God does not need anybody to protect Him.
But a young virgin girl "might". So, if there is a law that a rapist must pay to marry his victim, this can help encourage family members to take care of their young female virgins.
And . . . "of course" . . . if a guy knows he will be required to pay and marry someone he rapes . . . this might help him think about it.
This is some of the most warped thinking I've seen. Being required to purchase your rape victim does not dissuade rape, it encourages men to rape the young lady they most want. It bases marriage and a woman's entire future on being raped. What woman in their right mind wants to be bought by their rapist??? And what sick and twisted deity would ever proscribe that rape victims can be purchased by their attackers?????
This is how you are dictating that we see it. And we are not your property, for you to decide how we see things
It is wrong to be your own slave and victim, also. People act as their own slaves, dictating over their own selves, instead of personally submitting to God for how He rules them in His peace > "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)
It is even more evil to be raped by worry and depression and a spirit of unforgiveness. And yet, plenty of humans I know keep on giving in to being raped spiritually and emotionally by deeply cruel torments, when in fact Jesus is able to give us "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29; also see 1 John 4:18)
God knew how that "rape" rule would work out. Each person is different; they are not all cattle who will react to the same rule the same way. So, if you dictate that every rape case would be the same . . . you do not know the people . . . each individual . . . of that time and how they would see God giving that rule.
Oftentimes, people look at a rule and right away think of how it can be bad, instead of how it can be used for good. It is meant to prevent rape, not to manage what happens after. And I simply offer that it would not work so a man could take any woman he wanted . . . among other reasons, because families would watch out for their daughters . . . I would "hope".
People could watch out for their daughters so it did not happen . . . since, as you say, it could happen. So, among other things, it could be a multi-tasking rule, to make sure families watched out for their girls. But in cultures of independence, girls can be left at an early age, on their own, so they can be raped by sexual lusts and foolishness which have them cooperating with young guys they are not married to, and raped by insecurity and fear of rejection of peers, and so they cooperate with peers so they may not be raped but still are giving in to immorality in order to stay accepted.
Isn't that rape, too . . . how ones are emotionally forced into immoral activities, including because of peer pressure?
In the United States, in their fear of being slaves to men, there are women . . . in my opinion . . . who have become their own dictators and slaves to their own selves. So, this is wrong, too, and cruel. I see how women on their own can be suffering so deeply. Rightfully, they need to belong to Jesus who will take care of them right > "and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." (2 Corinthians 5:15)
So . . . talking about "good and evil" . . . there is the evil of being one's own master > this can be as bad as and worse than being someone else's slave or property.
About the case in which a man rapes a virgin and then is required to marry her and can not divorce her > I offered >
And with this law is the requirement that the father has authority to decide if he accepts the man.
So, it is an incorrect representation to only say that law requires that a woman be bought by the rapist; because, with this law is the stipulation that the father may refuse to let the man marry the virgin but the man has to pay.
But Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not mention this > but this scripture includes how the man never will be allowed to divorce her.
To this, you answered >
Ladies, if you ever needed proof that you are property to be purchased based on the value of your vagina, the bible will affirm it for you. You're a step above cattle.
They knew better than to see it this way. But where independence is worshiped, ones can feel like they are property when others have power to control them. But by acting like they are their own property, they can get themselves into much worse and deeper than just being controlled by another person.
Young unmarried people were not likely to know what to do with themselves, I would say from seeing how younger people do things now. So, young rapists and victims possibly needed higher guidance, not to be on their own controlling what became of themselves. But this was to be handled in a family culture.
So, I can see God meant for more mature people to handle such a situation, not only to punish a young rapist and leave a victim on her own. There was personal management to be involved, not like how in a culture of independence ones are left pretty much on their own.
Yes. It was meant to say that you're only economically valuable as a virgin, you are property, and if somebody rapes you then your dad's not losing his cash based on your hymen.
If this is how you have been treated, this can be how you would see it . . . from your own experience. In Satan's kingdom, people are constantly abused when under the authority of others; in Satan's kingdom there is slavery to sin and "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2) So, this is how people can see being under someone else's authority.
But if people are with God, we have hope for people who have done wrong things. There is forgiveness and restoration available, and it is possible for people who have wronged someone to change and be reconciled. But in a Satanic society, it is assumed that certain evil people can not change, and that they must be faking if they start acting like they have changed.
And, like I offer, the father had the option of refusing the rapist. A rapist likely would be a young person, since men got married by arrangement of families. If he raped someone, this violated his family's arrangement; his whole family and name would be violated. It was not a law for a culture of independence.
And if a man did that, he could not just take any woman he wanted, because the father had say about if he married his victimized daughter. So, that law did not mean a man could take any wife he wanted. Plus, again, he would be violating the contract of his parents. And this was in a family culture, not like the thing of idolized independence we see now in a number of cultures. So, they would not see this like you might.
So, as far as good and evil is concerned . . . independence can be a very cruel evil, making you your own victim of your own ownership and dictation, with the egotistical weakness of not being able to connect as family with other people in close relationships; and so in ego's independence you can be deeply weak enough to suffer in major emotional torments . . . fearing being controlled, among other things, and seeing people in general terms and dictating what must apply to all people as a group or certain groups. And in such independence you are weak enough to be raped by nasty anger and loneliness and boredom and depression and unhealing hurts with bitterness and frustration > these are worse and more damaging than physical rape, found in the weakness of selfish culture, of everyone being about one's self.
By the way, in America, rape laws have not stopped rape; so . . . please

. . . what are you suggesting would be a good law?
