I'm saying that the Bible - and by extent the fictional character of the Judeo-Christian God - do not consider rape to be a big deal.
Beside the point. You're saying that back in bible-justice-day getting raped sucked for the victim, but "wasn't a big deal" for the actual rapist.
You cannot make the argument that rape is a big deal when a society punishes it less harshly than it punishes a disobedient child. Your argument is wrong. The same Bible that says rapists should sometimes marry their victims and pay a fine is the same Bible that says disobediant children should be stoned to death. Adulteresses too. I don't think you can say rape is a big deal to a culture when that same culture punishes it less harshly than it punishes adultery and childish disobedience.
I agree with the first part, obviously. The second part is where I disagree. It certainly WAS a big deal for the actual rapist - even to the extent of being more of a punishment than a £25,000 fine, and counselling.
Not really. See above. A rapist would only be put to death if his victim was betrothed. Otherwise it was a fine and a marriage. An adulteress or a disobedient child - according to the Biblical penal code - was always punished with death.
For society, which is worse? Bible-time. Obviously. But was it "not a big deal" in Bible-time? No. It was a terrible deal for both rapist and rapee.
But this argument feels off-topic and pointless. I think you see where I'm coming from.
Originally Posted by Sawyer
I disagree. The punishments for most other crimes is death. The punishment for rape is death but only in some situations, other times it's just a hefty fine and a marriage. Clearly when a society punishes something less harshly than other things it probably considers that thing less horrible than those other things. When you consider how large the list of crimes with harsher penalties than rape is in the Bible, then it becomes clear that the authors did not consider rape to be that big of a deal.
We're talking about this on a relative scale here. Yes, I am not saying that there have never existed harsher punishments than those for the Biblical way of dealing with rape. I never said that. I am saying that all things considered, the Biblical way for dealing with rape can not be considered "not a big deal."
Yes. "Give me $10,000,000 and a golden toilet or die" is an infinitely better option than "die."
A quick google check gave me a unreliable but plausible sounding answer of 200 days worth of labor. It's entirely reasonable to assume that if a rapist was unable to pay the fine that, rather then being executed, he would probably be put to work at the victim's household until he had paid his debt. This sounds more plausible given other precedents in the Bible than simply executing the debtor.
I admit. Guesswork mainly. A Silver Shekel is just a silver coin. In terms of nowadays silver, hardly anything. Maybe a couple of quid. In terms of thenadays silver, alot more. I don't really think it was a simple currency either. People were taking denarii and all sorts. Taking into account the change in living standards, the massive inequality of wealth etc. I don't think it's too far a jump to reckon that it was unpayable by most.
Delphinus and Sean, two UK citizens.
First of all, provide some hard evidence for your "check."
Fine. Not an ad hominem. Simply unnecessary gruffness. And what? Life imprisonment for rape? In the UK? No. Simply no. Life imprisonment for murder and high treason, nothing else. Obviously there are exceptions...
Doesn't matter much. I'd argue you could not even punish rapists except by verbal reprimand and you'd still be less barbaric than marrying the woman to the offender.
The official line of the UK government on rape is this "Rape is so serious that a prosecution is almost certainly required in the public interest."
Such is our legal system. In reality, this means that 1,000,001 different things happen. Mainly fines, short sentences and/or rehabilitation for first timers.
Yes. I agree. That does not absolve you from answering the question. Morals go away when we stop believing in them, yes. But you still have opinions. Do you consider rape wrong? Do you consider it wrong to marry a rape victim to her attacker? Stop avoiding the questions and answer them.
Ergh. Rights and Wrongs. I put it to you that it is never wrong to do anything. Right and Wrong are human constructs, not physical laws.
Yes it is. Right and wrong are value judgments. As a sapient being you are qualified to make value judgments. Do you judge those two actions right or wrong.
I will say this. Rape is nasty. Forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is nasty. From the best of my reasoning, these things are bad. But are they WRONG? That ain't something I can say.
You are coming across like a rape apologist. I am offering you a quick out. You are refusing to participate in that out and in doing so make the assumption that you are a rape apologist seem more and more likely. You are digging a hole for yourself.
But what do you intend to prove by those questions anyway? They are entirely unrelated to what I originally brought up. I don't even know what we're yelling about!