It appears that God did not take rape too seriously. Question: How do you explain to a non-believer how God sanctions rape in Old Testament times? Answer: First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).
Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored. For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29). Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught. In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he violated his neighbor's wife and the victim because she did not cry for help (Deuteronomy 22:23-25). Again the assumption is that the rapist dispoiled the property of another man and so must pay with this life. Concern for the welfare of the victim does not seem to matter. Moreover, it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape. On the other hand, according to the Bible, the situation is completely different if the rape occurs in "open country." Here the rapist should be killed, not the victim. The reason given is that if a woman cried for help in open country, she would not be heard. Consequently, she could not be blamed for allowing the rape to occur. --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > Depends on the circumstances and consequences. In fact women have a very high tolerance to recover from abuse by men. Since they are the weaker sex it has happened very often throughout history so women have genetic mechanisms to accept and even thrive under male dominance. They probably do so better than men since men are genetically engineered to compete and suffer greatly when they are abused sexually or other ways. They tend to fight or sink into deep defeat while women in general tend to be able to adjust better. The Sabine women and many others apparently eventually accepted their rapists as good husbands and fathers of their children. In any case everyone of us probably wouldn't have ever been born if there hadn't been one or more successful rapes in their ancestry. Shouldn't we then accept and even thank those rapists who gave us life? Things are never as simple as ideology says they are.... Edgar On Feb 23, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Maria Lopez wrote: Audrey: I'm afraid that only women can truly understand the harm left behind of a rapist. as in this forum it look like that most of participants are male the insight and solidarity of a woman is most valuable. I don't think that male really are aware of the destructive psycological impact rape may have in a woman. Thank you for your support here towards all the women in the world who were and are raped. Mayka
