The passages say “if we catch you, we gonna fine you, and keep making you support the poor woman forever”. Does that sound like supporting it to you?
Yes and No, respecively; the quoted bible passages seem to agree too.
I think this OP rests on a misunderstanding of sexuality in ancient times. Things like rape just didn’t occur to them. This site works because of all of the blind spots in human sexuality that they had, or that they were too embarrassed to talk about in plain terms, and hence it didn’t make it into the book.
But not making it into the Bible doesn’t actually mean something is allowed nor suggested, just that God forgot to mention it.
As my great-grandmother used to say at times like this, bullshit. The Israelites are specifically told they may force captive women to marry them so long as they have not yet known a man. How is that not rape?
Next you’ll be arguing that it wasn’t murder when they massacred the peoples of Ai, Jericho, & so on down to the babies born yesterday. Except of course for the hot virgin chicks.
Incidentally, dear OP, please don’t think I came into this thread to argue with you. NinetyWt asked an intelligent question and I answered; that’s all. If you wish to carry on ranting and raving in your belief that you’ve discovered a great truth, that’s up to you.
No. Locking people up in a similar manner to what we do today would have put such a strain on their resources that it just wasn’t practical. So most societies in that era would have punishments that included public humiliation, corporal punishment, being sold into slavery, banishment, and, of course, the ever popular death penalty.
It says he can’t divorce her which kind of implies marriage to me. Also, you could have more than one wife back then.
Odesio
I would not say that on their face it implies that rape is perfectly ok.
I’m going to take an extremely controversial stand but I don’t care what others here think of me. Rape is wrong in any context. You, however, are not being hostile towards rape or rapist you’re being hostile towards people who disagree with you.
Odesio
So, if they don’t catch you, then what? And please, stop fucking avoiding questions. Just have the integrity to answer one fucking question from the goddamned text of the bible. Or is “being caught” the biblical morality?
So, I catch you raping someone, what then? Are you to be punished? You get to marry her?
Now shut the fuck up unless you can answer the question asked. Thanks in advance for your parsing of the words “if caught”. Stick to the question.
You say yes and no. What part of that passage implies that rape is wrong to you? Can you point to any other crime in all American jurisprudence that says once you victimize someone, you can make them serve you via marriage or even friendship? Or something? I’m open to any passage that makes it okay and whatnot.
Because it’s a mercy clause for some small fraction of a conquered people, and they get the same share of the husband’s estate as any other wife, I guess. Perhaps you should compare it with what might have been a commoner custom at the time: shtupp her and leave her in the ashes of her house next to the broken head of her grandfather, and it’s up to her if she lives or dies.
What specifically did I say that was bullshit?
Odesio
I’m sorry, what part of that site supersedes the bible? Please cite for me a passage in it that says it purports to supplant God’s Holy Word that rape is okay.
What part of it, would you suggest, isn’t rape?
So, wartime capture makes consent a given?
For all you’ve managed to say, you have failed in a 100% complete fashion to answer the question asked. I’ll thank you, in the same what that (Liberal demands and that Tom enforces with force of banning) to constrain your comments to the actually topic. Do you agree or deny that the bible verses I posted support or discourage rape?
Sorry, please save your self righteous rhetoric to the OP.
As great as your sidestepping the question is, this wasn’t something raised by such a person. If you can’t confine your comments to the OP, you aren’t welcome here.
Thank you in advance for being sufficiently reasonable to restrict yourself to the actual OP.
The fact that it requires the rapist to pay a fine and marry and support the woman he raped.
Raping and enslaving women captured in war wasn’t exactly unknown in the ancient world. Indeed, it was more or less what everyone did who was successful in war.
What the law codes in the Bible attempted to do in such cases was to put some sort of limits on these behaviours, rather than outright condemning them. Yes, you may massacre in war, but only in those specific cases where God tells you to. Yes, you may rape and enslave in war, but you have to provide for the women afterwards.
Is it “good” by our standards? Well, obviously not. But it was in the context of a time in which brutality was pretty well par for the course.
Condemning the drafters of these laws for not proposing moral rules suitable for a liberal democracy is somewhat similar to people in a future in which war is outlawed condemning the drafters of the Geneva Convention for condoning war.
Take for example slavery. The OT has lots of rules regarding slavery - mostly intended to limit its harshness. No doubt this condones slavery, but consider that just about every ancient society had slavery - how many had a code similar to that in the Bible?
Indeed, polygamy might be an implication to this problem. But please confine yourself to the actually OP: is rape condoned by the bible, or not?
You are talking about their bloody legal system. Like all legal systems, “If caught” is the omnipresent and universal qualifier. You want to know what happens to people that don’t get caught and tried by human law? Don’t ask me. But you’d certainly have to look elsewhere than in their legal code.
This isn’t about the moral code. This is about the legal code. There’s a difference!
As for the punishment, were you sleeping when they levied the fine and shackled the man to the woman forever? If he’d wanted to marry her, he wouldn’t have raped her - he’d have married her. The marriage is part of is punisment, not to mention that hefty fine!
Now, it has been noted that by modern sensibilities it’s rather dodgy-seeming to make the rapee marry her rapist. But then, by modern sensibilities we don’t think of women as property, either. This legal code rather pragmatically forces the rapist to make amends for the damage he has caused to the father of the victim and the victim herself, by paying the punitive fee to the father (in leu of the bride price?), and by forcing the rapist to man up to the fact that he just made the woman unmarriagable by everyone else. This is, as noted, the earthly legal system at play here - they would not write “and the rapist will go to hell forever” here, because that’s not going to be part of the legal code!
And don’t accuse me of not sticking to the question - if you ignore the fact that this is a societal legal code, then you are ignoring the question!
(And here I thought you weren’t hostile to me - I guess that you actually “we rent ho’s tile tome”, instead. 
)
Wha? 
You either didn’t read or had no understanding what I said.
Thank you for being so polite, but I’ll comport myself in accordance with the usual customs of this forum, in which many a thread gets sidetracked with relevant but tangential discussions, often between parties who are nearly as smart as the OP of such threads wishes he was. Since many a good discussion has thereby originated out of a fatuous OP, you have to admit it’s a worthwhile custom.
Direct your attention to the OP. Thanks in advance for not starting your own thread.
Should you want to, you may do so; however, you may not do so in my thread.