have any concept of Germany, even if you can notice that people are living in that area and can refer to them as the people that live in that area. Rape is not just forcing a woman and then lying with her. Even without the euphemism, it is not simply forced sex. “Play rape” can be forced in the physical sense, but it is not real rape. Statutory rape can conceivably be consensual, so there is a legitimate argument that in some cases it is not rape other than in the legal sense. (18 plus one second is legal; 18 minus one second is not; for the extreme case, put one partner on each side, or put both partners on the lower side and then try them as adults…) Rape is sex that is non-consensual and unacceptable for that reason, again, regardless of who the victim is, or what the circumstances are. I have seen no shred of evidence that the authors of the old testament law had any such concept. If they did, they certainly were not at all explicit in expressing it.
“I have seen no shred of evidence that the authors of the old testament law had any such concept.”Are you implying that rape did not occur in those times? If not, why this ridiculous semantic argument? I’m not an anthropologist, but I’m quite sure based on my knowledge of human nature that non-consensual sex has been occuring since before recorded history. That said, that the authors of the bible decided not to use the word ‘rape’ doesn’t mean that the act didn’t occur. “a rose by any other name”.
“even more offensive than anything Jenny doodles has tried to float here”If it offends jackasses like you it’s worth it.”Today, in a time where every woman is a slut”Please explain this – would it, for example, extend to your wife, mother, and daughter?”The concept of saving oneself and giving oneself only to a cherished beloved is lost on the purely sensate types.”Except for the fact that marriage for love is a relatively new concept. In biblical times marriages were arranged. Love had nothing to do with it.”Besides, nothing has ever been special to a slut.”You really are a special kind of bloviating bag of shit……
(Actually a response to zen)If they had no concept of rape, I would assume that meant that they considered the forcing of sex upon a woman not to be a crime, at least not against the woman. If true, that would be an objectionable aspect to their society, and would certainly have reflections upon how the text should be read. However, it’s not entirely convincing, even if there’s no word for it in ancient Hebrew… there’s a scots word “brae”, meaning (most specifically) slopes of hills leading up from/down to a river or stream. We have word for this, specifically, in English. That doesn’t mean English speakers don’t conceive of such things, they can do so with a phrase instead. That changes the interpretation of the failure of the authors of these books of the Bible to be specific.
Okay, but if Germany is the offense of rape, they do acknowledge that country, even if they don’t name it. A man who forces himself upon a woman is either put to death or forced to pay 50 shekels and marry her, and a woman in the city is punished only if she doesn’t scream for help loud enough to be considered unwilling. They acknowledge non-consensual sex and deal with it in a barbaric manner.
No, actually the bible was quite clear about how women could “withhold nothing” from their husbands. Also the Leviticus marriage law you mentioned, the brother was supposed to keep his brother’s wife as his own. Their first child would inherit the brother’s estate the second would inherit his.
Actually the word “know” could simple have meant “know”. These men were strangers to the city and were being kept in a house, presumably without being introduced to the neighbors. They simply could have thought they were spies of bandits. The sin of Sodom was in-hospitality, a grievous sin in a time when there was little or no infrastructure for travelers to rely on.This is reinforced by Jesus’ reference to the sin of Sodom:Matt 10:11ff NIV “11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”Matt 11:20ff NIV ” 20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[e] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.””In both cases he speaks of Sodom as being destroyed for mistreating or rejecting travelers and teachers. He never mentions homosexuality.As far as concept of rape goes, they certainly did not have a concept of rape being sex with a women against her will. The will of the woman did not figure into it. A woman’s body belonged to her father until he sold it to her husband. It really did not matter if she wanted to have sex at all. Women wanting to have sex was considered deviant. That carries to this day. Women who have active sex lives are sluts, men who have active sex lives are studs.
Actually, the Gospels have Jesus declaring that he’s there to fulfil the law, not do away with it. The “new covenant” idea is a later interpretation, made possible by the conflicting messages about the covenant in the New Testament.
You might want to go back to school. The New Testament has mixed messages about how much the old laws still apply. Jesus said he came to fulfil the law, not do away with it.
of course Dave within context of the witch hunts of Europe, and Salem, Mass and the on going justification of the ruling class having the inalienable right to exploit the Planet, Oil and all animals including people for their own PROFIT. If the Old testament is not pertinent to modern Christianity why is it included in the Christian Bible. I know the bible like my own face and it is a racist sexist justification of the abuse of the world for the benefit of a select few.
obviously another person who without a reasonable argument in his lexicon has to resort to the abuse of another human, Property and slaves are valuable and you show your ignorance by your insults. I have three daughters who would consider you a neanderthal as I do. but as Christ says, I forgive you, you know not of what you speak . MY daughters are neither Sluts or Feministas but you are quite obviously without a sensible argument and a sexist jerk.
the founding fathers were slavers and committed genocide against the original indigenous populations in the name of and under the auspices of the Church. How was it a step toward justice when it is still a matter of Democracy for one group of “People” and NOT for everyone else. Nobody thinks it wrong that God never mentioned that Slavery was a moral crime, or that racism was and is evil?
If you cant convince them with intelligent argument Baffle them with Bull S*#T. If Bibles were read by literate people and not interpreted for fools ignorance would be nonexistent and we would actually have progress but we are still willing to be deluded by empty meaningless twisting of semantics. Looks intellectual but means nothing.
BS.
to further my point as well my Husband and stepson and all my male acquaintances would find you to have a meaningless argument not based on any anthropological evidence. The Bible has been used to justify all sorts of historical and modern injustices including moving Pedophile Priests around the country to hide the church’s shame instead of protecting Children. The Myth of manifest destiny was used to eliminate the Native American. Give me an educated argument not an abuse attack.
Yeah, it wasn’t the best or most enlightening debate, but I thought it was interesting enough.Fry and Hitchens against the Catholic Church was excellent, though…
(Actually in reply to zen & Sam Barnett-Cormack & loreleion & Aaron Harmon & AuntieChristmas)zen:If you are claiming that when you hear the word “rape” you think of an act that in and of itself is about as morally unacceptable as tearing a house down (tearing a house down, in general, not necessarily someone else’s house, and not necessarily tearing it down for malevolent ends), then you share the concept that they had. Common usage of the word “rape” does not give it that meaning at all. Even when we refer to rape legally occurring in other countries, or when we refer to men raping their wives, we do not approve of such things and the people who do approve of or practice it rarely call it “rape” (no, they’re not using euphemisms; they truly don’t believe that their acts constitute rape), so it is reasonable to say that rape has a widely understood meaning beyond conveyance of the physical act itself. It is not just semantics, it is how the word is understood. The hunter believes he is hunting. The animal rights activist sees the same man doing the same thing and calls it the murder of an animal. The hunter has no such concept.”It’s an animal,” he says, “and sure, I killed it, but I did not murder it. You can’t murder an animal. That’s ridiculous.”The two words may convey the exact same activity, but they are totally different concepts. Rape carries with it the same level of negative connotation that murder does, and no word or phrase having rape’s meaning, including its negative connotation, appears in the Old Testament.This whole argument started when I challenged the part of ~m’s defense of Old Testament values that stated that the Old Testament “explicitly” mentions rape. My point was that it did no such thing; that the Old Testament was not even civilized enough to recognize the concept. To “explicitly” mention rape, it would have to have either a word or phrase with the same meaning. As I hope I have shown, it has neither.Certainly the Old Testament implicitly mentions rape; there is no doubt that the acts it refers to constitute rape, but that does not help ~m’s defense at all, which simply collapses when it is realized that ALL of those verses implicitly mentioned rape.~m could answer that some of the verses specifically described acts of rape while others just mentioned sex in general, but that would be a much weaker argument, given that sex in general necessarily includes rape, and without any explicit mention of rape, there’s no reason to believe that it was excluded from the general category.Sam Barnett-Cormack:Yes, it’s possible to understand a concept if you have no word for it, but if you have no word or phrase that conveys the concept, then it is fair to say you don’t understand the concept. The “brae” example was an oversimplification; you even used a phrase that conveys the concept.(For a better example see “kill an animal” vs. “murder an animal” in my response to zen)loreleion:(See “kill an animal” vs. “murder an animal” in my response to zen)Aaron Harmon:Actually, I have to admit you are correct about the sin of Sodom being a lack of hospitality and mistreatment of strangers. I remember learning that in woo-woo school. However, I also learned in the same class that the Sodomites wanted to have sex with Lot’s visitors, and the clear implication was that they would have certainly raped the men (angels, actually, though the townspeople didn’t know it, which, for me at least, severely undermines the credibility of the story…) if they had been turned out of Lot’s house and were unwilling to participate… I didn’t recall any commentary supporting the translation of “know” to be literal in this context, so I looked it up and sure enough, you’re right, that is another accepted possible meaning…(I also noticed during my research that it was apparently only Sodomites around Lot’s home.)AuntieChristmas: Just because something baffles you doesn’t mean it’s BS.
I was right, you’re engaging in a silly semantic argument
(Actually reply to zen)Well, I guess if you say you’re right, it must be true. I am humbled by your eloquent and irrefutable argument.
(See “murder” vs. “kill” in reply to zen and several others above.)
I’m an idiot. It only just now occurred to me what you were talking about, and only because of the way “Stoned” appeared in the center of my monitor as I scrolled. “I would not feel so all alone, everybody must get stoned!”
From an old folk song, as the victim laments:If thou be a married man, hanged thou shalt be, but if thou be a single man, thou shalt marry me.
But the declaration of Jesus ‘fulfilling’ the law is accompanied by the scenes of him pointing out to the Pharisees that their strict obedience to the letter of the law is less “fulfilling the law” than his unorthodox new interpretations – the idea being that the law is fundamentally good but that the strict laws in the Old Testament needed a re-interpretation; I always thought that was where they got the ‘new covenant’ idea, or at least plenty of support for it…
Your arguments are actually empty and meaningless, used to justify the use of the bible in a selective manner and again to deny the misogynistic intent of the male biased christian attitude. The Old Testament is used as the authority, the final voice in whether Palestine has a right to exist as a state. The old testament is where the christian finds the 10 commandments they are supposed to follow, also if you really knew your biblical semantics yes the sodomites intent was sexual. The bible can be interpreted to prove or disprove any opinion or attitude, this can be verified by checking the truth of the church’s response to priests raping children. A closed mind cannot be educated. I am certain your bible was interpreted for you by your priest or pastor (or Sunday school teacher) and you have not read it for your self at all. I began reading at three and a half and one of the first and only books on hand was Mom’s bible. I have actually read the bible and you are very selective in your interpretation of the written word. I would feel very foolish if Iwere you because your mind is so closed that you can not see the truth for the myths and you are arguing the point that the early Israelite did not have a concept of rape. This is Unmitigated B.S. , your misinterpretation of the Sodom story, which was explained to me as meaning the sodomites were evil Because of the rapes and “unnatural” sexual desires, that this was the reason that the angel of death was visited upon Sodom and Gomorrah. this is my reasonable and researchable answer to your meaningless ramble. I do not believe you can prove it wrong with more empty rhetoric. Justifying crap with more crap is still crap. The bible is based on the books of Moses who if I remember correctly was hallucinating a (non burning) Burning Bush that Talked… Now these days we call that schizophrenic behavior and we medicate. That is my take on hysterical historical context .
the word is polygamy, and this is the only statement you have made that is even remotely true. But what does this have to do with whether Rape was considered wrong in ancient times. The difference between consequences for a city rape and a country rape make it quite clear they had a clear concept of rape when it came to the sullying of the property of virginity. Ok, so the woman was considered worthless as a person and had value only as chattel. I think it is like this, Nazi’s were prevalent in every country in the thirties, not only Germany. This is provable by historical sources. The thing is Nazism is an attitude of superiority over other people, everyone who believes themselves to be superior to others are NAZI’S . Using the bible to justify a attitude of superiority is stupidly reprehensible, and it is Aunty Christmas, pay attention!
from a more modern song ” If her daddy s rich take her out for a meal, if her daddy s poor just do what you feel” how easy is it it be derogatory toward women these days and we are supposedly equal and deserving of respectful treatment. what a huge laugh. Western culture promotes turning our daughters into “sluts”, just look at what Hollywood is dressing the fashionistas in these days. But blame the woman, as always it is the victim who is to blame for being attacked. The poor rapist is the victim of the attack because he could not resist the femininity, the way she dressed the fact that she looked across the room, and might have been looking in his direction. Rape is a power trip against a weaker person, no matter how you twist it rape is and always has been wrong. The same as murder is wrong or that theft is wrong. Peace on earth, good will toward men, (of course nothing said about peace for women or children)
(1) The word polygamy refers to having more than one spouse. The word polygyny refers to having more than one wife:http://www.merriam-webster.com…(2) A “clear concept of rape when it comes to sullying the property of virginity” is as valid as a “clear concept of rape when it comes to anyone other than one’s own wife”, or a “clear concept of rape when it is committed by someone else”- i.e. not at all. If you think it is a concept that can be selectively applied in that manner, then you don’t understand the concept of rape, at least, not as it is commonly defined in modern society. If you’re saying that they understood some other concept of rape then you are basically conceding my argument; some other concept, whether we call it a concept of rape or a concept of property damage, is not the concept of rape as I understand it, nor, hopefully, is it the concept of rape as anyone else in this discussion understands it, so for all practical purposes in this discussion, it is not a concept of rape. (3) “everyone who believes themselves to be superior to others are NAZI’S”Either you are admitting here that you are no more ethical than the nazis, or you are stating that you are a nazi (because if you consider yourself ethically superior to them, then that would, by your own definition, make you one yourself).
(actually in reply to auntie christmas)>> Your arguments are actually empty and meaningless, to you…>> used to justify the use of the bible in a selective manner and again to deny the misogynistic intent of the male biased christian attitude. Uh, what? Have you read any of my posts at all? Can you even provide one example of anything I’ve said that even remotely supports that or any other use of the bible as a moral guide?>> The Old Testament is used as the authority, the final voice in whether Palestine has a right to exist as a state. Not by myself, nor likely anyone who would agree with what I’ve posted.>>The old testament is where the christian finds the 10 commandments they are supposed to follow,Yes, two incongruous versions of them…>> also if you really knew your biblical semantics yes the sodomites intent was sexual. So I assumed, and still find to be the most accurate interpretation (accurate in terms of the original author’s intent). Fortunately for the whitewashers, the “semantics” you mention were far from explicit, which, if you recall, was the issue over which this entire argument started.>> The bible can be interpreted to prove or disprove any opinion or attitude, Didn’t you know? That’s what makes it such a wonderful book!>> A closed mind cannot be educated.Yeah, well, as Tim Minchin says, “If you open your mind too much…”>>I am certain your bible was interpreted for you by your priest or pastor (or Sunday school teacher) and you have not read it for your self at all. Actually, when I went to woo-woo school, we read the bible everyday, along with the commentary, which our rabbi explained very well. We were encouraged to ask questions, and the answers he gave were logically consistent in the framework that was provided to us. Only later, as I grew older, did I begin to become aware of the serious flaws in that framework, including, but not limited to, circular reasoning, moral atrocities and absurdities, and the assumption of unquestionable truths. …Oh, and also, the total absence of certain ethical concepts.>> I began reading at three and a half and one of the first and only books on hand was Mom’s bible.Ah, that explains it. You were exposed to the mental toxins at too early an age, and are still recovering from the damage.>> I have actually read the bible and you are very selective in your interpretation of the written word. That’s odd, as I consider it to be a book of fairy tales and a combination of mostly idiotic, outdated, and unjust laws, most or all of the very few good ones among them cancelled out by contradictions.>> I would feel very foolish if Iwere youThat makes sense, I guess. After all, if you were me, then I would be the one responsible for all of your posts. That alone would make me feel very foolish, but the fact that their mindless vitriol and ad hominem attacks would be so obviously based on a misreading of my own posts, well, that would be really embarrassing…>> …your mind is so closed that you can not see the truth for the myths and you are arguing the point that the early Israelite did not have a concept of rape. Two people can describe the same exact action yet have totally different concepts in mind. (again: see “killing an animal” vs. “murdering an animal”; also point (2) of the three point response to you in the sub-thread started by Erp below…) >> This is Unmitigated B.S. ,Yes, I know, because you find it baffling…>> your misinterpretation of the Sodom story, which was explained to me as meaning the sodomites were evil My “misinterpretation”? Again, have you bothered to read any of my posts? The interpretation (not my own) that I accepted as probably closest to the original intended meaning of the authors was very similar to yours. As I pointed out, that was the interpretation that I was taught. A.H. introduced another interpretation about which I was skeptical (not skeptical about it being every bit as true as the one I was familiar with, skeptical about the idea that it was an accepted interpretation [among the holy woo-woo scholars]). I googled it, and it turned out that, yes, there were some believers who actually interpreted it that way. The fact that they do kind of undermines the assertion that rape was “explicitly” mentioned here.>> Because of the rapes and “unnatural” sexual desires, that this was the reason that the angel of death was visited upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Funny, I don’t remember ever reading that “sodomy” had anything to do with rape…perhaps you can provide reference to a definition of sodomy that does? >> this is my reasonable and researchable answer -Unlike certain people in this forum who correct words without first looking them up and post personal definitions that indicate they themselves are ethically equal or inferior to nazis, ( http://www.blaghag.com/2010/12… ) I do my research before I post, and I have found from that research no evidence (nor have you presented any such evidence) that the authors of the bible had any concept of rape as it exists in the present. -Which means that they could not have explicitly mentioned it… That is the concept of rape that every reader of ~m’s post understood. For that post refer to any other concept of rape would have been either a non-sequitur or a bait-and-switch. >> to your meaningless ramble.I’m guessing that your evaluation of it as meaningless ramble is why you never bothered to read any of it…I suppose that might be a rational reaction after exposure to the bible, but it’s kind of silly to actually respond to claims that were never made, and the only way to avoid doing that is to read what you are responding to. One does not need to read the entire bible to evaluate its creationist claims. One need only read the portions that make those claims. But I would never respond to those claims without reading them, and when trying to establish their context, I would look at the commentary as well, so that nobody can come back and say “oh, you’ve misinterpreted the word day; to God, a day is as a thousand years [so the creation time scale is only off by a factor of about a million, not over 3.65 billion… ].” (for a related error, see:
]. The video’s title is a little misleading and its creator would probably have no problem admitting it. Anybody who believes that young earth creationists are off by a factor of a million is off by a factor of about 3.65 thousand; not quite as wrong even as they believe young earth creationists to be, and not nearly as wrong as they actually are…) By reading claims before I respond to them, I make my arguments more robust, and as a result, the only opposition I’m likely to encounter is from people who either haven’t bothered to read that to which I’m responding or haven’t bothered to read my response. And on that rare occasion when I misread them, I own up to it and apologize, as I did with Erp.>> The bible is based on the books of Moses who if I remember correctly was hallucinating a (non burning) Burning Bush that Talked…Actually, it is fairly well known that Moses did not write those books…but that’s not really relevant to this thread. >> Now these days we call that schizophrenic behavior and we medicate. That is my take on hysterical historical context .Yeah, well that doesn’t even compare with the story of Abraham (Avrom)…http://www.blaghag.com/2010/10…
Rape is not just forcing a woman and then lying with her.Then just what is rape?Have you been raped? What is your definition of rape? I am not coming from a position of superiority, I am coming from the position of one who has had personal experience with the victimization of being raped. And yes you could assume that I was tainted by the early reading of the B.S. contained in said book. I am not so closed minded that I could not be taught by reasonable sensible facts. I read your arguments against the semantic reality of rape in historical biblical times and find them to be meaningless. The idea of racial superiority has a nauseating effect on me, I am astounded you could make that conclusion from anything I wrote unless you also did not read what I wrote. I believe in the reality of the actual inequality of people. All humans, being different in size, shape and ability, the Actual Equality is of our value as living entities. And I am sure the development of and U.S. support for Israel as a state was and still is predicated on the evidence of the finding of the dead sea scrolls. I have no personal stake in this mindless argument on what the ancients considered rape to be but I really wonder why you are so impassioned to convince us all that it just did not happen, at least not in the minds of the Men of the time. The wonderful book as you call it is still one of the most dangerous myths being used to justify all types of injustices. Sodomy being any sex act not sanctioned by marriage. ( the definition I learned in school) I really believe it is time to put the “bible” and all religion where it truly belongs, along with slavery, sexism and racism into the dustbin of acceptedly stupid relics of history. I do not understand your need to absolve the biblical Men of their culpability. I think thou dost protest too much.
am certainly willing to concede my inferiority to any Human who can see the value of life over the value of POWER. Rape: a rose by any other name is still a rose, et al. however I am certain you have (as per your arguments above) no flaws and are certainly superior to me. Your attitude and supercilious tone emphasize that in no uncertain terms. I believe your rebuttal to my efforts at reason to say more about you than you know.
>> am certainly willing to concede my inferiority to any Human who can see the value of life over the value of POWER. Such as the nazis? Or are you going to use the out that since their activities were “inhuman” (a misnomer, as humans throughout history have done things equally barbaric, lacking only the scale made possible by the technological advances of the age), you can and do believe yourself morally superior to them without being one yourself? Even if you use that evasion you are still a nazi by your own definition if there are any humans who you feel fall somewhere between your level of morality and that of the nazis. I admit that as long as you can honestly classify anyone below your own level of morality, or anyone below the level of any other measure of your character, as “not human”, your definition of the word nazi does not necessarily include you. (Of course, nazis didn’t consider any of their scapegoats as human either, so use of this particular evasion would negate the validity of your definition in another way…) >> Rape: a rose by any other name is still a rose, et al.Yes, but a rose is not a rape; two people seeing a rose generally share the same concept, while two people seeing an act of rape may not.A word is only useful if all parties using it agree on its meaning to the extent that it is being used. The authors of the Old Testament obviously did not have a concept for the modern meaning of the word rape, so to claim that they dealt with rape explicitly in their laws is using bait-and-switch.Substitute both meanings of the word for the word itself in ~m’s statement, and compare the two results to see the bait and switch: First what you hear: “…some of those verses explicitly mention the victimizing of a woman by forcing sex upon her while others refer only to having sex.”Then the actual meaning, which you don’t hear: “…some of those verses explicitly mention the damaging of a man’s property by using it in a sexual manner while others refer only to having sex.”The first statement is the one the additional reasoning is based on: if they explicitly mentioned the victimization of women, then when they refer to having sex, it is natural to assume they meant mutually consensual sex.In the second statement there is no reason to make that assumption.Jen’s diagram is fully accurate (with the one minor mistake that BEG pointed out- married women would not be stoned for being raped by their husbands…); ~m’s defense attempts to credit the old testament with a distinction that it never made. >> however I am certain you have (as per your arguments above) no flawsWhere did I say that? Or even imply it? >> and are certainly superior to me. Uh, no comment…>> Your attitude and supercilious tone emphasize that in no uncertain terms. It’s true, pot, that I am indeed a very black kettle, I admit that, and while I guess it would make me a nazi by your definition, it doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination even imply, much less emphasize, that I consider myself to be flawless.>> I believe your rebuttal to my efforts at reason to say more about you than you know.Well, if you believe it, it certainly must be so, regardless of how unsuccessful your efforts at reason are. After all, belief is much more useful than reason, as many posters on a lot of blogs other than this one will readily confirm.
(actually in response to aunty christmas)>> Rape is not just forcing a woman and then lying with her.Then just what is rape?Rape, as we currently define it is the violation of human rights through that action (well, actually it doesn’t have to be a woman, but that’s tangential to the argument). Do you really not agree with this statement? Or do you really believe that the Old Testament authors agreed with this definition?>> Have you been raped? That’s a rather personal question and none of your business.>> What is your definition of rape? I just gave it to you for the umpteenth time. Why do you consistently pretend not to understand it?>> I am not coming from a position of superiority, I am coming from the position of one who has had personal experience with the victimization of being raped.Which leads you to the conclusion that the concept of rape does not include a violation of human rights? -Or that the authors of the Old Testament thought in terms of that concept when they wrote the laws that Jen diagrammed above? >> …I am not so closed minded that I could not be taught by reasonable sensible facts. …That is, apparently unless you have preconceived notions about the person who presents those facts to you, in which case they will seem like “BS” or “meaningless ramble”.>> I read your arguments against the semantic reality of rape in historical biblical times and find them to be meaningless. My arguments against “the semantic reality of rape”? What on earth is that? Is that somehow related to what you are doing to the English language? My arguments were against ~m’s bait-and-switch attempt to imply that the Old Testament concerned itself with women’s rights.>>The idea of racial superiority has a nauseating effect on me, I am astounded you could make that conclusion from anything I wrote unless you also did not read what I wrote. Your definition of a nazi did not mention race. Read it again. In order to not be a nazi by the definition you gave, you would have to consider yourself either equal or inferior to every other on the planet. (Okay, you did use the word “others”, so technically, you could consider yourself superior to one other and still not be a nazi, but that’s a trivial case…)(In a previous post, I accidentally replaced “others” with “other humans” in my memory of your definition, which left you a loophole. Having just read your definition again, I realize that loophole does not exist. Nazis, according to you, are “everyone who believes themselves to be superior to others”, so if you consider yourself to be superior to, for example, a couple of mosquitoes, in any way whatsoever, you are, by your own definition, a nazi.)(Of course, if you do not consider yourself to be superior to any others, then that means you do not consider yourself to superior to nazis in any way.)>>…And I am sure the development of and U.S. support for Israel as a state was and still is predicated on the evidence of the finding of the dead sea scrolls. Uh, yeah, I’m sure it had and has nothing to do with world politics. ‘Cos the U.S. is totally immune to that…>> I have no personal stake in this mindless argument on what the ancients considered rape to be but I really wonder why you are so impassioned to convince us all that it just did not happen, at least not in the minds of the Men of the time. (Or more accurately, that the minds of the men of the time totally ignored the nature of the act when it did happen.)Because I don’t want to give them credit for something they don’t deserve credit for. Why are you so impassioned to give them that credit?>> The wonderful book as you call it is still one of the most dangerous myths being used to justify all types of injustices. The “wonderful book” as I call it?You said: “The bible can be interpreted to prove or disprove any opinion or attitude,”I answered: “Didn’t you know? That’s what makes it such a wonderful book!”I think you need to look up the word “sarcasm”…>> Sodomy being any sex act not sanctioned by marriage. ( the definition I learned in school) Are you claiming that in the old testament, rape (by our definition, not theirs, as they didn’t have one) was not sanctioned by marriage? Because, if you are, I would like to see your evidence.>> I really believe it is time to put the “bible” and all religion where it truly belongs, along with slavery, sexism and racism into the dustbin of acceptedly stupid relics of history.Well, not all religion. I’d strongly advise you make an exception to that statement posthaste if you don’t want to spend eternity after you die drinking stale beer and hanging out with strippers that have STD’s.>> I do not understand your need to absolve the biblical Men of their culpability. Huh??? Absolve???????Where did I even once attempt to do that? How is saying that they didn’t even have a concept of rape, much less a legal classification of it, a defense of them in any way whatsoever? Your posts give them far more credit than mine do.Or do you really think that intentional ignorance of the nature of the act makes them less guilty? Do you have the same charitable attitude towards that sicko who just got convicted for Elizabeth Smart’s abduction and long term abuse? After all, by his definition, they had a loving relationship. (I read that she smiled for the first time in a long time when the verdict came, and I instinctively responded by doing the same.)>>I think thou dost protest too much.Of course you do. It would be so much nicer for you if you could just make a bunch of unsupported irrational statements without anyone challenging them, or if anyone who challenged them just ran away the first time that you verbally attacked them. -But you should learn that when you bully people, sometimes they fight back, especially when you can’t back up most of what you post, and instead of answering challenges with a rational and well researched argument, you respond to them with angry rants and ad hominem attacks that have no basis in fact.
my point was only that if a misogynistic, racist, homophobic, classist idiot stops being classist, that’s a step in the right direction.
That will be pretty difficult, given the fact that the authors never bothered to put an expiration date on the laws. -They also forgot to put in the fictional disclaimer, but that’s totally forgivable; after all, maybe they just figured, “Nobody is so overwhelmingly gullible that they would actually believe any of this…””…unnecessary fairy tail.”-Fairies don’t have tails except when someone in the the enchanted forest throws a costume party and they dress up as mice or something…
Bit surprised to see a second rate article like this linked from BlagHag. It’s equivalent to the creationist “haha stupid evolutionists think the eye just randomly happened”. Thouught you were a bit more of a thinker Jen.Deut22 does NOT say rape victims should be stoned or married, or that rapists should be let off. The text of a single chapter should NOT be taken as being the overall message from the whole book. But then it wouldn’t make as good reading would it: “haha stupid bible bashers think we should love mercy and act justly…oh wait…”