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 the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version)
---
Why does the laws of God not call for punishment of the man?
2007-06-22 02:52:07 · 13 answers · asked by ? 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Cricket tells you about in the city but what she leaves out is if no one claims to hear the victim scream then it is considered consensual and not being married her and the man are to both be stoned.
Ever been followed down a deserted street?
Nice loving godly rules huh?
2007-06-22 04:09:08 · answer #1 · answered by Aria 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Why does the laws of God not call for punishment of the man?"
You have to understand the social context of that passage. Back in those days it was assumed that if a man had sex with a young women to whom he was not married then he must have forced himself upon her since "a respectable young virgin would never have sex before marriage by her own free will".
So it isn't like a man hid in a park at night and came out from the bushes with a knife and knocked down some unsuspecting woman and raped her and ran off but later got caught. It's more like if two high schoolers went on a date and they had sex in the car and someone caught them "rapes her and they are discovered". Maybe it was consenting. Or maybe the man pressured the woman and in today's verbiage it could be classified as "date rape".
2007-06-22 02:59:38 · answer #2 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're missing the point. Your bible doesn't say a man *can* rape a woman then buy her from her father, it says he *must.* No jail, no shunning, no whipping -- a small fine and you get to keep the woman, that's the punishment for rape. It makes sense when you realize that "take a wife" literally means TAKE (as in rape, with no regard to what the woman wants). By the way, from a "bible activities" christian web site: "You can use US Kennedy 50¢ coins to help the children visualize the weight of a shekel. The weight of twenty 50¢ coins is about equal to the weight of 20 shekels. Use ten 50¢ coins to represent the weight of ten shekels." So that's 50 50-cent coins for 50 shekels, or $25.00 in Kennedy 50-cent coins. Or at $20 per Troy ounce, that's about $200 or so. Still pretty cheap a penalty for rape. Peace.
2016-05-17 09:28:54 · answer #3 · answered by vicky 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, that would only be if it was in a city, and she didn't protest. If the woman being raped cried out, there would be people there INSTANTLY, so there would be no excuse for her to not protest. It was a lot different then; they didn't have easy access to knives, even, as far as weapons go. And if a man was using a weapon to threaten a women into silence, he probably would have been put to death if he was caught.
Basically, that whole passage is about protecting the women from being raped, and about protecting the men from false accusations. They had to have SOME kind of standard to decide what a false accusation was.
Read the whole chapter. It's easy to understand.
2007-06-22 03:01:14 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does/ In the Jewish culture the man worked and the man supported women in his life financially. If a man rapes a woman then the woman’s chance of getting another husband dropped to insignificance. 50 shekels of silver was a rather large sum for those times and then he had to financially support her for the rest of her/his life. God would punish the perpetrator but His first priority is for the victim.
2007-06-22 02:59:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is in thinking of this as 'the laws of God' as though they dropped down from the sky. This is ancient Israel's law code. Anyone reading it today can see how much it resembles the laws of other peoples in the same time period. We can appreciate the places where the Israelites had remarkable insights (e.g. the emphasis on social justice and defending the poor and oppressed). But it makes more sense to view these laws, and the Bible as a whole, as a human RESPONSE to God, rather than as God speaking. Taking the latter approach not only denies human authorship (which makes no sense), but makes the texts much harder to interpret and apply.
2007-06-22 02:58:09 · answer #6 · answered by jamesfrankmcgrath 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not doubting the existance of God, but there is no doubt that the Bible was written by human beings a long time ago. They are flaws in the Bible's writing because of the writers' biases. The Bible is merely a guideline people should base their lives off of. It should never be interpreted literally however.
2007-06-22 03:00:48 · answer #7 · answered by billybutsky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's more concerned with the loss of value to her father who would have recieved money for his property, after all judaeo christian reliogions long regarded women as chattels rather than people, some offshoots still do, I would name them but I'm scared of the resultant fattwah! Honest guv!
2007-06-22 02:58:06 · answer #8 · answered by Aine G 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In that time, that was punishment because he had to live with his shame and see her face every day for the rest of his life, knowing that he violated what was not his to begin with.
2007-06-22 02:57:04 · answer #9 · answered by capitalctu 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Different time. Different place. Different culture. That is why Jesus and Paul rejected the law in favor of faith and the golden rule.
2007-06-22 02:54:50 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋