Tristan Tate

Well, there's a rabbit hole here.

And I remember very much when I was falling back into Christianity, some people will read Bible verses to you and they'll say how unchristian these Bible verses are.

I'm sure you've dealt with this because you've spoken to atheists all the time.

And there is a passage in the Bible, and I'm going to misquote it for sure, that hints that if a man rapes a woman and she falls pregnant, that he has a duty to marry her.

Now, I've had this thrown at me by atheists all the time.

Keep in mind that the world is a very different place today than it was when the Bible was first written and when these old laws were certainly put into place because this is Old Testament.

And I meditated on that for a while.

And I thought, why on earth would something so horrible that can happen to a woman, why on earth would the Old Testament say that he has a duty to marry her?

And meditating on this, going down the rabbit hole, and again, this is just speculation from my various readings and my various interpretations, is that in this modern world, women can live on their own, exist on their own, work on their own, provide for themselves on their own, should they so choose.

But in the ancient world.

Being a woman with child without a man to provide for you and care for you meant death of you and your child at some point.

It meant destitution.

It meant poverty.

It meant living on the streets.

It meant a life of begging.

And I feel like, although I would absolutely not advocate for this in this day and age, the people who wrote that understood marriage to be a duty of care over somebody.

The love and the provision and the care over a woman where she is yours and through sickness and through health, like you said, he takes care of her, provides for her.

And I I read that passage in deep confusion and it still confuses me to this day.

And I don't have the answers for exactly why that's written as more of an obligation.

than a bonus.