The Bible: Rape victims should be stoned to death

Aeortar, you are gonna have to tell me where you are reading that a Rape Victim is supposed to be stoned to death.  I do not see such a thing mentioned in Deut. 22. 

Verses 25-27, I believe are the verses you are refering to for the case of rape.  In verse 26 it says, “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death,".

I don't see where the victim is to be stone when it says the opposite.

I hope that helps.

Not sure what version's prefered (although I checked several to make sure the fairly unambiguous meaning wasn't markedly different), but here's the section on the 'punishment' for a man trying to have his wife killed:

In other words, husband falsely accuses wife of not being a virgin prior to marrying him, knowing that unless her parents can prove otherwise she'll be stoned to death. He's given a fine, while the woman he tried to have killed is forced to stay married to him.

And the section on stoning rape victims is a bit later on in that same section:

In other words, if you're engaged and are raped in the city you'll be stoned to death for the 'crime' of being raped.

As if that's not enough, it then says that if you're raped and you're not engaged, you're forced to marry your rapist!!!

The section you are referring to is the part I already mentioned in my original post (rape victims can avoid death by being raped in the countryside) - if you're raped in the countryside then only the rapist is killed, not the rape victim (although this is only if you're engaged; if you're not engaged and are raped in the countryside then you'll still have to marry your rapist).

Lovely.

In the verse 13-21, there is no instance of rape. 

The groom/husband gave a bride price to his father in law for the bride.  There were essentially two prices; one for virgins and one for non-virgins.  The virigin price was 50 shekels (acording to verse 29).

In verse 13 it starts out with, "If any man takes a wife" you can see that there is a marriage taking place here.  The groom already paid the bride price before her parents of 50 shekels.  The father of the bride already consented to this marriage. 

As I understand it after the wedding ceremony (under the Huppah) the couple would go to a private place to consumate their marriage.  After the consumation the sheet from the bed where the consumation was made was given to the father of the bride.  There should be blood on the sheet as a result of breaking her hymen.  This served as evidence that his daughter was a virgin. 

Because this sheet is mentioned in verse 17 it is safe to assume that this is sometime AFTER their wedding. 

There is no evidence of rape. 

Now if there is no evidence that she was a virgin when she married then she and her father lied to the groom.  Ultimately the bride commited adultery and purgery.  The punishment of this was death. 

Again Aeortar I think you are reading into this more than what is actually there.   

23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

Because the girl did not scream that she was being raped so that someone could come to her aid the accusation is that she consented (no longer rape) to the disgracing of her betrothed husband.  The cities of old were not like the bustling cities of today.  One would have heard her cry out if she was being taken against her will.  You should note that this is consistent with verse 25-27 as well.  If the girl was taken out in the field where there would be no one to hear her cry out in distress that it is actually her word that is taken over the word of the man's.  The man is stoned and she is not. 

I hope that helps to clarify.

Gymnastics.

Just because the parents can't provide proof that she was a virgin, it doesn't mean she wasn't. Are you really telling me you see nothing wrong with requiring someones parents to provide proof of virginity, and if it can't be done then the woman should be stoned to death?! Also I don't know why you keep on pointing out that it's not talking about rape, unless you're just thinking/typing out loud as you read the relevant passage.

So if someone attacks a woman, gags them or alternatively holds a knife to their throat and threatens to kill them if they scream, and as a result they don't scream (loud enough for someone to hear them), they should be stoned to death?

Yes, in that it basically confirms what my initial impression was - that it's saying rape victims should be stoned to death.

Hmm, you seem to be reading more into what I said than what is written?  I only provided to you information that might help you understand the culture of the time. I didn't offer my opinion but rather my understanding of the scripture set and it's cultural reference. 

Um, maybe because I was addressing your comments (See YOUR reply #2).

I suppose that this could be possible.  I don't fully understand the culture of the day in it's entirety but offered what I do.  People were very close knit back then.  Cities were made up of several families each knowing each other pretty well.  There are loop holes in every system.

Again you are putting an emphasis here that is false.  The passage in question does not suggest that a rape victim "SHOULD" be stoned to death.  You merely found a possible situation (loop hole) where a rape victim if found guilty of adultery would be put to death. The key here is that they are being punished for adultery not for being a rape victim.

Then maybe you're confusing the two parts of my post - one is relating to rape victims being stoned to death, the other is husbands being able to try and get their wives killed by falsely accusing them of not being virgins (prior to being married). I never said the latter was rape.

I phrased my response poorly then, meaning based on that I probably did in that instance, and for that I apologise. I was interested in finding out what your opinion was on that issue although shouldn't have phrased it in a way that implied you supported it.

It's not false, I am simply going to the implication of what is said - a person who is engaged and is raped in the city is to be stoned to death unless they scream (presumably loud enough for others to hear and testify to). The passage itself is also focused on the issue of rape (so it's not like I'm taking a general comment on adultery being punishable by death and interposing a 'what if you were raped, would that class as adultery and hence be punishable by death'), and all I'm doing is changing the perspective slightly to that of the rape victim - you're raped, you don't scream, and as a result you should be stoned (unless you qualify for one of the exemptions, such as being in the countryside).

If so that means that adultery is effectively having it's applicability expanded to cover (engaged) rape victims who don't scream. By todays standards though that would still be rape, and hence by classing such rape as adultery and punishing adultery by death it is in effect punishing being raped with death. Basically there appears to be the presumption that if you don't scream, then you're consenting.

Nor did I. 

Apology accepted. I can't really give my opinion on the subject matter because I don't fully understand the context of the times.  The bottom line is that there are always loop holes on how the just are unjustly punished.  History has proven this time and time again.  I've known of girls in this day and age that slept with guys (consentually) and later accused them of rape and winning. I wish there was a fail proof system but there isn't.  I support part of this notion in the passage of scripture because it puts responsibility in the hands of the woman to scream however, as you said, there is no clarification on what is to be done in a gagging situation.  I have essentially mixed feelings about the whole ordeal.

It is false.  You are doing more than changing the perspective slightly, you are using an instance to interpret what you think is the meaning of the passage.  The point is that each person involved has some level of accountability.  If the engaged woman (presumably to another man) is being taken against her will, don't you think she would scream? 

This is considered adultery because out of the honor and sanctity of her engagement (which is MUCH different than today) to her future husband has been betrayed.  The only women in this category are engaged to be married (it does not include the women that are not betrothed to someone as we see them covered in the next few verses. 

Aeortar let me ask you this question.  If the woman was being taken against her will, why would she NOT scream?

But it's not a betrayal if they're raped, because people don't choose to get raped - it's forced on them by someone else.

Maybe they're gagged, or drugged, or forcibly silenced in some other way? Maybe the rapist threatens them (and/or others they care about) with death? Maybe instead it's the pure shock of the ordeal? Maybe they've got a cold/other illness that means they can't scream(/talk loudly)?

While there are examples of false accusations being made, rape generally has an incredibly low conviction rate, relative to other crimes (one person says it's rape, the other says it's consensual, and it's very difficult to prove which one is right or wrong). Since the passage is implying that responsibility for proving it was rape lies with the woman (by screaming so people will hear and hence know she's being raped, although a harsher interpretation could be that the woman has to scream loud enough for people to hear, and reach her in time to stop the rapist) that would mean that a large number of innocent women would be killed because they couldn't prove they were raped. Afterall if with todays technology it is incredibly hard to prove rape, how much harder would it have been back then?

That's up to the judge to decide.  If the court decision was rape then the guy is stoned else it's both.

Then I would imagine the judge would rule similarly to the field case.  Of course that's my interpretation.