you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 day ago (7 children)

No, both partners were supposed to be stoned. If you raped an unmarried woman you had to pay her father and marry her.

Leviticus 20:10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death

Deuteronomy 22:23If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels c of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I’d rather be stoned than forced to marry my rapist. The Bible really fucking sucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    No, both partners were supposed to be stoned.

    In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.

    My point is there is often a stark difference between the law and the application of the law. This is how conservatives hid behind the law, saying things like "There's no systemic racism, look at the law!" while ignore the unequal application/enforcement of law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.

    Everywhere, in every place that used that verse as a way to condemn adultery? Because that is a very broad statement to make about thousands of years and dozens of cultures. I'm sure it wasn't consistently applied everywhere all the time, but to look at this as a legal code strictly analogous to modern law only and not a religious/moral code is a mistake IMO. You might be able to fool a judge or bribe a good ol' boy, but you can't fool God (which is what that would amount to for believers, who constituted the majority of people throughout history). The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 20 hours ago

    The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.

    I'm not convinced that's true. The powerful have always used moral codes and laws selectively and misogyny has been dominant throughout history(there are exceptions, of course). Also, I don't think the American conservatives "don't really believe in anything". I think they are held together by beliefs and feelings, regardless of whether their beliefs have an actual foundation in their religion. I think they they believe it does.

    But that's the fundamental problem with belief systems, it's whatever the believer believes it to be. If someone hears something on Fox and thinks it comes from the bible, it's a religious belief and is now a part of their religion, even if it contradicts their stated religious belief from 5 minutes ago.

  • source
  • parent