Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"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; 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."


Seriously? "Marry your rapist" is the word of an omniscient and benevolent deity?

Discuss.

 

... date rape....

 

I don't recall anything in that passage about the woman being willing, or having gone on a "date" with the man...

 

Why is this a problem for you?

 

What is important here is that it doesn't say forcible rape.
And, the real facts of the matter for this law is that couples who are into sneaking a few kisses, and heavy petting before they actually intend to get married are expected to do so it they get "caught."

That is the way a patriarchy works.
The parents do everything they can to prevent their daughters from getting sexually involved, and they don't want to stone her is they find she has become sexually involved, (usually pregnant).

Christian sexual prudence before the Feminist sexual revolution of 1960 saw most marriages start with girls pregnant.
The Puritans were said to marry 60% of their brides who were noticeably pregnant.

The idea that young people can really control the god given sex hormones that come at age 12 and the expectation that the MUST wait until age 26 today is part of the present social problems centered around Abortions and 50% illegitimacy rates today.

This is simply a reasonable and fair way for these apparent violations of the prudent culture of both patriarchies and Christian communities get couples into a safe institutionalized way to express their urges to their benefit, the benefit of children which unavoidably will start to appear, and to social benefit of the adults and their community.

It was once referred to as The Tender Trap.

 

Get real. It doesn't exclude forcible rape either.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Are you asking why it matters to me that this is part of "God's" word, despite clearly being harmful and malicious?
Are you asking why it matters to me specifically, since I'm not a rape victim being forced to marry a rapist?

Hypocrisy matters to me, especially when that hypocrisy is used by a significant percentage of the population to establish legislation.

 

The latter.
You believe that religious people are hypocrites?
And, that their hypocrisy should not establish legislation?
Okay.

I was curious, that's all.

 

Why does it matter to me since I'm not a rape victim being forced to marry a rapist....

I don't believe that it is "good" to subject a person to prolonged ("until death do us part") emotional torture just because that person was victimized on one occasion.
I don't believe it is "good" to claim gay people can't get married because there is a need to protect "the sanctity of marriage", and then tell rape victims they have to marry their attackers.
I choose to live in a society where people are "good" to each other.

Each major Western religion claims to have a monopoly on eternal bliss, and threaten eternal damnation for anyone who doesn't assimilate. By definition, this is hypocritical.
Many people believe that the US should recognize Christianity as it's foundation, and legislate according to "Christian values". These same individuals of course assume it'll be their specific "flavor" of Christianity... There are some significant differences between Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc... The only common factor seems to be the regularity with which the most devout completely ignore that Jesus was supposedly all about healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and uplifting the downtrodden. Once again, another sign of hypocrisy.

I hope my answer was clear enough.

 

Sorry.
By the latter, I meant "Hypocrisy matters to me, especially when that hypocrisy is used by a significant percentage of the population to establish legislation."
Your first two sentences were questions. I was asking why it matters to you. Your last statement was a plain answer to my question.

Okay.

Very clear.
However, I might suggest that you investigate some more of your Christian (Western) religions.
In my experience, they are not all as you describe.

 

The word "rape" has a western connotation of violence that is foreign from the Hebrew use of the word in this passage.
Find us another verse which specifies a violent and forced, unwanted and resisted case if you want to maintain an argument against G-d.

This passage strongly suggests a degree of cooperation and consent.

 

I wonder if our resident Jew would shed some light on how the verse in question is to be interpreted ?

The word in question suggests a definition 'to lay hold of, wield'

What do the Torah observant Jews make out of this ?

..

 

[TABLE="class: Co_TanachTable, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: Co_Verse"]
[TD]If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,[/TD]
[TD="class: Co_Spacer"] [/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew, align: right"]כח. כִּי יִמְצָא אִישׁ נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: Co_Verse"]
[TD]29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.[/TD]
[TD="class: Co_Spacer"] [/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew, align: right"]כט. וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו:[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Rape is probably the right word in modernity.
However, in the past, rape was a word generally restricted to the violent act of sex in warfare.

This passage is fairly specific in that it means that if a man has intercourse with a virgin he cannot simply abandon her. He has to marry her and support her.

In today's world, virginity is not much valued. However, up until the 20th Century, it was considered something valuable. It still is by many religious people.

So, if the man took the most valuable thing that a woman could have then, he is not allowed to simply abandon her. He is stuck with her for the rest of his life.
Now, the woman could always refuse to marry the man however, if she did marry the man, he has the same obligations as any other husband towards his wife - which are many and carefully delineated.

 

That verse says nothing about rape.

 

Taking that most valuable thing which is the very same "thing" which ancient societies guarded so well for the future groom was tantamount to receiving that "thing" without the formalities expected of a groom.
I suspectthe law was advising young men that taking that "thing" could be construed as being required to "pay" for it if found out.

To suggest this is the foundation for the long Western tradition of a Shotgun marriage is not far from the point I am making.

The actual word uses here seems to agree with me, in that it does not denote a violent nor forced act, but certainly, as was once assumed in this situations, the male was more aggressive if not the aggressor in going "too far."

 

Interesting... The critics always tend to twist this into meaning that the woman MUST marry the man that "raped her."

Thanks for clarifying moishe.

 

Thanks for the feedback.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to learn which "flavor" of Western religion includes practitioners that regularly practice the values they claim to believe in, preferably without isolating and/or degrading those who do not belong to their "flock".

 

That's very interesting. Could you direct me to the passage that outlines a woman's right to refuse to marry her rapist?

 

And neither is the woman in the story. The only person being forced is the man. The law was applied because his actions made her unworthy of marriage to other men at that time seeing she was no longer a virgin. But she could refuse. However the words are not clear if he was a seducer or a rapist. Either way he was at fault not her and the law applies to him. He also couldn't divorce her without her consent. Progressive in a time of barbarism.

Again that is not what is happening here. And this clearly shows you lack of knowledge of Jewish law and Bible.

Agreed. I don't know anyone doing that today. There might be some. But gays should marry that would be good for society and I feel does not at all violate Torah.

As defined by what? You might be surprised where some of the things you value come from.

Except again your ignorance is showing. Show me where Judaism says this.

I am sorry above you lumped them all together as well as with Judaism in which the lines of Torah you quote apply. (Hint they don't apply to Christians)

True that many don't but many many many do follow those teachings.

It clearly showed you have some learning to do.

 

A female who had consensual premarital sex was to be stoned to death, so obviously, this is not consensual. You can't have two conflicting consequences for the same act. This is rape. "Seizing" and "violating" a girl? That's not rape?

Uh, that's not in the Bible. Quote it. You can't.

He didn't clarify. He lied. That's not in the Bible. Notice he didn't quote any passage stating that.

 

5 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

This is actually a protection for the woman. In that day and age it was crucial for a woman to be married for her means of support. If the woman was betrothed already, the man was killed. And she was deemed sinless. If she was not already set to be married then she was guaranteed a marriage arrangement for her own well-being. And the man was obligated to fullfill that arrangement.

That is how I read it.

 

Over time words and the meaning of those words change. Mindsets and certain types of thinking change over time as well. If a woman was violated by a man she might have expected him to marry her back then. We can't really know what their mindsets and sort of thinking were like.

It's like when you go to an entirely different country and experience the culture there and it is so different from your own you experience culture shock.

I don't think it is very accurate to view ancient lifestyles through a modern viewpoint. If you do that you will not truly understand their way of life as it was then.

 

No changes, just a better understanding here....

The meaning of the Hebrew word which is wrongly interpreted here as "rape" doesn't mean the violent unwanted attack we think of in this day and age.

 

So it's more like a consensual affair out of wedlock?

 

No, the admonition is against sexual promiscuity which may not be the case with a virgin here who apparently has just been seduced and laid with by her first "lover."

A slut is a harlot who flits from man to man, always enjoying the exaggerated benefits of the Date Scene and the courtship, only to leave the relationship when the money, fun, and good times pass.
She avoids marriage, unless it is "keeper" that has great prestige and/or material benefits.
Even then, flirting as insurance for a possible divorce and replacement she is often cuckolding her husband or gaining more benefits just from the attention she is still giving out for favors.