Bible rewards rape (was : Astounding Creation Evidences at Winnipeg Creation Conference!!)

Alex Vange vange at i1.net
Sat Mar 20 04:44:54 EST 1999



Alan Sindler <alsind at earthlink.net> wrote in article
<36F1B26E.AA4DB1A at earthlink.net>...
> 
> This debate has gone on in this NG before. Someone points out the obvious
and
> blatant disdain the OT shows for woman, by pointing out the verses that
talk
> about woman having to marry their rapists, or rape victims being
condemned to
> be stoned to death if they didn't scream out, and here's what happens:
> 1) The fundy exclaims: "Show me where it says that, I don't believe it!".

    You should of gave the chapter and verse the first time.

> 2) The person points out the exact verses (as atheists usually know the
bible
> better than most so-called Christians).

    Nonsense

> 3) The fundy says: "Oh, well that was the Old Testament, and we live
under the
> law of the New Testament now, so it doesn't matter....(or)....."Whatever
God
> says is just, because He is God, and who are you to argue?"
> 

     The verse is about a damsel that is seduced rather than raped. It
doesn't actually say this but in verse 24 it tells what happens if the
damsel doesn't cry out. This shows that the culture was different thousands
of years ago and the damsel might not object too much. It is also clear
from the chapter that thousands of years ago men would not marry a damsel
that was not a virgin. So verse 29 is saying that if a man robs a damsel of
her virginity he must support her for the rest of her life.

> So, you can't win with these guys. They'll go through all sorts of
various
> mental gymnastics to try wriggling out of the fact that the bible is
vague,
> inconsistent and contradictory.
> 
> It happens every time.
> 

     Your side is equally closed minded. You did make a good point that in
at least this one case there may have been something wrong with the culture
thousands of years ago. If no man would marry a damsel that was not a
virgin then the damsel needed to be supported somehow. If that were the
case today then the guilty man could be forced to pay for the damsel the
way people pay alimony today rather than living with her. But today the
damsel could still marry if she wanted to without any problem so the guilty
man should be put to death as it says in verse 25.




More information about the Bioforum mailing list