@DirkPretorius said in #35:
> However, on closer explanation and deeper study it is much more moral than what he makes it out to be. And this is also probably made to seem even more harsh due to the fact that today many are engaging in sexual promiscuity and thinking nothing of it (not recgnizing it as perversion as it is)...
I wonder what is so moral about killing a rape victim or selling her to the rapist. You do realize that you are advocating a view which regards women not as people with their own will and with their own sexual autonomy but as "things" that can be dealt between men just as they see fit?
> The law was that if she resisted rape she would be given justice and the man would be stoned, adultery was also punishable by death in the Old Testament so if she willingly gave herself to the rapist she and the rapist would be guilty...
The rapist's offence according to the Mosaic law is not the attack on a woman and her bodily and sexual autonomy, it is taking away her virginity and thus "destroying" a man's property, be it the father or be it the man she had been promised to. This becomes very clear from the first law that I quoted from Deuteronomy 22:28. The rapist is not punished for his offence, he just has to pay money to the victim's father and then gets the victim into his hand as if the rape wasn't enough.
> God is not fooled and neither would the elders of the time have been stupid, just as in a modern court, I am sure they would have heard the case and just as a modern judge makes judgements based on his assesment of the various factors they would have probably judged...
That's just your claim for which you don't offer any evidence. The law itself is pretty clear and leaves no room to wiggle. Was the rape committed in a city and did she yell for help when she was raped? No? Then she is to be stoned to death.
And btw, even if this was not a rape but a consensual act: Women are not the property of men. If she had sex with someone despite having been promised to another man then this is her own decision and in no way punishable by any penalty, let alone stoning to death. That might not have gotten through to your medieval world view but even women are free beings with the same rights as men.
> Furthermore, virginity was highly prized in Israel (unlike today-which is more evidence of our ungodliness) so therefore culturally at that time it would many times have been beneficial for the maiden to be bethrothed to the man and her honor would be upheld(virginity, having a husband, and being able to produce children gave woman status in that society) and dowry would have to be paid.
If you agree with women being their own persons with their own will and the right to pick their partner as they like then this is all irrelevant. These laws are from a barbaric past and they most probably have been made by a barbaric society in which men owned women.
If they were made by your loving god (haha!) this would be even worse. Because then your loving god is a god of violence and a god of misogyny who gives a f*** about human rights.
> Furthermore by your accusation you allow me opportunity to further show the love and goodness of God. Although, the Mosaic law upped the level of righteousness to levels that were unheard of in the Ancient Near East (I have studied ancient cultures at univeristy) when Jesus came He upped the level of righteousness and love to a level that is still blowing peoples minds today!
That's just laughable. The Mosaic Law consists of a lot of laws that are inhuman and barbaric. Those two laws that I quoted are only the tip of the iceberg. The Bible endorses slavery (Exodus 21), it endorses killing your own children when they are not obedient (Deuteronomy 21), it endorses the killing of gay people (Leviticus 20) and it btw detests the freedom of religion (Exodus 34 and others) that you claimed for yourself in your very first post.
If I would go into a normal church in Germany they are preaching a very softened version of Christianity with which I have no problem. But what you are preaching here is the ugly and barbaric religion of the past that you clearly view as preferable to modern autonomy of people (and especially women). Which makes your blabberings about "God's love" insincere and empty gibberish.
