McWay,
This is why I'm the only person willing to engage with you, your deliberately selective reading comprehension... and you're wearing even my patience pretty thin.
Let's look at the entire passage so context is no longer an issue.
It's basically a short canon of sexual morals, with the final chapters dealing specifically with sex crimes. I've even used a couple of translations that back away from the use of the word "rape", so I'm being as fair as possible...
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
...assuming we're not talking about rape, but consensual sex, that still dictates DEATH FOR ADULTERERS.
And, this is a problem, because.........
It appears you forget the serious ramifications that adultery carried in the ancient Near Eastern World. You may think it's something petty. But, they did not, for good reasons.
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;
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 does seem to refer to rape, but giving the benefit of the doubt, let's assume this is once again a simple act of consensual adultery, then it dictates DEATH FOR ADULTERY. The only difference being that a woman cannot claim she was raped if she was inside the city at the time of the rape/adultery.
That's ridiculous. A woman who's been raped, more often than not, would have visible signs of such.
Now think about this, it's not too difficult to figure the three possible scenarios:
1-It was an act of consensual adultery... then the verse DICTATES DEATH FOR BOTH ADULTERERS (which is
consistent with the previous verse)
2-It was actually a rape and the woman wasn't able to alert anyone; the rapist used force/violence/threat to silence her... then the verse dictates death for the rapist, and DEATH FOR THE RAPED WOMAN just in case it was an act of consensual adultery
3-There is another scenario... a much more disturbing one... bare with me:
Say a thirteen year-old girl is sold as a sex-slave/wife to an elderly man (in accordance ith Jewish custom of the time). He gets old... she gets lonely... at 16 she meets a nice 16-year-old boy... they fall in love... they meet in secret and promise to marry just as soon as her doddery old impotent husband dies... but one night, while renewing their clandestine promise, hormones get the better of them as so often happens with besotted immature teenagers.
But they get caught.
Notwithstanding your feeble attempt to piece together an unlikely scenario, that's adultery, which means both get put to death, end of story.
Scenario 2, the woman is given the benefit of the doubt, especially with physical signs of force. Therefore, the rapist ALONE gets exectued.
Realising that he is facing death by stoning for adultery, the 16-year-old boy lies... he claims he raped the girl, hoping to spare her from stoning and let her off scot-free... a selfless lie for love.
Condoning lying again, and now adultery? I thought you were the one with the supposedly superior morals.
The Council of City Elders has to deliberate.
Should they let the girl go and only stone the boy to death as a rapist, or should they stone both of them as adulterers...? ...no one is sure what to do. So they consult Deuteronomy.
Tough shit... no one heard her cry out... so BOTH ARE STONED TO DEATH FOR ADULTERY.
Guess this rule must have been very tough for women whose only neighbour was deaf... anyone could rape them with impunity; if they reported it they'd be stoned alongside their attacker.
Yet another ridiculous and highly unlikely scenario, you try to make to make your feeble take stick.
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.
25:27 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 ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.If a woman is raped in the country, then only the man shall die (since there was no one to hear her if she cried out.)
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:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
...even this passage (both translations above) doesn't mean what you think it means. It could be that this was another example of the situation above.
It means that your claim that rape victims got put to death was supremely false.
It merely asserts a man's property rights over his wife/bethrothed... it DOES NOT dictate death for ALL rape (as you insist), only death for the rape of another man's wife/betrothed. There is no protection for unbethrothed women in this passage.
Earth to Luke, I never claimed that it meant death for all rape. In fact, I explained some time ago that, for non-betrothed women, their care is the ONLY REASON the rapist is kept alive.
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.
If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.
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.
...read that carefully. It says that rapists only receive the death penalty if the victim is not betrothed.
I know that, genius!! Again, I'M THE ONE, who pointed out that material care for the woman was the SOLE impetus for sparing her assailant.
That still doesn't save your silly behind from the fact that you INTENTIONALLY make a false statement about rape victims being put to death.
If you rape a woman who is someone else's property you are put to death... but if she isn't promised as property to someone else... well then it's just a fine to her default owner (her father) and a financially binding settlement of care.
It does NOT stipulate that there be some sort of sexless marriage-in-name-only arrangement as you claim, that is pure apologist fantasy
Wrong!!! First, the marriage doesn't even have to take place. Second, the stipulations are that the rapist provide for her food, clothing, and lodging.
Third, in ancient Israel, the betrothment is effectively the marriage (which is why betrothed women, who screw around are charged with adultery). But, there's a GAP between betrothment and the wedding ceremony, which lasts AT LEAST a year. During that time the broom-to-be CANNOT have sex with his prospective wife.
One extreme example is Rachel, who was betrothed to Jacob. He worked 14 YEARS to pay her dowry. But, he couldn't touch her, until his servitude was completed.
But consider what it does allow:
-men who can afford it can rape any unbethrothed girl they want with impunity
-the rape victims can be forced into a loveless marriage at best and a form of sex slavery at worst (assuming her father enforces such)
DEAD WRONG, yet again, Luke. If a marriage can be "loveless", then it's safe to say it can be sexless, especially if they are living in separate homes (as is often the case today with separated couples, that are STILL legally married).
Your futile attempts to paint this as some form of sex slavery have been thoroughly dismantled, yet again.
Now imagine the situation wherein a rich man rapes an unbethrothed CHILD (because girls are bethrothed at thirteen in this society, an "unbethrothed maiden" is a girl younger than 13), but offers to pay the fine.
Then, that would be tanamount to what we call today statutory RAPE. Guess what that means for the assailant......DEATH!!!! Marriage to children (i.e. girls not of marrying age) is forbidden.
If her father is poor, he must accept the settlement as he cannot afford to take care of a girl who now cannot be married off to anyone else (being no longer a virgin).
Says who? The rapist would be put to DEATH. Therefore, (albeit at, perhaps, a lower dowry), the young lady can be married, when she reaches proper age.
If her father demands retribution for the rape... well, tough luck, capital punishment for rape only extends to bethrothed girls.
If her father accepts the settlement, either the girl is forced into a loveless marriage/sex-savery with her rapist (taking the literal meaning) or she lives with her parents receiving a regular subsistence payment from her rapist; a continuous frequent reminder of why she cannot ever get married; why she cannot ever have children; cannot ever have consensual sex.
The priority here is her material care, her emotional well-being (while considered) comes secondary.
There is NO marriage for an underage girl to her assailant.
Raping girls, at the very least, would fall under those abominations that Israel's neighbors did, which was barred, and punishable BY DEATH!!!
Plus, by your scenario, there are but two punishments for rape:
But, since underage girls can't get married, guess what's left for the rapist............DEATH!!!
Imagine a girl wo is raped at twelve (before she was bethrothed), who then goes about her life with her compensation package... at some point she decides she wants to marry.
She asks the City Elders if she can marry... they consult Deutronomy... tough shit. By law, she is maried for life to her rapist (the guy in the next town over who pays her a stipend: assuming your apologist fantasy scenario) with no possibility of divorce.
She can't marry... because she is already legally married (to her rapist).
She can't divorce... because women can't really apply for divorce... and because her husband cannot divorce her.
She can't remarry freely... when her rapist eventally dies, she must marry his brother and have a kid with him ("be redeemed") or face starving to death.
She can't remarry even if her rapist dies and isn't survived by any brothers... because she isn't a virgin and only virgins can marry.
She can't have cosensual sex with an unbehrothed man... because that would shame her father and be a capital crime for both her and the man involved.
She can't ever have children... unless she has them with her rapist.
She can't ever have sex of any sort... unless she has it with her rapist, or maybe one of his brothers should he die.
But here's the real kicker... what happens if her rapist rapes her again?
Nothing... he can legally rape her as often as he wants... she's his property.
Not quite!!! He was spared, only to ensure that the woman has given material care. But, the dowry's already been paid. And, since the Lord stated explicitly that Israel was not to deal treacherously with their wives, guess what punishment is left for the rapist (now twice convicted).......
DEATH for adultery.
DEATH for fornication.
DEATH for gays.
SEX SLAVERY (or lives of loveless misery) for rape victims.
...but moneray fines and ownership of their victim for child rapists. WTF?
Anyone who defends this bullshit is clinically insane.
The Luke
The only BS here is this rock-headed scenario you just painted. The laws of marriage apply to ADULT WOMEN (or at least, women of proper marrying age). Any rape of an underage girl would result in but ONE punishment for the assailant, DEATH!!!
Once again, when your initial and utterly ridiculous claims get taken apart, you resort to concocting some gibberish that's even more assinine, in a futile attempt to save face.
