Bumble Bee Tuna

I love these defenses- "Well, the culture would put great shame on a raped woman and she would be ruined unless she was married to her rapist, therefore it is good for the woman". Hello? God is laying down his moral laws! Instead of making the rapist marry his victim, why not create a moral law that people shouldn't discriminate against raped women? So the moral code of ancient society was bad and restrictive towards women...but this effects God how? He created the goddamn moral code! I agree that the proper punishment for the rapist would be something along the lines of castration. THAT would be a good preventative measure.

Honestly I just don't see how people can claim that God couldn't change the culture's morality in a better way because of the culture's morality. That's what he's supposed to be changing, people!

Also I fail to see how giving a rapist his victim so he can proceed to rape her every single night is a punishment. Yeah, he has to take care of her but he's getting steady sex and can treat her as poorly as he likes.

-B

Christian

Lobstrosity,

I'm not claiming that this law covers all possible contingencies, or that it is impossible to abuse this law or to get around it. I'm claiming merely that this law is good and moral, and it in fact values women and furthers their rights. If you are looking for perfect justice, you won't find it in this world. Not in ancient Israel or in the modern world. Perfect justice is only possible with an omnsicient and perfectly just Judge. You will have to deal with perfect justice in the future when all wrongs are righted, but not in this world.

This is not perfect justice handed out by an omniscient and righteous Judge. But it is a morally good addition to the legal system of ancient Israel, and it does protect women more than they were protected before this law. This law is a women's rights advancement in ancient Israel.

I'll rephrase: "The right to not living the rest of your life in shame and husbandless, and being forced into prostitution or else starving when your parents die."

Better?

The fact that it is not legal for someone to take my life from me involved no decision on my part. I have that right no matter what decisions I make, or even if I make any.

Not always. If someone pulls out a gun and shoots me then they make the decision of whether I live or die, not me.

How about this - the law in question is the right to a specific legal defense. The ancient Israeli women were given the right to such a defense whether they decided to use it or not.

Does that make more sense to you? I'm not sure what significance you are drawing from the decision of the person who has a right.

OK, call it a protection rather than a right. Before this law she would have endured social stigma for the rest of her life, noone would have married her, and when her parents died she may have been forced into begging or prostitution so that she didn't starve. And now she is given provision and a husband (something much more significant for survival in that culture than in our current culture). This was a primitive culture, and this law was helping to fix things a little lower on the hierarchy of needs than what you are thinking about.

In our current culture, there would be many problems with a law such as this. But in ancient Israel, this law was a big advancement in human rights.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Bill,

You are ignoring the historical context. In our own culture this law would be very problematic. In the primitive culture in which it was given, this was a landmark advancement in human rights.

There are many things I don't understand, and I'm happy to admit it when that is the case. This is a difficult passage. In fact, that's why I posted here. 90% of the "contradictions" I see touted in this folder are so shallow that they disappear if you simply read the context. This thread stood out because it really is dealing with a difficult passage in scripture. There is some substance to Carrie's assertions. It's worth taking time to respond to and challenging myself to understand what scripture is saying here.

This passage is difficult, but it is defensable.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

LOL!

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

B,

A fair question. I'm short on time now, but I'll think on that and respond later.

Again, this is not perfect justice. The "shadow and form" of perfect justice is in the Mosaic Law, but not the substance. (Col 2:17)

Respectfully,

Christian

Lobstrosity

I know what you keep claiming but that doesn't mean there's any intelligence or reason behind it. It's not a good law when weighed against any objective notion of good. It's a fucked up law by people with fucked up morals. Yes, they weren't perfect. As such it's fair to observe that they were so imperfect as to actually follow immoral laws. That much is obvious. Why can't you see this? How can a human living today view such a thing as moral? That's just detestable beyond all belief.

Look, your argument is akin to this hypothetical: Assume some ancient culture tortures all male children to death who cannot pass some physical challenge at age 13. Now say they pass a law that allows any handicapped children not able to participate in the challenge to be excuted quickly rather than killed via torture. Is that law a good and moral law? Sure, it's better than what they had, but just being better than nothing doesn't make it "good." It makes it pretty crappy but better than nothing.

Protecting women entails passing a law to you know, protect them. Pass a law that they will not be outcast. It's fairly simple. That would be moral. What they did is no moralt. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Once again, not a "right." I'm not sure you actually understand what that word means. It seems like you hear others using it and just want to get in on the action because it sounds deep and meaningful. The reasoning behind my making this assertion lies in the following:

The right to life does not mean you are immortal. It means that no one can legally kill you unless you commit an action that forfeits the right. It's a law that gives you the right to life. By law it is your choice whether you live or die. If someone gives you the "right" to be an atheist, they're not forcing you to follow atheism. The right to happiness isn't a "YOU MUST BE HAPPY ALL THE TIME OR ELSE." They're saying you can do it if you want. Is it sinking in yet?

No, I'll call it a property transfer agreement. You know...along the same lines as "you break it you buy it"? Women were given no consideration at all in this process and it's actually quite sad that you can sit here thinking they were. Women were property. Women had no rights. No one was concerned with what they wanted or how they should be treated. It's simply that if you destroy the value of one you need to buy it. Then it's yours to do with as you please. I imagine the rapist could lock the woman up, murder her, beat her, etc...she was his property now, after all. Oooh, isn't this just oozing morality and women's rights?!?!

Once again, just because something was an advancement doesn't mean it's moral. It just means it was an advancement. You haven't said anything to justify how the law on it's own stands as something moral by your own absolute standards.

doc58

Well said Lobstrosity

Christian

Lobstrosity,

Looking at the American Heritage Dictionary, the only definition of "right" that fits what we are talking about is: "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

That definition seems pretty clear, and it seems to apply to the law we are talking about. My explaination of the right gained:

"The right to not living the rest of your life in shame and husbandless, and being forced into prostitution or else starving when your parents die"

is something that is due to a woman who has been raped. Morally due, and after God provided this law for Israel legally due as well.

Please explain where you are getting your concept or definition of a "right" from. You seem to be piling a lot of nebulous excess baggage onto that term that I can't find any hint of in a dictionary definition of "right." What is your reference?

Advancing women's rights is a morally good thing. Providing for the right I have described in a time and place where that right did not previously exist is a morally good thing according to the absolute standards of morality that I recognize.

Advancement in the area of human rights is "good." How can you disagree with that? Women in Israel were better off because of this law. They had more rights (according to the dictionary definition.)

If advancing women's rights is not a "good" thing (as you state) then what sort of thing is it morally? A bad thing?

Once again, the point is not whether you can speculate about any alternative laws that you think would have been better in that historical context. The point is whether or not this law was good.

Your analogy fails on several points. First, this law was something that only rarely applied to a very few number of women. Your analogy is for some test that every male has to undergo. That introduces an entirely different moral element. If it was cultural in ancient Israel for every woman to be raped at the age of 13 then your analogy might apply. As it is, your analogy has morally evil overtones that the actual situation we are talking about did not.

Secondly, it's presumably society itself which is torturing the children who do not pass the test. This casts society as the agent of evil, whereas society did not approve of the evil done in ancient Israel. I'm not certain of the logical term, but in the Army these kind of things are what we call "smoke and mirrors." You are arbitrarily adding morally bad elements to the analogy which have no correspondence to the actual situation. The analogy is in a number of counts that the actual situation is not. Therefore it is not an accurate analogy to show whether or not the actual situation is bad.

Respectfully,

Christian

Chuck

So it rarely applied to very few women. What a ladies' paradise it would have been if all women got to enjoy this "right"?

A woman is raped. Not of her choosing. A violation of her rights, in any sense of the word. She has two choices: be an outcast or spend the rest of her life with her rapist.

Now. This woman's life has been completely destroyed by a criminal, whose only punishment is apparently having someone to rape whenever he feels like it. The rape victim in question had no choice in having her life so altered.

Whether being a rapist's wife is better than being an outcast is immaterial. This law was not an advancement of women's rights. A law "forgiving" women for being raped would be an advancement. This is, rather, a condemnation to victimhood, allowing a woman to be raped repeatedly, whether in be in her capacity as a wife or as a whore.

And by the way, it's pretty easy to praise this law as an improvement in the condition of women's rights, considering the condition of women.

Exodus 22:1:

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. ",

What a gloriously moral improvement in the rights of oxen and sheep!

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Absolutely! Because the best way to punish a rapist is to give him his victim so that his future crimes against her can continue unobstructed.

Christian, do rapists make good husbands? Maybe even better husbands than men who prefer to seek a woman's consent?