Alex Vange wrote:
> The verse is about a damsel that is seduced rather than raped. It
> doesn't actually say this but in verse 24 it tells what happens if the
> damsel doesn't cry out.
Nonsense, Du 22:28 refers to rape; the orginal Hebrew term "taphas"
means 'to seize', as in man's seizure of the maiden.
sounds like rape to me.
> This shows that the culture was different thousands
> of years ago and the damsel might not object too much.
are you saying that Jews like to be raped?
> It is also clear
> from the chapter that thousands of years ago men would not marry a damsel
> that was not a virgin. So verse 29 is saying that if a man robs a damsel of
> her virginity he must support her for the rest of her life.
oh, that makes it soooo much beter. And how well would the rapist treat
his new found wife? probably kick 'til she's blcak and blue.
what a 'moral law' from a 'moral god'
> Your side is equally closed minded. You did make a good point that in
> at least this one case there may have been something wrong with the culture
> thousands of years ago. If no man would marry a damsel that was not a
> virgin then the damsel needed to be supported somehow. If that were the
> case today then the guilty man could be forced to pay for the damsel the
> way people pay alimony today rather than living with her.
you are wrong, rapists today don't pay alimony, they go to jail.
>But today the
> damsel could still marry if she wanted to without any problem so the guilty
> man should be put to death as it says in verse 25.
self serving rationalizton. Now the culture is different, so we should
disregrad Deu 22:28. Well we know for a fact that the universe is older
than 6000 years, let's drop Genesis too.
Yang
#28
