So, as long as she isn’t pledged to another, rape is fine? Great egg on my face there. Only pledged bitches can’t be raped, the rest of them, free willy.
I assume Mal is referring to the verses right before the one you quoted in your OP:
[QUOTE=Deuteronomy 22:23-27 (NIV)]
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
[/QUOTE]
Here, by the way, is the NIV’s translation of the verses you quoted.
[QUOTE=Deuteronomy 22:28-29]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This is in no way an endorsement of rape. Rather, it spells out what the penalty for rape is. Keep in mind that this is in the context of a society in which a women virtually had to be married in order to survive. A woman without a husband, and who was “damaged goods” so that she had little hope of getting a husband, was at a serious disadvantage, not having anyone to protect and provide for her. The point of this law, as I understand it, is to see to it that a woman who was raped will be provided for and not have her life ruined (“ruined” = no chance of being married).
Of course, the part that seems barbaric to our modern sensibilities, even so, is having a woman marry the man who raped her.
I am a card-carrying atheist*.
The biblical text you refer to does not say that it’s okay to rape. It says “if we catch you, we gonna fine you and make you take care of her forever.” This condones rape precisely as much as saying “the penalty for being convicted of murder is death” condones murder.
So, you whiffed this one. If you want to show that God/Jesus likes rape, look for cases of “good” people in the bible raping each other or offering their daughters to be raped by mobs (as an alternative to having their houseguests raped by mobs) and not being punished or criticized for it - stuff like that. This legal thing you found is a no-go.
And you really should calm down.
- None of the cards have to do with me being an atheist, but I do carry cards.
Hey, you accused me of making shit up, it took me something under a minute of research to prove I wasn’t. Wiggle away, dude.
I am, and now I get to see “I love Jesus (the rapist)” every time I come into GD. Super.
In the context in which this referenced law was written, rape was considered an offense against the father of a virgin victim, or the husband of a married victim; it was theft of their property and a violation of their right to control said property’s sexual behavior. Also, the OT God is, well, evil.
With religion, I assume nothing. Nor should you.
So, your understanding is that rape is bad, but if you rape someone, you should provide for her? How noble. I’m sure she’d be grateful to have her (you) rapist provide for her and marry her. How lucky she is.
Or, as already stated, it was considered to ruin the woman for life by killing her chances of getting herself a good husband. And AIUI fifty shekels of silver ain’t to be found by digging under the sofa cushions, either.
So, the price (or the difficulty in getting it) makes it okay?
I think most of us in this thread are still baffled as to where you’re getting this “makes it okay” from.
Just parse it as the OP claiming that Jesus is his therapist. 
By that, do you mean rapist?
“the rapist” = “therapist”
“hit here” = “hi there”
“manslaughter” = “man’s laughter”
Get it?
I am fully convinced.
Also, you get a brownie point for being halfway witty. =P
Did you just call me a half-wit?
Never to your face.
When examining the laws, beliefs, and behaviors of people who lived in the past you’ve really got to put them within the proper cultural context if you want to understand them. Within the context of the society they lived in I can understand some of the laws found in the Old Testament. It doesn’t mean I agree with it, it doesn’t mean I approve of it, nor does it mean it’s something I’d like to see implemented today. It just means that I can see why they had such laws. It’s pretty clear that the Bible doesn’t approve of rape, though, admittedly, it it is bizarre to us to have the rapist marry his victim as part of his punishment.
Ashman, you seem incredibly hostile towards those who disagree with you and I don’t really understand why.
Odesio
He’s not hostile to me. He likes me.
Regarding biblical judgements, it occurs to me to ask - did the average Jewish community have “imprisonment” as one of the cards in their judicial deck? I don’t mean “lock him up until we get ‘round’ to trying him”, I mean, “throw him in the poke for 20 years”. Could they even do that?
If not, then it looks like the options are “a fine” and “death”, without a lot between (maybe “chop bits off”). In that case, as even we don’t kill all our rapists, it seems unreasonable to expect them to do more than fine them.
And as for requiring the victim to marry her rapist - does it actually say that? As far as I can see it’s basically requiring that the rapist take care of her needs (since she’s now unmarriagable), but not requiring actual marriage.
Nevermind
So, do you agree that the passages ON THEIR FACE would imply that rape is okay? Or would you say that they are, on their face, neutral?
Well, would you agree that, at its root, rape is something about which to be hostile? Or is rape okay with you in any circumstance?