<!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->
Sylvia – I am sorry that people pick on you the way they do, and i want to emphasize that i have no quarrels with you, i only disagree with you on this limited subject.
Perhaps i should not have used the term special pleading, but there are some things that i do not feel add up here.
Suppose we read about a people who lived deep in the amazones or in afghanistan who had a rape law similar to that of the OT. Personally, i would a-priori think that that law sucked big time. I would understand that it may be they were not evil, just like most germans were not evil during WW2, but i would think they were misguided, and that law really didnt help the rape victims at all.
If you consider the example in isolation, would you then consider the law to be very good, even in their 'primitive' context?
I think you will disagree with me that this is the same because you believe in God and has 'experienced' him. But i think you misunderstand what i am implying. I dont want to say this imediately make God evil or nonexistent.
I dont believe in 'proof-in-one-swoop'. I only believe in evidence that may let the likelihood of one conclusion rise a bit compared with some other options.
When I consider the OT law on rape, sure you may be right! There can be all kinds of explanations – heck, this particular part of the bible may be a later interpolation, the meaning of the word 'rape' may have been lost or mistranslated, it may be a part of the text that discussed womens rights and how to deal with post-traumatic stress was removed by a rabbi later! And while we are at it, lets consider the other options: God may have had several chapters about how cool it is to rape, or whatever!
But i believe the most straightforward reading of the text is that if you are raped and a virgin, you marry the guy. If you are married, you are likely to be isolated from him in a cabin, and there are very likely to be sex involved. The rapist has allready shown once he dont give a damn about the laws of God or the rights of the woman. At any rate not a very good way to deal with the rape-related post-traumatic stress 31% of all rape victims experience!
And you are right, very 'special' circumstances may have applied that made the law the best they could do – but really, we can agree that our laws are a *lot* better today, primarely because they take away the mans rights. Without divine knowledge, i would think one could make an interpolation, or at least focus more on the rights of women (instead of describing them like property) in the text.
This all lead me to the same conclusion in the case of the OT law and our fictive indians in the amazone: Their law suck. With guidance, they could construct laws that worked a little better even in their society. Just beating the living daylight out of the man and forcing him to pay a monhly fee to the woman untill she was married would be a giant leap forward, i think. Do i know that for sure? No way. But i think it is the most likely intrepetation when seen in isolation, that is, without focusing on God being good, powerfull and wise.
This is where special pleading come in: I dont feel you look at the evidence in isolaion, that is, i feel you reinterpret the law though the lense that 'God is just'. That is certainly the case if you, when i presented you with the example of the Indian in the amazones, didnt think the same 'excuses' applied to them that you applied to the OT law (special circumstances, etc.).
If you DO think it is impossible for us to judge the fictive Amazonians because, well, we dont know if they actually have to live together after they are married, we dont know if the law is not the best they can do, etc – just let me know! You are not guilty of special pleading and i am very sorry i said that! I still disagree though :-).
Oh and when we are on the subject. You wrote: Since special pleading means asserting that something must be so because we desire it to be, and since none of us were around during those times, then all posters on this topic stand guilty.
Okay i agree with the first part of what you write. But you say ” since none of us were around during those times, then all posters on this topic stand guilty[of special pleading]”. Thats a tough one to swallow. In the case of murders, often it is the case no reliable witnesses are around when it happends, but we still convict people in that case. How about the history of Rome? All science that has to do with things that happend outside our solar system (what we see happened a long time ago because the light take a while to arrive to us), is all of that special pleading?.
ps.
I missed your question...
