by jimwalton » Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:16 pm
These are some pretty serious misunderstandings, so thanks for bringing them up so we can talk about them.
> The rule that a rape victim must marry her rapist
You're in Deut. 22.29, in case you don't know the reference. This was made for the woman's protection, not her exploitation. Otherwise she would go through all of life as a pauper and societal reject. Even in the modern world, in those parts of the world under ISIS control, a raped woman is an outcast.David Lamb writes, "she would also be stigmatized by the loss of her virginity. Because of her shame, she would be unable to marry (cf. 2 Sam. 13.1-20—a victimized woman did not think it was sexist to marry her rapist). Since the primary way women achieved financial and societal security was through marriage, a rape victim would often end up impoverished. This law is actually attempting to correct a problem in their sexist environment. It was providing security and protection for the woman—the innocent victim." Instead, the Bible mandates that the woman's honor is protected and her support be permanent.
The upshot: This is friendly to women, not degrading or exploitative. Sandra Richter writes, "He is required to marry her, if she will have him. But nowhere does it say she should or must marry him. The choice is hers."
> The rule that a woman who's raped in a city is executed
Also in Dt. 22, and you have misinterpreted the text. The idea in the text is that she wasn't raped at all, but was rather complicit in the tryst. The man and the woman were both executed in this instance because of the crime to the family and to society. There's nothing unfriendly to women here. You'll notice in Dt. 22.25, if the woman was not complicit, the man is executed and the woman protected. But if she was consenting, then she doesn't get protected.
> All the rules that relegate women to the role of property
The Bible never relegates women to the role of property.
> Polygamy
The Bible never commands polygamy and often (if not always) represents polygamy as a negative, a problem, and hostile to women. The Bible is not unfriendly to woman in this regard.
> The rules surrounding menses
We would have to discuss the specific rules, but if you've read thoroughly, there are also rules about semen. It's not prejudiced against women. Instead, it's symbolic.
> The explicit rule that a woman's testimony isn't worth the same as a man's
I'd like to know where this specific rule is written, because I think there is no such rule in the Bible.
> Eve being created as an afterthought to be Adam's helper
You misunderstand. Eve was no afterthought. The word that is used to describe her as the helper-comforter are terms that are used elsewhere in the Bible to describe God. God was the helper-comforter of Israel. She was being given status and glory, not an afterthought as Adam's helper. She was being made his equal, not inferior.
> The mass rape of virgin girls in military conquests
There is no such teaching, no such command, and no such allowance.
So thanks for bringing these up. We can talk about any of them further if you want. But these show that you are truly mistaken in your perception that the Bible (whether Judaism or Christianity) is unfriendly to women.
These are some pretty serious misunderstandings, so thanks for bringing them up so we can talk about them.
> The rule that a rape victim must marry her rapist
You're in Deut. 22.29, in case you don't know the reference. This was made for the woman's protection, not her exploitation. Otherwise she would go through all of life as a pauper and societal reject. Even in the modern world, in those parts of the world under ISIS control, a raped woman is an outcast.David Lamb writes, "she would also be stigmatized by the loss of her virginity. Because of her shame, she would be unable to marry (cf. 2 Sam. 13.1-20—a victimized woman did not think it was sexist to marry her rapist). Since the primary way women achieved financial and societal security was through marriage, a rape victim would often end up impoverished. This law is actually attempting to correct a problem in their sexist environment. It was providing security and protection for the woman—the innocent victim." Instead, the Bible mandates that the woman's honor is protected and her support be permanent.
The upshot: This is friendly to women, not degrading or exploitative. Sandra Richter writes, "He is required to marry her, if she will have him. But nowhere does it say she should or must marry him. The choice is hers."
> The rule that a woman who's raped in a city is executed
Also in Dt. 22, and you have misinterpreted the text. The idea in the text is that she wasn't raped at all, but was rather complicit in the tryst. The man and the woman were both executed in this instance because of the crime to the family and to society. There's nothing unfriendly to women here. You'll notice in Dt. 22.25, if the woman was not complicit, the man is executed and the woman protected. But if she was consenting, then she doesn't get protected.
> All the rules that relegate women to the role of property
The Bible never relegates women to the role of property.
> Polygamy
The Bible never commands polygamy and often (if not always) represents polygamy as a negative, a problem, and hostile to women. The Bible is not unfriendly to woman in this regard.
> The rules surrounding menses
We would have to discuss the specific rules, but if you've read thoroughly, there are also rules about semen. It's not prejudiced against women. Instead, it's symbolic.
> The explicit rule that a woman's testimony isn't worth the same as a man's
I'd like to know where this specific rule is written, because I think there is no such rule in the Bible.
> Eve being created as an afterthought to be Adam's helper
You misunderstand. Eve was no afterthought. The word that is used to describe her as the helper-comforter are terms that are used elsewhere in the Bible to describe God. God was the helper-comforter of Israel. She was being given status and glory, not an afterthought as Adam's helper. She was being made his equal, not inferior.
> The mass rape of virgin girls in military conquests
There is no such teaching, no such command, and no such allowance.
So thanks for bringing these up. We can talk about any of them further if you want. But these show that you are truly mistaken in your perception that the Bible (whether Judaism or Christianity) is unfriendly to women.