Please turn you bible to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

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.


And to Deuteronomy 22:23-24

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.


If the Ten Commandments are still binding today,  is there any reason why these two injunction on rape are not? I bet most Christian would find this suggestion so horrific, they would just ignore this thread, as is their wont when their reprehensible belief system is put under the microscope.

huxley:

Please turn you bible to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

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.


And to Deuteronomy 22:23-24

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.


If the Ten Commandments are still binding today, is there any reason why these two injunction on rape are not?

The romans came invented Jesus and changed everything. even moderate moslems can not follow some of the laws in the koran in this modern era, unfotunately for the muslims the chinese did not come and hjack their Allah and make him softer and more inclusive the way the romans did to the jewish God.

Well this is a case of marrying a rapist but because the lady might fall or fallen in love with him but he happened to be a rapist.

N as 4d Bible, that was in the old testament, Pls look for more verses in the old testamnet like when there was nothing n God came to create the world, r u ignoring those? They r in the old testamnet too.

Monicaa:

Well this is a case of marrying a rapist but because the lady might fall or fallen in love with him but he happened to be a rapist.

N as 4d Bible, that was in the old testament, please look for more verses in the old testamnet like when there was nothing n God came to create the world, r u ignoring those? They r in the old testamnet too.

You seem to be missing the point. The Christian claim that their god is an omnibenevolent, loving and compassionate being. If so why are his laws so barbaric and inhumane?

If you had a daughter who was raped. Would you receive money from the rapist and "allow" her to marry her rapist? If not, why not?

@huxley
I really do not like getting into arguments based on opinions and hypothetical theories. But I will post a response. The book of Deuteronomy is a group of 3 addresses delivered by Moses to Israel.

The one you mentioned relates to regulations for sexual behaviour which is understandable for millions of people making a 40 year journey to the promised land. Peharps these laws were suitable for that time I don't know but, in my opinion, those laws were established to protect the Isrealites for the situation they were in.

bindex:

The romans came invented Jesus and changed everything. even moderate moslems can not follow some of the laws in the koran in this modern era, unfotunately for the muslims the chinese did not come and hjack their Allah and make him softer and more inclusive the way the romans did to the jewish God.

Aah; that's to overlook the stringent conditions for conviction in Islam. The critical evidence is this: the actual penetration must be witnessed by 4 witnesses, and not just any witnesses, 4 men. tough, ain't it? Not sure the Hebrew God would pay that much attention to evidentiary detail
.

Mariory:

The one you mentioned relates to regulations for sexual behaviour which is understandable for millions of people making a 40 year journey to the promised land. Peharps these laws were suitable for that time I don't know but, in my opinion, those laws were established to protect the Isrealites for the situation they were in.

Tough. then defining the limits of "city" for a nomadic people on a long journey would've been a tad tough, wouldn't it? These laws are difficult to understand under any circumstances: settled peoples, or journeying masses. What'll be interesting is to compute the value of 50 silver pieces today; no question, this wouldn't be an option today; the rapist gets to marry the girl.

Seriously now, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 stems from the 'female as property' theme. This offers a clearer road to understanding these rules.
.

Nimshi:

Tough. then defining the limits of "city" for a nomadic people on a long journey would've been a tad tough, wouldn't it? These laws are difficult to understand under any circumstances: settled peoples, or journeying masses. What'll be interesting is to compute the value of 50 silver pieces today; no question, this wouldn't be an option today; the rapist gets to marry the girl.

Seriously now, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 stems from the 'female as property' theme. This offers a clearer road to understanding these rules.
.

Indeed however, it is also hard to understand many of the laws that existed those centuries back. Slavery for example. In hindsight, I we could dismiss many of those laws as babaric.

I would like to think that today, it would be the victim's choice weather she marries the rapist or not.

Well this is a case of marrying a rapist but because the lady might fall or fallen in love with him but he happened to be a rapist.

Yeah. That would be the explanation.
Rape victims fall in love with their attackers all the time.

I've heard justifications for the tyrannical God of the OT many times from religious freaks but that one has to rank amongst the most stupid.

What a load of utter crap.

Mariory:

@huxley
I really do not like getting into arguments based on opinions and hypothetical theories. But I will post a response. The book of Deuteronomy is a group of 3 addresses delivered by Moses to Israel.

The one you mentioned relates to regulations for sexual behaviour which is understandable for millions of people making a 40 year journey to the promised land. Peharps these laws were suitable for that time I don't know but, in my opinion, those laws were established to protect the Isrealites for the situation they were in.

Promised land or stolen land? why must an all powerful God lead people on a 40 years journey to a promised land that was already inhabited by other people? Why did'nt he create a land of milk and honey for his "chosen" people? Load of bull I say.

Promised land or stolen land? why must an all powerful God lead people on a 40 years journey to a promised land that was already inhabited by other people?

You can only base that statement on Biblical and data and in that case, the land belonged to the Hebrews.
They had left it temporarily when they were enslaved in Egypt.

Historical data shows a different story though, with the ex-Hyksos semites from Egypt (the proto-Hebrews) slowly integrating with and assimiliating the Canaanite inhabitants once the Egyptians had kicked them out. There is no concrete evidence of a war-mongering tribe of Israel wandering around the Holy Land conquering everyone in the name of their god. Evidence shows that back then, they probably weren't even monotheistic.

When the Bible was compiled during the Babylonian exile, it was written to make it look like the Jews were a powerful force who had conquered all of their enemies. The probability is that this was mere fabrication made to give justification for their new god and cement their ownership of the land.

Bastage:

You can only base that statement on Biblical and data and in that case, the land belonged to the Hebrews.
They had left it temporarily when they were enslaved in Egypt.

Historical data shows a different story though, with the ex-Hyksos semites from Egypt (the proto-Hebrews) slowly integrating with and assimiliating the Canaanite inhabitants once the Egyptians had kicked them out. There is no concrete evidence of a war-mongering tribe of Israel wandering around the Holy Land conquering everyone in the name of their god. Evidence shows that back then, they probably weren't even monotheistic.

When the Bible was compiled during the Babylonian exile, it was written to make it look like the Jews were a powerful force who had conquered all of their enemies. The probability is that this was mere fabrication made to give justification for their new god and cement their ownership of the land.

This has been my personal thoughts all along.

The so called 'rape' as presented by the poster cannot be honestly viewed as rape.

Deutronomy 22:28-29(KJV)
(28) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and[b] lay hold on her, and lie with her[/b], and they be found;
(29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Deutronomy 22:28-29(CEV)
(28) Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,
(29) they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.


Deu 22:23-24(KJV)
(23) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
(24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:23-24(CEV)
(23) If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn't screaming for help, they both must be put to death. The man is guilty of having sex with a married woman. And the woman is guilty because she didn't call for help, even though she was inside a town and people were nearby. Take them both to the town gate and stone them to death. You must get rid of the evil they brought into your community.
(24) (SEE 22:23)


One can see from the verses shown in different versions(KJV and CEV)that the sexual relations involved were consentual;there was consent from the female,so it cannot be branded as rape.

As regards verses 23-24,the woman is very guilty because she was engaged to be married to another man and then decided to have sexual relations with another;hence her punishment.
As regards verses 28-29,it's just a situation of two unmarried and unengaged people having sex which was against the law,hence the forced marriage.

Again,those laws put forward by the verses in question are not part of the ten commandments but among all the other laws.

Those laws were all inclusive under the old testament/covenant,but are not binding under the new testament/covenant.

Hi huxley.just wanted to chip in something.I'm not interested squabbling. You didn't present your question from an unbiased view now,why?It's either you just heard it from somewhere or you saw it and decided to 'copy and paste' the idea.If not I expect you should have read the whole chapter.you believe you're an intellectual.can you propose a better or more rational law?its easy to criticise what others have done,what have you done.
The word of God is practical and It's written as the human manual.anyone who lives according to the manual is safer and happier.Anyone who doesn't is at risk and has no warranty. You're not a female and you didn't live with the culture of the Israelites but can you imagine where you live, of how even a virgin girl dreams of marriage. People are 'desperate' for a relationship,virgin or not, atheist or non atheist.people around you are getting worried if there seems to be no move @age 23+.that's real life,not fantasy. And then,a virgin is not engaged and she's raped.In today's society,how many men will marry a girl if they knew she's being raped?even husbands divorce raped wives or you've not heard.some husbands would rather die than let his wife be raped by ARMED robbers,is that true?are you aware that most men would rather marry a virgin/someone they personally disvirgined than a girl they already know has lost her virginity.Not to talk of a woman who has an unwanted child already,or you think contraceptives were available during Moses' time?if you read the whole chapter 22,you should notice how Jewish men appreciated the virginity of their spouse. If you still maintain a grouse,you'll do well to suggest a better and less barbaric, politically correct law for us to follow.maybe if you looked at the Word with a megascopic view,you would see farther

Image123:

Hi huxley.just wanted to chip in something.I'm not interested squabbling. You didn't present your question from an unbiased view now,why?It's either you just heard it from somewhere or you saw it and decided to 'copy and paste' the idea.If not I expect you should have read the whole chapter.you believe you're an intellectual.can you propose a better or more rational law?its easy to criticise what others have done,what have you done.
The word of God is practical and It's written as the human manual.anyone who lives according to the manual is safer and happier.Anyone who doesn't is at risk and has no warranty. You're not a female and you didn't live with the culture of the Israelites but can you imagine where you live, of how even a virgin girl dreams of marriage. People are 'desperate' for a relationship,virgin or not, atheist or non atheist.people around you are getting worried if there seems to be no move @age 23+.that's real life,not fantasy. And then,a virgin is not engaged and she's raped.In today's society,how many men will marry a girl if they knew she's being raped?even husbands divorce raped wives or you've not heard.some husbands would rather die than let his wife be raped by ARMED robbers,is that true?are you aware that most men would rather marry a virgin/someone they personally disvirgined than a girl they already know has lost her virginity.Not to talk of a woman who has an unwanted child already,or you think contraceptives were available during Moses' time?if you read the whole chapter 22,you should notice how Jewish men appreciated the virginity of their spouse. If you still maintain a grouse,you'll do well to suggest a better and[b] less barbaric[/b], politically correct law for us to follow.maybe if you looked at the Word with a megascopic view,you would see farther

Are you for real? what can be more babaric than this?

And to Deuteronomy 22:23-24

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.

Hebrews 8:1-13(KJV)
(1)  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
(2)  A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
(3)  For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
(4)  For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
(5)  Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13)  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


God does not operate on the old covenant with his people anymore;he operates on the new covenant.

ttalks:

Hebrews 8:1-13(KJV)
(1)  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
(2)  A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
(3)  For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
(4)  For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
(5)  Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(6)  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:(9)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13)  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


God does not operate on the old covenant with his people anymore;he operates on the new covenant.

Please why are people believing in a God that was invented and created by the Jews? It is clearly written for everyone to see The jewish God made a convenant with his chosen people and he clearly stated it, so why are people hyperventilating and killing themselves in Nigeria because of a God that clearly stated who he loves and cares for?(I did'nt see Nigerians as part of the people he  made a covenant with, can some one please show me?) Where did it state that the biblical God made a covenant with mankind? why is the word mankind not used but house of Judah and Isreal? why in the text above did the biblical God not make any convenant with people living in Indai, China, The Americas or people living in other parts of the world?(I wonder if he knows about their existence) Do you know the context and true meaning of the covenant you are talking about? It might not be what you were made to believe. I wonder why people are living their lives and waiting for an Imaginary God that the Jews created to come and save them.

bindex:

Please why are people believing in a God that was invented and created by the Jews? It is clearly written for everyone to see The jewish God made a convenant with his chosen people and he clearly stated it, so why are people hyperventilating and killing themselves in Nigeria because of a God that clearly stated who he loves and cares for?(I did'nt see Nigerians as part of the people he  made a covenant with, can some one please show me?) Where did it state that the biblical God made a covenant with mankind? why is the word mankind not used but house of Judah and Isreal? why in the text above did the biblical God not make any convenant with people living in Indai, China, The Americas or people living in other parts of the world?(I wonder if he knows about their existence) Do you know the context and true meaning of the covenant you are talking about? It might not be what you were made to believe. I wonder why people are living their lives and waiting for an Imaginary God that the Jews created to come and save them.

Ephesians 2:8-22
(8  For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
(9)  and not the result of works, lest anyone boast.
(10)  For we are his masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared long ago to be our way of life.
(11)  So then, remember that at one time you were gentiles by birth and were called "the uncircumcision" by what is called "the circumcision" made in the flesh by hands.
(12)  At that time you were without Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. You had no hope and were in the world without God.
(13)  But now, in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(14)  For it is he who is our peace. In his flesh he made both groups one by tearing down the wall of hostility that divided them.
(15)  He rendered the law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, so that he might create in himself one new humanity from the two, thus making peace,
(16)  and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, on which he killed the hostility.
(17)  He came and proclaimed peace for you who were far away and for you who were near.
(18)  For through him, both of us have access to the Father in one Spirit.
(19)  That is why you are no longer strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household,
(20)  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.
(21)  In him the whole building is joined together and rises into a holy sanctuary in the Lord.
(22)  You, too, are being built in him along with the others into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

ttalks:

Ephesians 2:8-22
(8 For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
(9) and not the result of works, lest anyone boast.
(10) For we are his masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared long ago to be our way of life.
(11) So then, remember that at one time you were gentiles by birth and were called "the uncircumcision" by what is called "the circumcision" made in the flesh by hands.
(12) At that time you were without Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. You had no hope and were in the world without God.
(13) But now, in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(14) For it is he who is our peace. In his flesh he made both groups one by tearing down the wall of hostility that divided them.
(15) He rendered the law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, so that he might create in himself one new humanity from the two, thus making peace,
(16) and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, on which he killed the hostility.
(17) He came and proclaimed peace for you who were far away and for you who were near.
(18) For through him, both of us have access to the Father in one Spirit.
(19) That is why you are no longer strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household,
(20) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.
(21) In him the whole building is joined together and rises into a holy sanctuary in the Lord.
(22) You, too, are being built in him along with the others into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

This happended when the romans which paul is a citizen took over the Jewish God, made him more inclusive and presented him as the saviour of the world.

One can see from the verses shown in different versions(KJV and CEV)that the sexual relations involved were consentual;there was consent from the female,so it cannot be branded as rape.

Or one can look at other different versions and see that "laying hold on" specifically refers to rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Today's New International Version)

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 her father fifty shekels [a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version - UK)

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 (The Message)

28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and rapes her and they are found out, the man who raped her has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver [shekels], and she must become his wife because he violated her. (A) He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

Then you've got the versions that show that it isn't referring to consensual sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Young's Literal Translation)

28`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,
29then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New Century Version)

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and forces her to have sexual relations with him and people find out about it,29 the man must pay the girl's father about one and one-fourth pounds of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has dishonored her, and he may never divorce her for as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Amplified Bible)

28If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found,
29Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not divorce her all his days.

Even taking into account the two versions that you posted, they contain the words "lay hold on". When you "lay hold on" something it is passive and you are reactive. You are "grasping" or "seizing". Therefore, even with those couple of examples it's easy to see that it doesn't refer to consensual sex.

I find this to be a pretty distasteful way of justifying that what is taking place is not rape. Also the other couple of passages you posted.

]Deu 22:23-24(CEV)
(23)  If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn't screaming for help, they both must be put to death.

How many rape victims "scream for help"? The first thing a rapist will do is silence his victim. Even if it refers to screaming after the event, statistics show that a large number of rape victims do not report the crime.
Back then, in an even more male dominated society, it was probably pretty unthinkable for a woman to report the fact that she had been raped.

Bastage:

I find this to be a pretty distasteful way of justifying that what is taking place is not rape. Also the other couple of passages you posted.

How many rape victims "scream for help"? The first thing a rapist will do is silence his victim. Even if it refers to screaming after the event, statistics show that a large number of rape victims do not report the crime.
Back then, in an even more male dominated society, it was probably pretty unthinkable for a woman to report the fact that she had been raped.

Bastage,
how do u know that the first thing a rapist will do is to silence his victim?
Reading the passage very well, the fact that it was mentioned that the female did not scream for help means that she had every opportunity and it was within her power to scream for help,but she chose not to because she wanted to have sex.

Also,u should know that all bible versions might not specifically be right.That aside,the fact that different versions show divergent views on a particular issue implies that u can't take a solid stand on it.U'll notice my initial statement on this issue:

ttalks:

The so called 'rape' as presented by the poster cannot be honestly viewed as rape.

All that aside,rape or no rape,the final conclusion is this:

Such laws do not exist under the new covenant and that is what Christians(true Christians) live by.
That is the issue here.

one thing we should do as Christians is to make sure we study approved versions of the bible.There are some that aren't approved for the proper message of Christ. 

KJV is the commonly approved bible version;although it's english is quite twisted sometimes 
The NKJV could help out there.

Message bible?   

bindex:

This happended when the romans which paul is a citizen took over the Jewish God, made him more inclusive and presented him as the saviour of the world.

You're so lost!!!
Anyway,it isn't an issue for u to believe the bible's accounts.It's already stated there that those who will be saved or granted eternal life have been predestined or ordained by God.

Act 13:48
(48)  When the gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed

Ephesians 1:4-5
(4)  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
(5)  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

If you read or hear the gospel of Christ and do not get convicted by it,chances are :You were not ordained or destined to be saved.

Romans 1:16
(16)  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who believes, of the Jew first and of the Greek as well.

Bastage,
how do u know that the first thing a rapist will do is to silence his victim?

Wouldn't you? Or would you let her scream so that someone would come along and stop you? It's merely logical so don't try going to read crap into it.

And if you're going to rely on the KJV you must realise that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. The word used in that version was "adprehendens" meaning to "seize" or "grasp". I'm not a reader of Hebrew but you can be pretty sure that the even earlier text would also point away to the idea that it's referring to consensual sex.

Such laws do not exist under the new covenant and that is what Christians(true Christians) live by.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you.
But only because I believe that the whole Old Testament should be kept at arms length from Christianity.

ttalks:

You're so lost!!!
Anyway,it isn't an issue for u to believe the bible's accounts.It's already stated there that those who will be saved or granted eternal life have been predestined or ordained by God.

Act 13:48
(48) When the gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed

Ephesians 1:4-5
(5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

If you read or hear the gospel of Christ and do not get convicted by it,chances are :You were not ordained or destined to be saved.

Bastage:

Wouldn't you? Or would you let her scream so that someone would come along and stop you? It's merely logical so don't try going to read crap into it.

And if you're going to rely on the KJV you must realise that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. The word used in that version was "adprehendens" meaning to "seize" or "grasp". I'm not a reader of Hebrew but you can be pretty sure that the even earlier text would also point away to the idea that it's referring to consensual sex.

Words imply different things in different contexts.Check out the context of verse 23 & 24 of the chapter in question. u'll notice that the judgment on the woman depended on her screaming out for help or not.The fact that she didn't scream for help implied she was happy with the situation;that was why she was guilty.If she had screamed,it would have indicated that she was being raped and would have saved her from judgment.
Check out the following verse;25-27:

Deutronomy 22:25-27
(25)  But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
(26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
(27)  For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

These verses show the differences between the two sex situations;the former-consent sex,the latter-rape.

But all in all,we can see that all that isn't the issue,but the fact that those laws play no part in the lives of Christians.

ttalks:

Words imply different things in different contexts.Check out the context of verse 23 & 24 of the chapter in question. u'll notice that the judgment on the woman depended on her screaming out for help or not.The fact that she didn't scream for help implied she was happy with the situation;that was why she was guilty.If she had screamed,it would have indicated that she was being raped and would have saved her from judgment.

This clearly demonstrate how religious-motivated thinking can lead to bad laws and how it necessarily shrivels the minds of thise so infected by religions.

Your argument relies on the fact that consent is established by how loudly the victim of the rape act screams while the act is taking place. Supposing she could not scream for one reason or another. Supposing she was gagged by her attacker? Supposing she screamed as loudly as she could but she was never heard?

ttalks:


Check out the following verse;25-27:

Deutronomy 22:25-27
(25) But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
(26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
(27) For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

These verses show the differences between the two sex situations;the former-consent sex,the latter-rape.

But all in all,we can see that all that isn't the issue,but the fact that those laws play no part in the lives of Christians.

Why don't these laws play a part in the lives of Christians today? Where these laws not established by Jesus (God)? And what does Jesus say in Matt 5: 17 - "Think NOT that I have come to abolish the law . . . "?

huxley:

This clearly demonstrate how religious-motivated thinking can lead to bad laws and how it necessarily shrivels the minds of thise so infected by religions.

Your argument relies on the fact that consent is established by how loudly the victim of the rape act screams while the act is taking place. Supposing she could not scream for one reason or another. Supposing she was gagged by her attacker?  Supposing she screamed as loudly as she could but she was never heard?

You don't get it.The screaming issue is not about how loud or how low.The screaming for help determines whether she is being raped or not.
You asked supposing she screamed and wasn't heard?Did u read verses 25-27?Doesn't that answer that question? 
The bible stated specific situations and not the what ifs u're raising.

huxley:


Why don't these laws play a part in the lives of Christians today?  Where these laws not established by Jesus (God)?  And what does Jesus say in Matt 5:  17 - "Think NOT that I have come to abolish the law . . . "?

You obviously have not read your bible properly to be asking this question.
The complete statement you tried to quote is:

Matthew 5:17-18
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18)  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You can see that the law would not pass but until all be fulfilled.
Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the law,so after his fulfillment, the law passed away.
Jesus's Christ mission on earth was the fulfillment of the law.This fulfillment was complete when he died on the cross.

Compare those verses with these:

Galatians 3:19(KJV)
(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Galatians 3:19(ISV)
(19)  Why, then, was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the descendant came to whom the promise was given. It was put into effect through angels by means of an intermediary.

Galatians 3:19(CEV)
(19)  What is the use of the Law? It was given later to show that we sin. But it was only supposed to last until the coming of that descendant who was given the promise. In fact, angels gave the Law to Moses, and he gave it to the people.

The fact that she didn't scream for help implied she was happy with the situation;that was why she was guilty.If she had screamed,it would have indicated that she was being raped and would have saved her from judgment.

Ridiculous.
So every rape victim who doesn't scream is engaging in consensual sex?

The simple explanation for such passages in the Bible is that it simply reflects the level of civilization of the Jews then. I'm sure several ancient cultures had similar barbaric laws. For instance their were Nigerian tribes that believed in killing one baby if twins were born. They certainly felt that was the wish of their God then. Point is with most religions there is a funny "cart before horse" thing that happens. First off the people need laws that work in society. Life may have been harsh and backward then and thus the people made harsh and barbaric laws. The easiest way to get the people to accept this hard laws was to claim that the laws were "God's word". Consequently we usually see a softening of the laws as the society becomes more civilised. This is a simple and clear reasoning that explains the discrepancies between "God's word" in the old testament and "God's word" in the new testament. Some philosopher said if God did not exist it will be necessary for man to create one, perhaps one can also say if God's word did not exist it would have been necessary to create it.

Bastage:

Ridiculous.
So every rape victim who doesn't scream is engaging in consensual sex?

Based on the way it was put in the bible,the screaming for help indicated she was being raped;not screaming for help indicated that she wasn't being raped,but was in consent.That is the conclusion gotten from the context presented by the chapter and verses.

Different contexts imply different meanings.Don't compare that context with the current and every day rape situations of now.