Uncompromising Rhetoric

Refuting Apologetics: The rapist to marry his Victim (Deuteronomy 22:28–29)

Most well versed Atheists already know what Apologetics is.  Apologetics is the religious standard to respond to Criticisms and skepticism that Atheists, skeptics, even other religions, have against religious practices and holy books.  Speaking plainly, apologetics is a witty religious defense.  If I could, I would post every counter-attack to every apologetics that exists, because there always is something missing in the details or misleading with ALL religious apologetic responses. I’ll start with one for now with this post.

My First Counter-Apologetic post will be about the infamous Deuteronomy verse, 22: 28 – 29 (It came to me after trying to research the origin of Senator Todd Akin’s infamous “Legitimate Rape” comment).  It states:

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her.  He may not divorce her all his days.”

Then, I looked around the web to find the most common Apologetic to this verse.  I found one, which was provided in written context by Mr. Hank Hanegraaff* in their Christian Research Institute website, equip.org.

First, I had to set a debate-style topic in my mind (usually in question form): “Does the bible provide women the rights to decide for their own well-being?”

After determining my that, I wrote them ‘the trap question’ on their Ask comment form provided in their website.

• So, I asked them, “In a degree, how much do you think women of today will be comfortable marrying their rapists?  Very unlikely, average, or very likely?”  (Just for taunts, you know me).
• The second question was a situational scenario (which was crucial for the third question).  I asked, “…Consider this scenario:  Here is man, who is in-love with a lady so much, but the lady—a virgin, possibly moderate Christian in the modern age—despises this man to the core (could be his looks, his personality, or both) and never in her life time even if it was the last thing she does will she be dating that man.  More importantly, this lady is in-love with another man, and they are not yet wed, and not engaged.  However, the first man mentioned—knowing this Mosaic law in Deuteronomy—RAPED her, so he could marry her.  Could you still claim that the bible is adherent for the well-being and the rights of women?”

Sounds like I cornered them, doesn’t it? But no, they have a response for that.  They said that they already have the answer to that question and the pastor (Hank) already mentioned it on the third paragraph of the Article, which says,

Furthermore, there was precedent under the Mosaic Law for the victimized woman not to marry the victimizer if her father determined that she could be provided for in a more suitable manner (Exodus 22:16–17). Thus, the law was not designed to force the rape victim into an unbearable marriage, but to secure her future and that of her children.

(http://goo.gl/X5lwE)

(They also assumed that my first question is a rhetorical one, and did not answered it, Hahahaha).

• And now, comes my third and last question/scenario (because they did not responded to this anymore)—the trap question.  I asked, “What if the father, out of his own ambition and greed, actually supports the rapist marrying his daughter, because the rapist is rich, and deemed capable of providing for her… and possible him?  Does the woman have any say for her sake?”

• Checkmate.

This is how you end a refute against the apologetics of Deuteronomy 22:28–29.  You see, even if some Christians claim that this law is ‘a pioneer of women’s rights ahead of its time’ (seriously, I saw that on a Facebook comment!), the reason it fails is that the essence of the law still treat women as commodities of trade in which decisions between men can be made; with biblical laws imposed, a woman still have no rights to speak for herself, no rights to decide for herself, and definitely not allowed to live by her own way, as she is only, biblically speaking, a commodity.

*Here is a full context of the Apologetics, in case you don’t want to click the Link:

How could the Bible command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

According to Mosaic Law, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29). Isn’t that barbaric?

First, the Mosaic Law is hardly about letting a rapist off easy. The consequence for raping a woman engaged to be married was stoning (Deuteronomy 22:25). If the woman was not engaged, the rapist was spared for the sake of the woman’s security. Having lost her virginity, she would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in the culture of the day, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. As such, the rapist was compelled to provide for the rape victim for as long as he lived. Thus, far from barbaric, the law was a cultural means of protection and provision.

Furthermore, there was precedent under the Mosaic Law for the victimized woman not to marry the victimizer if her father determined that she could be provided for in a more suitable manner (Exodus 22:16–17). Thus, the law was not designed to force the rape victim into an unbearable marriage, but to secure her future and that of her children.

Finally, neither then nor now, there is no perfect resolution for a woman who has been violated through the horror of rape. The modern–day solution of aborting a child conceived through rape only compounds the horror.  Indeed, if we are completely satisfied by any earthly solution—even the death penalty—our moral sensibilities are seriously skewed.  Ultimately, only eternity will make all wrongs right.

*********************

Christians, (Muslims, too—Islam does this dehumanizing of women quite often, right?), if you want to re-refute my refutation of your apologetics, please—try.

Atheists, if you have encountered an interesting apologetic argument that you would like me to respond to, would you care sending them over to me?