Doc:

Awesome reply. That's the kinda god I would follw...

Nomad, no answer to it?

Welcome to the boards Bella.

Nomad conveniently omits Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which says that if the woman does not scream she shall be put to death with the man. This has caused some real unpleasantness in some Bible-literalist sects like Jehovah's Witnesses, where there have been occasional cases of raped women who didn't scream (e.g. because the rapist told them he'd kill them if they did) finding themselves ostracised by their families and community.

In general though, when people blame rape victims it tends to be because of their generally unpleasant nature rather than any particular Bible reading. Mind you, I suppose it could be argued that the general spirit of misogyny found throughout the Bible contributes to this at times.

While I understand your argument, and that you believe God should, indeed, make our choices for us, His desire that we have free will, and must be held accountable for our choices and sins is consistent with His nature.

Now, the question of the thread was who does the Bible hold responsible for rape, and the answer, very clearly, is that man.

Of course God could change us any way that He wanted, but in so doing, He would be violating our free will. Since God considers our free will to be a good, then He cannot remove it from us, effectively forcing us to be good.

Nomad

Actually, I did not leave this out on purpose. It does not address the question of the thread.

Quite simply, if a woman accuses a man of rape, but there is no actual evidence of this, then it becomes a question of his word against hers. In this particular case, however, the couple is guilty of fornication (sex outside of marriage), and for the ancient Jews this was a capital offense.

I found it interesting that you did not actually address the points in my post. Clearly the man is held to be to blame in each of these cases for rape, and even in the case you have listed the man is not considered to be guiltless, but shares the guilt equally with the woman.

On what basis would you call this misogyny? Should the man be punished only because he is accused of rape, even in the absense of evidence? Would you say that this would be just today?

Nomad

Another example of excessively cruel Bible laws.

Anyway, the text specifically says that she should be put to death "because she was in a town and did not scream for help" (NIV). So a rape victim who does not scream is classed as an adultress. Pretty ghastly law. And still causing problems today in some sects, as I pointed out.

I did not specifically call that part misogyny. I commented that the Bible has a general spirit of misogyny running through much of it, and that this has at times contributed to misogyny in society. Please read my posts properly.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Cor 14:34-35

I could quote a lot more passages, but I'm sure you already know most of them.

I recognize your disapproval of the law Pantera. What I am curious about is that you specifically used this soapbox to say that the Bible was misogynist. I demonstrated that it is, in fact, treating the male as at least as guilty, if not more so, than the woman. That is not misogyny.

Secondly, I asked you directly on what basis you would convict the man in this situation of rape. The fact of their fornication is a given (and the reason the couple is condemned to death). But in this instance, on what basis would you say that the woman is not guilty, and the man is still guilty of a crime? Would you not have to make the presumption of guilt in order to do this?

Fair enough. Yet you felt it necessary to make a second unrelated claim in this same post.

I did read your post properly, and wondered why you had brought the point up, except to slam the things you find unacceptable in the Bible. Bella asked a direct question. I answered it with Biblical quotations. If you can find a bilbical quote that shows that the woman should be blamed for her own rape, then please offer it.

I'm sure you could. On the other hand, I am hoping that we can stay on topic on the thread.

Thank you,

Nomad

Thanks for your reply Nomad but it doesn't make any sense. Nothing in my post had any impact on man's free will. I am simply saying that a Good God could have made a Good law to respond to a rape of an unmarried woman such as the one I suggested rather than the bad law which is in Deut.
The law I suggest as good does not violate free will. It simply punishes the gulity and protects the innocent instead of punishing the innocent by forcing them to be married to a sexual deviant.

Nomad

You ask me what standard of evidnece I would apply to the man's guilt. Simple - the same standards we would have in a court today.

But evidence of the man's guilt does not seem particularly relevent when we look at Deuteronomy 22:23-27. The man is to be put to death come what may - whether as a fornicator or as a rapist. The only piece of evidence the Bible is interested in is whether the woman screamed or not. If she did not she is to be put to death as an adultress. There seems to be scope for blaming the victim there.

However, I am quite happy to say, and did so in my original post, that apart from this passage the Bible does blame rape victims for their rape. Rather, the "blame the victim" culture is a symptom of misogyny in society generally. But it is relevent to suggest that the Bible (which indisputably contains many misogynistic passages) is at least partly (though by no means wholly) responsible for the difficulty in removing that misogyny. That was a minor point at first. It was you who turned it into a major issue.

And you still haven't answered doc's point, which had nothing to do with free will. Either God hands down laws to society or He does not. If He does it is reasonable to assume that He would hand down good laws, which would include better accommodation for rape victims than forcing to marry their rapists.

Actually, I've just remembered. Whether or not the Bible approves of rape depends on what we read into Numbers 31:17-18, virgin women as war booty.

Now I know that when Thomas Paine made the point that an order to kill the mothers and the sons and to rape the daughters was somewhat inconsistent with the idea of Moses being God's holiest prophet, Bishop Richard Watson indignantly replied that the Hebrews had taken the virgin women not for "immoral purposes" but as slaves, so there could be no moral objection. It is frightening to think just how recently such views were considered orthodox. But anyway, reading the passage again, and keeping in mind the standard customs of the time, an interpretation of this as "you are free to rape the captives" is a reasonable one.

I just looked up the bit under discussion. Here it is:

Deu 22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

(This law is based on the invalid assumption that, within the city, the woman's scream would be heard, that she was capable and free to scream, and that passersby would respond or step forward in a court of law--none of which holds water today.) Also, how did we make the leap from "betrothed" to "neighbor's wife"?

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

(This law is based on the assumption that any deflowering that takes place outside the city limits was the result of force.)

Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:

Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

(So if I were a woman living in those times and was deflowered by my own choosing, I'd say it took place in the field. Duh.)

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So does it strike anyone as deeply unfair that a couple who lies together willingly (possibly out of love) is put to death while a woman is forced to spend the rest of her life with a rapist?

These are not the laws of a just and righteous god. These are the haphazard rules of a primitive people.

diana

Doc already said this, but Nomad do you not see that a law is a law? You said:
But we are talking about the nuances of the law here, not whether or not the law should exist.

All your point does is to reiterate that Yahweh gives us laws and free will--- but critiquing the laws takes away the free will aspect. Huh? Any law is a violation of our free will, by your arguement. Any statement by Yahweh to put to death anyone for 'fornication' (check the original words, BTW) is against our free will, by what you said.