• XIN@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even there it uses two separate words. I thought it was a weird stretch until I actually read into it.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right, but the two words used are “man and male” not “man and child”. That’s a more broad statement, not a more narrow one. As in it’s lumping in pedophilia with homosexuality. You’ll also notice the punishment isn’t for the “man” to be put to death, it is for BOTH to be put to death. So even if we take the argument “by male it means male child” you have to square away that it immediately calls for you to put that child to death. You’ll also take note that this says nothing about “man and girl”. If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?

      Well, that’s clear from other bible verses, because you pay 50 shekels of silver and get yourself a new child bride in that case. (Deut 22:28-29)

      If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.

      The bible very clearly knows what girls are yet has no real punishment for raping them.

      • XIN@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?

        I think the verse in Deut you quoted explains it nicely. A female was just another man’s property and as long as they aren’t married “rape” was just claiming them. If the women was married both were put to death.

        In the end I don’t put much stock in this just being a mistranslation as the precedent seems to be homosexuality was sinful, but the argument did have a little more logic behind it than I thought it would when I first read the headline.