Of course it did doc.

You are saying that the woman can choose any man she wants, and God will make him love her for the rest of his life. Further, none of these men had anything to do with the rape in the first place.

What we have in the passage is a law being made to deal with a specific event. The woman is presummed to have been raped because even if she resisted or screamed, no one would have been able to help her. Outside of this, there is no evidence that a rape took place, but the woman is being given the benefit of the doubt, and the man if being punished for having sex with her outside of marriage. He must give compensation to the woman's family, and take her as his wife, never being allowed to divorce her.

The only way you could make anyone else marry her after the rape is to actually force them to do this. Since your law does this, then you have denied free will to the men of the town.

Nomad

Meaning? Remember, the evidence we have is she says she has been raped, and he presumably says she has not been raped. is he guilty?

Agreed. The fact that he had sex with the woman is not in dispute. The only question remaining is whether or not he raped her.

Excuse me? If she did not scream, and we have no evidence of a rape actually taking place (outside of her claims that she was raped), how would you judge that a rape did occur?

Well, this is an expansion of your earlier point, but what evidence do you actually have that the Bible blames the woman for being raped? I have already given evidence of the exact opposite.

Of course it is a major issue now, since it has nothing to do with bella's question, yet you brought it up. Further, in your very next statement you bring up yet another unrealted (and false) belief about the Bible. Is it your habit to continue introducing unrelated topics to a thread in order to score cheap points of some kind?

Again, where does the Bible blame the victim for being raped?

Doc's law would require a man to marry her who had nothing to do with her originally being raped. Further, it would require that man to love her (a command that is not included in the actual law God did give). How could you do this except by force?

Sigh. And now it is time to look at yet another unrelated topic, and a brutal misinterpretation of the passage.

Actually, the men are specifically denied the right to treat the women as slaves, nor may they rape them. Once again Thomas Paine demonstrates that he hasn't got a clue how to read the Bible, and it is unfortunate that the Bishop you quoted (I have never heard of him, nor do I know where he actually said this). Considering the fact that other false quotations have been attributed to Christians on these boards in the past, I am very sceptical of this one. Both Bishop Watson and Thomas Paine should have been aware of:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

If you wish to level charges against the Bible, please offer actual quotations that say what you think they say, and do not be in the habit of quoting from amateur know nothings like Thomas Paine.

Nomad

I said there is scope for blaming a victim here. Let me put it this way. A woman is raped. She does not scream, because she is scared, because her attacker has his hand over her mouth, or perhaps she does scream and nobody hears. So she is put to death as an fornicator. Looks like holding the victim responsible to me. OK, so she may possibly have consented, but what about giving her the benefit of the doubt rather than stoning her? If it were purely a question of proving the man’s guilt then one could argue that this law was fair enough. But since the woman is assumed to be a fornicator deserving of death unless she can prove otherwise it’s a pretty ghastly law.

OK, I am not trying to argue for the specific law Doc suggested, which I suspect was at least half in jest (though still hardly worse than forcing a woman to marry her rapist). But the general point is: if God had handed down laws to the Hebrews, we would expect them to be significantly better (or at least different - better is I subjective term I guess) than the type of laws which would be found among any other iron age tribe. Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist is an example of the latter. A divine set of laws would not have to make allowances for the primitive nature of a society because the obstacles would be dealt with elsewhere in the set of laws. Why not simply treat women as equal before the law in the first place, and allow them the chance to make a living with or without their husbands? Because the laws were made by primitive men, not inspired scribes. They were probably no worse that the type of laws found among neighboring tribes - but no better either.

Now who’s bringing up irrelevant side issues?

Bishop Richard Watson, An Apology for The Bible, published shortly after the Age of Reason, in reply to it.

Also, one Matthew Henry made exactly the same defence here. "The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives." Before you accuse me of going out of my way to find extremist views, it’s from a website which you have directed people to recently.

Oh alright then, it’s a reference to forcibly marrying the captive women. Rape and slavery combined. Certainly relevant in a thread on Biblical attitudes to rape.

Touched a nerve there I think.

I did not quote from Thomas Paine. I quoted from one of his opponents.

And even if I did, what’s your point? That nobody without PhDs in Hebrew, Greek and Theology is allowed to have an opinion on the Bible? If so then 99% of Christians shouldn’t go around quoting from it either.

Now to be honest with you, I am getting bored with this thread. You can have the last word if you like - I suspect it will be another complaint that anything which doesn’t support your case is irrelevant and should not be posted. I expect that Bella has seen enough by now, and will have made up her own mind.

Nomad: time for a reality check here. We're talking about women whose parents and siblings have just been slaughtered. After ritual humiliation (shaving of the head), these women are then available as slaves/wives after a period of one month (wow, how generous). Note what is missing from this text: any mention at all of the woman's consent to any of this. And, if the man gets bored with her, the man can terminate this marriage: the only restriction is that he must let her go free, but you've already claimed that rape victims must marry their rapists because they'd starve otherwise!

Why do you even attempt to defend such barbarity?

Originally posted by Nomad:
But is the answer to this question terribly important from the man's point of view, given that he is going to get killed anyway? Given the penalty, the only question with any practical significance is whether the woman is guilty of fornication, not whether the man is guilty of rape. Thus, if anyone NEEDS to be given the benefit of the doubt, it is the woman, not the man.

Anyhow, please see also fromdownunder's thread Suppose I Go Out and Rape Someone - Should I Marry Her? in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 10, 2001).]

Hardly. Making the rapist responsible for the life and well being of his victim for the rest of his life is a huge leap in justice over holding the woman responsible for her own rape.

The law presumes that she has been raped. The man is found guilty, and regardless of his social rank or power his penalty is the same. Further, under the provisions of Numbers 30, the woman can take a vow of celibacy, insuring that she will never have to sleep with this man against her will again. The man cannot nullify this vow, since in marrying a woman that he has known to have taken such a vow, he affirms it.

Like doc, you are assuming that God is simply going to change an entire culture and people all at once against their will. God does not work in this fashion. First, there is the all important issue of free will again, requiring the people to conform their will to God's. He does not place burdens upon them (or us) that would require a complete makeover in their psychological and sociological makeup over night.

Secondly, God works through a process, and rarely if ever does a thing instantly and all at once. Whether we are talking about creation itself, or the redemption of mankind, God works step by step, rather than simply doing it instantly, and making us the way He wants us to be.

Without seeing the actual laws offered by neighbouring tribes, this is an impossible judgement to make. Considering many of these tribes were offering their wives and daughters as temple prostitutes, and even sacrificing children to their gods, I doubt that these tribes were very enlightened with regards to judging the woman in her own rape case.

On the other hand, the Jews had already prohibitted these kinds of attrocities, denying the men the right to make themselves or women temple prostitutes (Deuteronomy 23:17), nor to sacrifice their children to gods, property and inheritence rights for women, equality for Jew and non-Jew within Israel, the exclusion of newly married males from the draft, as well as any man who was afraid of fighting, the rights of the poor, of widows, of slaves, and so on.

When a quote is offered without a source and page number, it is very hard to verify. I do not doubt that many Christians have said many stupid and wrong things, but I do not like seeing it used in an argument unless it is possible to verify the source.

Umm... did you not read the passage? It specifically says that the woman is NOT the man's slave. And it says nothing at all about rape. Why did you add those fabrications to your interpretation?

First, I was certain that you had made reference to Paine's book, The Age of Reason, and therefore were using him as an authority.

Second, quoting from the Bible is fine, but it never hurts to actually know the full context of Talmudic Law before rendering judgement on Hebrew legal practices. After all, if a layman wanted to talk about American Law, and commented without talking with a lawyer, he or she could very easily make grave errors about what the law actually says. Jewish legal practices are very old, extremely complex, and we should rely upon experts before passing judgement.

Paine is not even close to an expert in such matters, and his opinion (as are those of the Bishop) are quite useless here.

Anyone is free to quote from the Bible. Passing judgement on something in it about which one knows nothing (like Talmudic law) is quite another matter however.

I think that bald faced accusations against the Bible that cannot be supported should be withdrawn. You said that the Bible was misogynist, meaning that it preaches hatred towards women. This is a lie, and that is why I called attention to it.

I certainly hope that she has gotten the answers she was looking for, and welcome any questions from her or anyone else.

Nomad

Goy. I hardly know where to get started with this one Jack.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
No, these rituals are for mourning, not for shaming the woman. In doing this she honours her dead kin.

The passage says nothing at all about her right to consent or not. It is probably a better idea to actually ask someone who knows something about Talmudic law if she has this right or not, than it is to presume that she does not. BTW, one month is the alloted time for mourning.

I said that the man must become responsible for the woman's well being for the rest of his life, and that he is NOT permitted to divorce her at all. Please read my posts before commenting on them.

Because I am sick of people passing judgement on time honoured laws given by a great and long lasting and noble people that they neither know, nor understand, and condemning those people who lived thousands of years ago on the basis of what they think is just and moral today.

Be happy that others are not allowed to pass judgement on your own current laws. No doubt if they were permitted to dissect them on the basis of their cultural values (picking and choosing only those laws they find most dispicable) they could find them wanting in many ways.

Nomad

They do. They are called 'congress' and 'the courts' in this country. What are they called in yours?


Nomad, your last post does not address the points raised or acknowlege things you said. You made it very clear that a non-virgin woman would starve (but in a culture where an unmarried woman becomes either a slave or starves,, above), but you just denied it.


Indeed, you comment that people who do not know Talmudic law should not throw stones. Perhaps that should apply to you, as well, defending what you do not understand. THe Talmud provides for unmarried women. Not too well, and it may not have been put into practice, but the Law does infringe on 'free will' enough to provide for man-less women and children.

[This message has been edited by jess (edited April 10, 2001).]

Ignoring your smart assed attitude...

Did you deliberately misread my post jess? Are these "others" found in Congress and the Courts Americans? My guess is the answer here is yes.

So now, are any of these people throwing stones at the ancient Hebrew laws Jews themselves? Do they study these laws the way Congress and the Courts study American laws? Do they have any training in such matters?

I did not deny this. Here is what I said:

"It may appear harsh to us that the girl is required to marry her rapist, but in a culture where an unmarried woman becomes either a slave or starves, it was considered to be the most just solution. The fact that her rapist must bear responsibility for her, and is never permitted to divorce her guaranteed that he would pay for his crime through reimbursement of the girl and her family. Please note that the man is the one being held responsible for the crime, and not the girl."

Her social options are extremely limited, and without a husband to support her she will be poverty stricken, will starve, or will be forced into slavery.

Where did I deny that this would be her fate?

In the cases you are listing, the woman has elected to remain single, and therefore needs provisions, but in this case, through no fault of her own, she becomes unmarriageable. Further, the law insures that the man that did this too her bears the responsibility for her well being for the rest of his life. This is considerable justice in my view, and quite a lot more than she would get merely by going on welfare.

The Jews were (and are) an enlightened people with a great many laws designed to deal with almost any eventuality. The complexity of the system, and the fact that they hold the law in such high regard (in fact, they were the first to see the law as being above any man, including the king) testifies to the foresight in their culture and civilization. We have done well to learn and copy from them.

Nomad

Nomad, you're talking to me!

Please, don't ignore my 'smart assed' attitude! I may develop one if you treat me like I already have it!

First, Jack says:
You respond:

But you did say:
Do you not see how this is contradictory? It is a very subtle denial. You are good at that.

I am not clear on your 'others' point--- I am guessing that you are claiming we would have a problem with non-indigenous culture members critiquing the indigenous laws. Now. That was not clear before. However, my point remains. Our global society, represented by the might and force of the barbaric first world countries (yours is graciously excluded--- and that is from a deep respect of Canada, not out of sarcasm) which do cram their laws down other peoples throats--- even each others. Your point is?

It seems like you are saying we have no right to argue if these 'divine laws' appear 'divine'. Who are you to tell us that?

Several people on this board are practicing Jews and others are former Orthodox. Have you asked? Or are you assuming? Either way, my Ob/Gyn happens to be male. Can he not do a good job on me because he doesn't have the same plumbing?

No. In the 'cases I am listing', not that I am listing any cases, mind you, the Law provides for women without men. This includes widows, orphans, women without husbands or brothers or sons, and protitutes. Women without men does not mean 'elected to be single' (which was tantamount to a death penalty for women in that day and age--- reread Japeth)

If it were your daughter who was raped? Still better justice? Again, why not a law that would require the man to support her without marriage?

Support this or retract it. I would love to see your 'proof'.

We what? Sorry, this country is based on Greek laws and policies with a healthy dose of the 'pagan' English Common Law. I thought Canada was on a similar system, with a smattering of socialism tossed in for good measure.