Rape in the bible:

[belladonic-haze]

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

So, this always makes me fly of the handle.

So what's the Christian point of view on rape I wonder?

Staff edit : note: mod hat here

 

[ChristianCenturion]

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

So, this always makes me fly of the handle.

So what's the Christian point of view on rape I wonder?

Personally, I think the problem comes when people don't understand what they are reading in those passages. It seems to be a common confusion though.

Bottom line, refer to the greatest and the second greatest commandment: Love god, love neighbor.

God made a provision for me if I want sexual relations, so I should honor His provision. Also, a woman would be my neighbor.


Where I suspect people get lost reading the passages you selected is when they take a law that makes a provision of justice and focus AFTER an injustice has been committed and insert their own understanding or view as if the passage was condoning the injustice to begin with.

 

[Garnett]

The rule is ignore the bits of the religion you don't like. If you pretend they aren't there, there is no problem. Unfortunately the religion is barbaric and it's laws are testament to that, as well as god murdering millions of people and animals and the billions of people who are destined to burn forever. It's sort of like devil worship if you go in for these things.

Spot On.

As usual the answer is all smoke and mirrors about "not understanding" to try to get you to miss the selective and dissonant interpretation of the text so that, surprise surprise, we end up at the morality of the individual "following" the religion.

I can't remember who has the following quote in their byline but I think about it a lot:

[SIZE=-1]"You know you have created God in your own image, when you find that your God hates the same people that you do." — Lois Wilson[/SIZE]

Too often religion serves as a vehicle for people to use to reaffirm their prejudices and tell others they need to improve rather than as a set of lesson with which to better oneself.

 

[belladonic-haze]

So, now I am confused even more......

 

[Lithium Hobo]

If you rape someone and then give their fathers 50 pieces of silver and ask for his daughter hand in marriage, you seriously need to stop taking the bible so literally.

 

[belladonic-haze]

I agree... but look on this forum how many Chrsitains take the Bible literally..... I know I don't, but as a rape survivor I do place BIG huge question marks at these kind of passages.... I hope some Christians who take the Bible literally can explain to me how they see it......

 

[Lithium Hobo]

I agree... but look on this forum how many Chrsitains take the Bible literally..... I know I don't, but as a rape survivor I do place BIG huge question marks at these kind of passages.... I hope some Christians who take the Bible literally can explain to me how they see it......

That's because many Christians pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to follow. It's hypacritical when they say take all of the bible to heart as god's word, and then ignore tid bits of it they dont' like.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

How can you not take it literally. Excuse me but isn't your bible the word of your god? And your god is perfect, and his words are perfect. Therefore if your god tells you to do something, you have to do it.

I don't know about you but I would be more concerned with god's laws than a countries laws. You should now stone me to death for blaspheming.

 

[Cerberus~]

The primary deal with those verses in that they are the OT, Christians will give their ine about how Jesus came to fulfill the law, and then all that stopped.

But that doesn't negate that at one point in time, if you believe the Bible, that God was fine with those conditions and punishments.

Thought truth is, most Christians don't even know about that passage.

Spot On.

If you heard the way he thinks the world works, you might not be so quick to agree with him.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I agree... but look on this forum how many Chrsitains take the Bible literally..... I know I don't, but as a rape survivor I do place BIG huge question marks at these kind of passages.... I hope some Christians who take the Bible literally can explain to me how they see it......

That's probably why it is a good reason to start up a thread with a question like this in the CO section.

As it is, you have one Christian that offered a brief explanation that fits and doesn't conflict with other scripture and you have others that are non-christian offering no explanation as to how it fits within the whole of Christian teaching, but instead voice reflections of their distain that don't even address the topic at hand.

Were you looking for a Christian answer or was popular opinion regardless of how much ignorance was present acceptable? If the first, I would go to an apple tree if I wanted an apple.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

It is completely irellevant how anyone can interpret it to make it seem acceptable. If I were to believe in christianity I would not look to mere men for guidance, I would read god's word.

God's word is that a victim of rape who does not shout must be stoned to death. Therefore a true christian should seek to implement this law, and the other laws.

Iran is a true muslim country.

 

[Silent Bob]

Iran is a true muslim country.

And I am willing to bet my head there are people in Iran who think their country is sold out and too soft.

 

[hithesh]

I agree... but look on this forum how many Chrsitains take the Bible literally..... I know I don't, but as a rape survivor I do place BIG huge question marks at these kind of passages.... I hope some Christians who take the Bible literally can explain to me how they see it......

Human beings at a certain point in time cannot understand everything. Evolution tells us that we start off only concerned of self, and then we evolve to be concerned about others. And in every evolution of our behavior, we are only capable of understanding and accepting certain things, so if the culture at the time condones an act that we would now find appaling, then they write that God sanctions these acts.

After all the word of god is not written by his perfect hands, but by the flawed hands of man, who are inspired by a god they cannot fully understand, until christ arrived and showed us who he truly is.

Individuals who feel inspired by god to write the books, can only draw a certain direction at a certain time (evolving from self, to tribe, to all), and through out the bible the direction gets fine tuned, and then we have Christ who shows us the true and final way.

When you take the bible literally, you find yourself digging a deep hole. We should be trying to understand why things in the bible are there in the begining, that are no longer there in the end.

Christians who believe in literal belief, don't really take the bible literally, but they say they do, because they are afraid of people stripping the entire book, and leaving them with nothing to believe. While I believe a lot of portions of the bible can be stripped away, the truth in christ's message, cannot. And aren't his words, the only one's that matter? Could I not just be a christians by believing in the Christ of the gospels? Loving him and holding him dear to me, do i not have faith?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

So hitheth, you deduce that these laws are immoral and propose a reason why they are in your holy book.

Then conclude that because the holy book is infact not perfect, a believer in christianty need not take any (or at the very least much) notice of the book.

So then if you shouldn't, as a believer in christianty take notice of what is in your holy book, there is infact no basis from which to understand the religion.

The religion infact, becomes obsolete.

 

[Smileyill]

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

So, this always makes me fly of the handle.

So what's the Christian point of view on rape I wonder?

First, the Christian POV is that is wrong, always has been always will be.

You omitted verses.

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case."

Dt 22:25-6

Please don't twist scripture again.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Smileyill your quote doesn't address the issue. I'll try and interpret it myself, it being the word of god and me wanting to know what god has to say.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed

If a male human meets a female human who is married...

and has relations with her

And has sex with her...

you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death

You will execute them both by stoning them to death...

the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city

Because, for the girl: She did not cry out for help during the act...

and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Because, for the man: He had sex with a married woman.

so is this case

As it must be.

So, I have interpreted that law from your god to mean: If adultery takes place in the city, and the woman does not cry out for help, the man and woman must be stoned to death.

 

[Smileyill]

That's not rape. That's sex outside marriage. If it occurs when neither are married, they must marry. If one is married, they both die.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

I just interpreted the text as I saw it, it said nothing of rape. It said relations, not forced relations. From this text we deduce that the crime is a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband, not rape.

Which leads to why it would be important where it takes place. Why the punishment is different in the city to the field. Possibly because whoever wrote the book thought 'if we make this crime punishable by death if it takes place in the city, those in the city will not act this way.'

Am I right in thinking the romans invented christianity to control the behaviour of their population, as they governed a huge kingdom?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Which leads to why exactly the roman empire was the holy roman empire? After all they executed the son of god.

 

[Smileyill]

I just interpreted the text as I saw it, it said nothing of rape. It said relations, not forced relations. From this text we deduce that the crime is a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband, not rape.

Which leads to why it would be important where it takes place. Why the punishment is different in the city to the field. Possibly because whoever wrote the book thought 'if we make this crime punishable by death if it takes place in the city, those in the city will not act this way.'

Am I right in thinking the romans invented christianity to control the behaviour of their population, as they governed a huge kingdom?

It's different in the field because nobody can hear the woman's cry. In the ciry they could.

Note that after Christ, the law was removed and grace instituted. Just as God dealt with man differently before the Flood, before Sin and before the Law, he now deals with us differently. He does not change, his methods do.

The last portion is off-topic.