«Home

Hello Ladies, How Would You Love To Marry Your Molester? The Bible Says So.

Please turn you bible to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man is caught in the act of Molesting a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

And to Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

If the Ten Commandments are still binding today,  is there any reason why these two injunction on molest are not? I bet most Christian would find this suggestion so horrific, they would just ignore this thread, as is their wont when their reprehensible belief system is put under the microscope.

Avatar
Newbie
34 answers

If you want to rationalise that God in the old testament is different from God in the new testament because it seemed he was inconsistent with himself in the new, then that's just too bad.

God is God and you are you.You will only understand why he is the way he is based on what you know.

I will leave you with the only verses that best describe him and the seeming inconsistencies you seem to draw ur logic from:

Rom 9:15-17

(15)  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

(16)  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

(17)  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

(18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

(19)  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

(20)  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

(21)  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

And just a few verses out of numerous that show that the God in the old testament is the same God in the new:

Galatians 3:1-29

(1)  O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(2)  This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(3)  Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

(4)  Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

(5)  He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(6)  Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

(7)  Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

(8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

(9)  So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

(10)  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

(11)  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

(12)  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

(13)  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

(14)  That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

(15)  Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

(16)  Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

(17)  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

(18)  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

(20)  Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

(21)  Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

(22)  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

(26)  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

(27)  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(28)  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Bastage,

Your statement here really puts you in a bad light.The simple conclusion is you have absolutely no idea about the message being put forward by the bible.

The God of the bible is the same God in both the old and new testaments.

You can't get the complete message of the bible without taking in the accounts of the old testament.The old testament talked about the new;it paved the way for the new.

The old testament talked about Jesus Christ and what he was coming to do.The sum total of the old and the new testaments is Jesus Christ.

Everything that happened in the old testament was all for the purpose of the new.

Jesus Christ and the salvation he brought unto mankind is the sum total of the bible(Old and New testaments).

If you can't get that message from reading the whole bible properly, then I just have to conclude that there is no point in debating with you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

. That is the whole point of my argument - The God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament.

Why am I going to use the God of the New Testament to justify the God of the Old when he's not even relevant?

0
Avatar
Newbie

That passage is referring to betrothed women. They were already ear-marked for child-birth by their husband and were already the property of another man. Betrothal, like marriage, was a formal contract and could not be broken.

That was the way it was in practice at the beginning anyway. Later, molest victims were looked upon as "damaged chattels" and could be divorced.

This is still enshrined within Jewish law to this day.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quote from: Bastage on Today at 12:23:01 AM

This statement is not consistent with scriptures.Are u forgetting verses 25-27?

The women that were Molested were not forced to marry their rapists, rather the Molester was killed.(25-27)

The only women that got married to the so called 'rapists' were those who were not engaged to any body else at the time.(28-29)

The other group were those who did not scream for help when there was obvious help available(indicating consent)and those were killed.(23-24)

Three different scenarios and only one of them where the woman had to marry the man that slept with her.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This statement is not consistent with scriptures.Are u forgetting verses 25-27?

The women that were Molested were not forced to marry their rapists, rather the Molester was killed.(25-27)

The only women that got married to the so called 'rapists' were those who were not engaged to any body else at the time.(28-29)

The other group were those who did not scream for help when there was obvious help available(indicating consent)and those were killed.(23-24)

Three different scenarios and only one of them were the woman had to marry the man that slept with her.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For the reason, we've got to look at it in a historical context.

The fact is that molest would very often end up resulting in child-birth. As the Jews literally believed that they lived on in their children, it was very important that every child had a father to raise him and that every father knew his child. This was the way that the father lived on and through him, the god.

What the law is doing is basically forcing the woman to marry her Molester so that any child produced in the act would keep the chain going.

It's pretty insidious and by today's standards, morally outrageous, but in the context of the times it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But this is also why I say it's wrong to try and justify the unjustifiable. The excuse that it is not relevant to Christianity today should suffice but it should also be remembered that the god of the Old Testament was a god of his time and is not always compatible with the god of the NT.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If such was the situation,why then was the law put in place?The fact that the law was in place indicated that such wasn't the case.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Although I would tend to agree with you on the historical aspect, one should also remember that it is folly to try to give justification to the unjustifiable.

One must also remember that we aren't just talking about simple law here - we're talking about "God's law". And when we also remember that many Christians view the Old Testamant as the "Word of God", it's very difficult to just explain it away as simply being outdated.

@ttalks

Actually, I take the passage in the context of the time when it was written. A time when it was a male dominated society and women were merely pieces of property. As such, screaming for help or reporting a Molester would probably have resulted in the woman being stoned to death whatever her plea. The liklihood is that she had a far better chance of surviving both the molest and the risk of persecution by keeping quiet. It's not an ancient phenomenon either - one only has to look at the stoning to death of the 13 year old Somali molest victim a few weeks ago.

As I've said above, you're trying to justify the unjustifiable. It's far safer to stick with your assertion that the law no longer applies than to follow an illogical argument.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Based on the way it was put in the bible,the screaming for help indicated she was being Molested;not screaming for help indicated that she wasn't being Molested,but was in consent.That is the conclusion gotten from the context presented by the chapter and verses.

Different contexts imply different meanings.Don't compare that context with the current and every day molest situations of now.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The simple explanation for such passages in the Bible is that it simply reflects the level of civilization of the Jews then. I'm sure several ancient cultures had similar barbaric laws. For instance their were Nigerian tribes that believed in killing one baby if twins were born. They certainly felt that was the wish of their God then. Point is with most religions there is a funny "cart before horse" thing that happens. First off the people need laws that work in society. Life may have been harsh and backward then and thus the people made harsh and barbaric laws. The easiest way to get the people to accept this hard laws was to claim that the laws were "God's word". Consequently we usually see a softening of the laws as the society becomes more civilised. This is a simple and clear reasoning that explains the discrepancies between "God's word" in the old testament and "God's word" in the new testament. Some philosopher said if God did not exist it will be necessary for man to create one, perhaps one can also say if God's word did not exist it would have been necessary to create it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This clearly demonstrate how religious-motivated thinking can lead to bad laws and how it necessarily shrivels the minds of thise so infected by religions.

Your argument relies on the fact that consent is established by how loudly the victim of the molest act screams while the act is taking place. Supposing she could not scream for one reason or another. Supposing she was gagged by her attacker? Supposing she screamed as loudly as she could but she was never heard?

Why don't these laws play a part in the lives of Christians today? Where these laws not established by Jesus (God)? And what does Jesus say in Matt 5: 17 - "Think NOT that I have come to abolish the law . . . "?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Words imply different things in different contexts.Check out the context of verse 23 & 24 of the chapter in question. u'll notice that the judgment on the woman depended on her screaming out for help or not.The fact that she didn't scream for help implied she was happy with the situation;that was why she was guilty.If she had screamed,it would have indicated that she was being Molested and would have saved her from judgment.

Check out the following verse;25-27:

Deutronomy 22:25-27

(25)  But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

(26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

(27)  For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

These verses show the differences between the two sex situations;the former-consent sex,the latter-molest.

But all in all,we can see that all that isn't the issue,but the fact that those laws play no part in the lives of Christians.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Wouldn't you? Or would you let her scream so that someone would come along and stop you? It's merely logical so don't try going to read crap into it.

And if you're going to rely on the KJV you must realise that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. The word used in that version was "adprehendens" meaning to "seize" or "grasp". I'm not a reader of Hebrew but you can be pretty sure that the even earlier text would also point away to the idea that it's referring to consensual sex.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you.

But only because I believe that the whole Old Testament should be kept at arms length from Christianity.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You're so lost!!!

Anyway,it isn't an issue for u to believe the bible's accounts.It's already stated there that those who will be saved or granted eternal life have been predestined or ordained by God.

Act 13:48

(48)  When the gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed

Ephesians 1:4-5

(4)  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

(5)  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

If you read or hear the gospel of Christ and do not get convicted by it,chances are :You were not ordained or destined to be saved.

Romans 1:16

(16)  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who believes, of the Jew first and of the Greek as well.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I find this to be a pretty distasteful way of justifying that what is taking place is not molest. Also the other couple of passages you posted.

How many molest victims "scream for help"? The first thing a Molester will do is silence his victim. Even if it refers to screaming after the event, statistics show that a large number of molest victims do not report the crime.

Back then, in an even more male dominated society, it was probably pretty unthinkable for a woman to report the fact that she had been Molested.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Or one can look at other different versions and see that "laying hold on" specifically refers To Molest.

Then you've got the versions that show that it isn't referring to consensual sex.

Even taking into account the two versions that you posted, they contain the words "lay hold on". When you "lay hold on" something it is passive and you are reactive. You are "grasping" or "seizing". Therefore, even with those couple of examples it's easy to see that it doesn't refer to consensual sex.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This happended when the romans which paul is a citizen took over the Jewish God, made him more inclusive and presented him as the saviour of the world.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ephesians 2:8-22

(8  For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God

(9)  and not the result of works, lest anyone boast.

(10)  For we are his masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared long ago to be our way of life.

(11)  So then, remember that at one time you were gentiles by birth and were called "the uncircumcision" by what is called "the circumcision" made in the flesh by hands.

(12)  At that time you were without Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. You had no hope and were in the world without God.

(13)  But now, in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

(14)  For it is he who is our peace. In his flesh he made both groups one by tearing down the wall of hostility that divided them.

(15)  He rendered the law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, so that he might create in himself one new humanity from the two, thus making peace,

(16)  and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, on which he killed the hostility.

(17)  He came and proclaimed peace for you who were far away and for you who were near.

(18)  For through him, both of us have access to the Father in one Spirit.

(19)  That is why you are no longer strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household,

(20)  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

(21)  In him the whole building is joined together and rises into a holy sanctuary in the Lord.

(22)  You, too, are being built in him along with the others into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Please why are people believing in a God that was invented and created by the Jews? It is clearly written for everyone to see The jewish God made a convenant with his chosen people and he clearly stated it, so why are people hyperventilating and killing themselves in Nigeria because of a God that clearly stated who he loves and cares for?(I did'nt see Nigerians as part of the people he  made a covenant with, can some one please show me?) Where did it state that the biblical God made a covenant with mankind? why is the word mankind not used but house of Judah and Isreal? why in the text above did the biblical God not make any convenant with people living in Indai, China, The Americas or people living in other parts of the world?(I wonder if he knows about their existence) Do you know the context and true meaning of the covenant you are talking about? It might not be what you were made to believe. I wonder why people are living their lives and waiting for an Imaginary God that the Jews created to come and save them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hebrews 8:1-13(KJV)

(1)  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

(2)  A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

(3)  For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

(4)  For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

(5)  Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

(8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(9)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(13)  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God does not operate on the old covenant with his people anymore;he operates on the new covenant.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Are you for real? what can be more babaric than this?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ridiculous.

So every molest victim who doesn't scream is engaging in consensual sex?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi huxley.just wanted to chip in something.I'm not interested squabbling. You didn't present your question from an unbiased view now,why?It's either you just heard it from somewhere or you saw it and decided to 'copy and paste' the idea.If not I expect you should have read the whole chapter.you believe you're an intellectual.can you propose a better or more rational law?its easy to criticise what others have done,what have you done.

The word of God is practical and It's written as the human manual.anyone who lives according to the manual is safer and happier.Anyone who doesn't is at risk and has no warranty. You're not a female and you didn't live with the culture of the Israelites but can you imagine where you live, of how even a virgin girl dreams of marriage. People are 'desperate' for a relationship,virgin or not, atheist or non atheist.people around you are getting worried if there seems to be no move @age 23+.that's real life,not fantasy. And then,a virgin is not engaged and she's Molested.In today's society,how many men will marry a girl if they knew she's being Molested?even husbands divorce Molested wives or you've not heard.some husbands would rather die than let his wife be Molested by ARMED robbers,is that true?are you aware that most men would rather marry a virgin/someone they personally disvirgined than a girl they already know has lost her virginity.Not to talk of a woman who has an unwanted child already,or you think contraceptives were available during Moses' time?if you read the whole chapter 22,you should notice how Jewish men appreciated the virginity of their spouse. If you still maintain a grouse,you'll do well to suggest a better and less barbaric, politically correct law for us to follow.maybe if you looked at the Word with a megascopic view,you would see farther

0
Avatar
Newbie

The so called 'molest' as presented by the poster cannot be honestly viewed as molest.

Deutronomy 22:28-29(KJV)

(28) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and[b] lay hold on her, and lie with her[/b], and they be found;

(29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Deutronomy 22:28-29(CEV)

(28) Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,

(29) they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.

Deu 22:23-24(KJV)

(23) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

(24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:23-24(CEV)

(23) If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn't screaming for help, they both must be put to death. The man is guilty of having sex with a married woman. And the woman is guilty because she didn't call for help, even though she was inside a town and people were nearby. Take them both to the town gate and stone them to death. You must get rid of the evil they brought into your community.

(24) (SEE 22:23)

One can see from the verses shown in different versions(KJV and CEV)that the sexual relations involved were consentual;there was consent from the female,so it cannot be branded as molest.

As regards verses 23-24,the woman is very guilty because she was engaged to be married to another man and then decided to have sexual relations with another;hence her punishment.

As regards verses 28-29,it's just a situation of two unmarried and unengaged people having sex which was against the law,hence the forced marriage.

Again,those laws put forward by the verses in question are not part of the ten commandments but among all the other laws.

Those laws were all inclusive under the old testament/covenant,but are not binding under the new testament/covenant.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This has been my personal thoughts all along.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You can only base that statement on Biblical and data and in that case, the land belonged to the Hebrews.

They had left it temporarily when they were enslaved in Egypt.

Historical data shows a different story though, with the ex-Hyksos semites from Egypt (the proto-Hebrews) slowly integrating with and assimiliating the Canaanite inhabitants once the Egyptians had kicked them out. There is no concrete evidence of a war-mongering tribe of Israel wandering around the Holy Land conquering everyone in the name of their god. Evidence shows that back then, they probably weren't even monotheistic.

When the Bible was compiled during the Babylonian exile, it was written to make it look like the Jews were a powerful force who had conquered all of their enemies. The probability is that this was mere fabrication made to give justification for their new god and cement their ownership of the land.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Promised land or stolen land? why must an all powerful God lead people on a 40 years journey to a promised land that was already inhabited by other people? Why did'nt he create a land of milk and honey for his "chosen" people? Load of bull I say.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Indeed however, it is also hard to understand many of the laws that existed those centuries back. Slavery for example. In hindsight, I we could dismiss many of those laws as babaric.

I would like to think that today, it would be the victim's choice weather she marries the Molester or not.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Tough. then defining the limits of "city" for a nomadic people on a long journey would've been a tad tough, wouldn't it? These laws are difficult to understand under any circumstances: settled peoples, or journeying masses. What'll be interesting is to compute the value of 50 silver pieces today; no question, this wouldn't be an option today; the Molester gets to marry the girl.

Seriously now, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 stems from the 'female as property' theme. This offers a clearer road to understanding these rules.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@huxley

I really do not like getting into arguments based on opinions and hypothetical theories. But I will post a response. The book of Deuteronomy is a group of 3 addresses delivered by Moses to Israel.

The one you mentioned relates to regulations for sexual behaviour which is understandable for millions of people making a 40 year journey to the promised land. Peharps these laws were suitable for that time I don't know but, in my opinion, those laws were established to protect the Isrealites for the situation they were in.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You seem to be missing the point. The Christian claim that their god is an omnibenevolent, loving and compassionate being. If so why are his laws so barbaric and inhumane?

If you had a daughter who was Molested. Would you receive money from the Molester and "allow" her to marry her Molester? If not, why not?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well this is a case of marrying a Molester but because the lady might fall or fallen in love with him but he happened to be a Molester.

N as 4d Bible, that was in the old testament, Pls look for more verses in the old testamnet like when there was nothing n God came to create the world, r u ignoring those? They r in the old testamnet too.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The romans came invented Jesus and changed everything. even moderate moslems can not follow some of the laws in the koran in this modern era, unfotunately for the muslims the chinese did not come and hjack their Allah and make him softer and more inclusive the way the romans did to the jewish God.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.