Two of the references in my signature show examples of this...though not the same things people are referring to in this thread.
Yeah, well, the references in your signature are crap and an example of fools finding verses in isolation, giving no regard to context and quite blatantly getting in wrong.
You claim Deuteronomy 22:24 condones the stoning of a rape victim, wrong. Read verse 25 and 26 as well.
Of course, you'll probably claim that any sort of capital punishment for adultery or sexual mis-conduct is evil, but then again, you can't claim any absolute morality even exists, so on what standard you'd judge this evil is up for question.
I've read the entirety of Deuteronomy 22 and know it's context, the only reason I've isolated it is because I'm taking a specific example. Before I put the quotes in my signature I read the entire sections AND in multiple translations. The case for the first item (about the listening to the Old Testament), I looked up more than 1 quote in the bible to suggest it, but I chose the one. The reason my signature is so limited is because this forum restricts the number of characters in your signature and it'd mess up the forum if I had something in a lot more detail.
Verse 25 is specific to being out in the country and not in a town. If in a town the woman has to scream, if she does not then she is considered guilty and in that instance the rape victim would be stoned to death.
For your reference:
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
Verse 26 says not to punish the woman in verse 25.
Verse 26 does not apply to verse 24, which is the punishment (stoning) for the man AND woman in verse 23 (in the city when the woman does not scream).
Read verse 27 and you'll see the reasoning for verse 26, it's because nobody could rescue her if she screamed.
The last time I addressed this situation, I listed a number of reasons why a woman might not scream if raped. Being threatened with violence would be one, but the reasons are not limited to that.
It also says from verse 28 onwards , if they're discovered the rapist must marry their rape victim.
ALSO in verses 13 to 19 there are regulations surrounding the claims of a woman who is not a virgin on her marriage, but specifies no separate regulations for if the woman was previously raped. If followed strictly to the law it would mean rape victims who are found to NOT be virgins are to be stoned anyway!
What's even more disturbing, this EXACT punishment was recently delivered in Morocco (marriage to the rapist). From what I understand, it was based on Islamic law, but then Islam draws from the Old Testament as Christian does too. I don't know the specific laws for Islam, but I am not surprised this kind of thing would be repeated elsewhere as the 3 Abrahamic Religions draw from belief in the SAME God.
As for having no absolute morality, my morality is based on the reduction of suffering and what's best for those involved, in some ways similar to utilitarianism and I don't know if it'd strike you as weird, but similar to parts of Buddhism as well. A vague explanation, I know, but going into depth would detract from the topic. There is also a Christian version of moral relativity similar to utilitarianism called 'Situation Ethics', if that's something you'd more easily relate to.
But as you've got the bible, I take it you follow its moral absolutism?
Then perhaps you can tell me: Do you believe the punishments lined out in Deuteronomy's Regulations for Sexual Purity to be just? And do you believe because they are the word of God that should therefore still apply? Especially as Jesus said that these old laws still do apply.
Perhaps my last few questions should refer to more specifically parts where the 'Sexual Impurity' involves/can involve the punishment of a rape victim. Although I believe capital punishment is too extreme for adultery, but I do not want my questions to involve that part, because I am talking specifically about the victims of rape.