From what I gather these are supposed to be, at least nominally, the laws of Israel.>be aggressive evil man>see woman you find very attractive >rape her>your punishment is that now you have to marry her and fuck her every night Can someone explain this?
>>18530025Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is sometimes translated as rape, but interpretations vary. One way or another, if you had sex with a random woman, you now had to take care of her completely; clothe her, feed her, protect her, give her a place to stay... and she could legally leave you if you didn't provide this too. It was obviously not psychologically comfortable for the woman, but once you consider the alternatives available to them, it's pretty sensible. We mostly fail to establish breach of consent even in today's hyper-surveilled culture. Ancient Hebrew trials would likely convict no-one or everyone depending on where the burden would lie, which means either>guy gets killed/castrated/whatever every time, woman is left with nothing but trauma>guy walks free every time, woman is left with nothing but traumaIn this context, creating a married couple with traumatic history but everyone taken care of seems like the better option.
>>18530025>womanThe proper understanding is child. Only christfag apologists deny this because they are ashamed of their deity.>Can someone explain this?Yes, the Father now has a spoiled product (the innocent kid) that nobody wants to buy anymore because she is no longer a virgin. So the rapist who is forced to buy the product instead with a high price as a punishment. This isn't about justice for anyone else other than the owner of said product.
>>18530037It's rape if you look at the context and the earliest translations, this is why even the vulgate uses the same word for all the "sex" laws described there in the surrounding verses. Including 25 which is clearly about rape of a betrothed female>depending on where the burden would lieThe biblical standard is guilty until proven innocent. "Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town". So unless they save a bloody cloth for this future occurrence then she's done for.
>>18530025Woman represent the senses.Men represent the mental framework.If you love a specific sensation, you must take care of it with your mental framework. Do not chase pleasures with your mind, or you will become married to them. Seek virtue, not vice.
>>18530236Even a condom wouldn't stretch this much.
>>18530240We have trouble with this issue still today. Who do we trust in accusations of rape? The man or the woman? Many lives are ruined due to slander. How do we even know the woman was raped at all? Either way, there is no longer man nor woman, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Evidence has moved beyond blood.
>>18530234>>depending on where the burden would lie>The biblical standard is guilty until proven innocent.Huh? The Bible in some cases outright states that less than X witnesses is inconclusive for a claim.
>>18530312You should read the bible more often, this is also in Deuteronomy 22. Notice how the husband made the claim and how the woman and her family have to prove her innocence? If there's no bloody cloth to be found she's stoned to death. Simply because he dislikes her lmao.>heh she deserves for not being a virginthe hymen can tear from ordinary activities
>>18530318You should read my post more closely because you didn't contradict it.
>>18530329That's because what you said does not contradict what I have demonstrated. Yeah there are "some" cases but this isn't one of them. Here guilty until proven innocent is the law
>>18530339My nigga, you made a general statement about the Biblical treatment of presumption of innocence based on a case where it's extremely arguable who actuall has the positive claim (is virgin vs did have sex). If that wasn't shaky enough, I pointed out that there are other laws which not only presume innocence, but set a burden at multiple witnesses.Do you have anything else to defend >>18530234 with?
>>18530345>it's extremely arguable who actuall has the positive claim (is virgin vs did have sex)What are you talking about? This doesn't address the issue at all, but is seems like you're conceding now that this is a case where it is guilty until proven innocent. You're just coping with the fact that in other places where you need more than 1 witness which is irrelevant. Also you do realize that in this specific case only 1 witness is required to condemn someone, right? It's the husband alone who has that power. If he dislikes the virginal wife he can rape her and burn the sheets. Then the family will no longer have any evidence of her innocence and his singular testimony will lead to her stoning.
>>18530357>You're just coping with the fact that in other places where you need more than 1 witness which is irrelevant. You think needing a witness to prove guilt is "irrelevant" for supposed assumption of guilt? Again, we're talking about your general statement.
>>18530361Yes it is a general statement. We're talking about how the bible expects raped virgins to prove their own innocence. We're talking about how females born without a hymen are instantly marked for death. We're talking about how evil husbands can punish their wives anytime just by making cloth (that proves nothing) disappear. No other witness necessary! And so on. This one rule applies to hundreds of different scenarios
>>18530025It's not to promote rape, it's to make the rapost take financial responsibility for "damaged goods". Keep in mind they didn't have birth control (at least not to the same extent as we do)
>>18530374And doesn't apply to hundreds of others. Your general statement is bs regardless how many specific scenarios you creatively juice out of a single law.
>>18530384>it's just one law broNo, the bible has it all over the place. Why does a jealous husband get to force the woman to drink cursed (poisoned) water to prove her own innocence just because of baseless suspicion with ZERO witnesses?
>>18530394I didn't say it's one law. I said it applies to hundreds of cases and doesn't apply to hundreds of others, making your general statement bs.
>>18530395Okay then at that point you're telling me it's a 50/50 chance you're going to have to prove your own innocence after you're presumed guilty.
>>18530397I didn't tell you it's 50/50. I said it applies to hundreds of cases and doesn't apply to hundreds of others, making your general statement bs.
>>18530401>hundreds/hundreds cases = 50/50 chance = 50% probability you are guilty until proven innocentIt's quite simple to understand
>>18530403It should be also quite simple to understand why that's wrong. I am comfortable spending the rest of this exchange watching you try to figure it out.
>>18530410It's wrong because I am being charitable and offering you a way out. In reality the bible is so unjust an entire town is assumed to be guilty for a crime that has again ZERO witnesses simply because they were the closest to it. They even have to lose prized possessions like a healthy animal that could have been used for farming. Guilty until proven innocent is the general rule of the bible
>>18530410*pic
>>18530414Thank you for charitably pretending to not understand numbers. I can help you with that; so far you presented 2 (two) laws from which you infer a general pattern.
>>18530425I presented 3 which show you're automatically assumed to be guilty. But thanks for confirming you cannot count. No wonder simple probabilities confuse you
>>18530429Ah shit, 3 already qualify as hundreds, my bad.
>>18530435The last one literally puts the guilt on entire towns. Imagine there was an unresolved murder with zero witnesses nearby a major metropolis today and they didn't perform the animal sacrifice. Now they're all guilty of that horrible crime in the afterlife. hundreds? more like millions
>>18530441Someone in that town is verifiably a murderer. The burden was filled. Now if you judge a non-individualistic text from an individualistic perspective, you will run into a problem here and almost everywhere else, yes. But that's not really the fault of the text. It's yours. This is not a case where guilt is presumed until proven otherwise, this is a case where that town positively is involved with a murder and is allowed to atone without bringing it back to an individualistic plabne.
>>18530556>Someone in that town is verifiably a murderer.Being the closest town to a dumped body is not evidence. There are zero witnesses or anything else incriminating. A highway robber can easily move the victim to another location. And in fact those looking for a way to get away with it do exactly these sort of things. It's no different than somebody dumping a bloody knife in your trash bin then the entire household is assumed to be complicit.>This is not a case where guilt is presumed until proven otherwiseYes it is, the entire town is accused of plotting to murder a random dude. And they have to pay for it with their livestock or hellfire if they don't pay up in this life. That is not justice in any meaningful sense.
>>18530025You genuinely think this is the law in Israel? That Israeli men are just raping Israeli women in the street then marrying them?
>>18531216that's the old law, now raping men turns you into a national hero
OP doesn't get it.Her family is within their rights to compel her rapist to marry her, because it will be harder to marry her to someone else.He will be responsible for providing for her materially as a consequence, which is expensive and why people used to pay doweries to get their daughter married off. They aren't going to be forced by law to marry her to him if they object for whatever reason. Forced marriage in this case would be a penalty applied to the rapist, not the victim or her family.
Also OP posed this exact same question before in several other threads and got the same answer.The more you know.
>>18532075>innocent child exists>rapist deflowers her>christcuck family "punishes" him with 50 shekels worth of access to her insides with her having no sayyour bronze age morality is trash
>>18532565your morality doesnt even allow for "defloration" to have any meaning or significance so i dont see why you brought it up, it adds more weight to the post youre replying to in fact
How did such worship of virginity even come about? Cheating or promiscuity being looked down upon is understandable but this concerns the mere virginity itself, even having a single previous partner was a no no. Did primitive hunter gatherers care about it much? Did all those men really all checked the hymen of a woman they were going to partner with?
>>18532637Because it shows how fucking disgusting the bible is. Why does it speak from the perspective of a paedo gooner?
>>18532646>goonerI fucking hate zoomerspeak. I have a profound desire to crush zoomer skulls into powder.
