Punishment for rape

  • Thread starter Thread starter Emad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Emad

Guest
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)”

Enlighten me.
 
Enlighten you about what?

You’ve given a Biblical passage without any sort of context, or indeed any kind of question.
 
Emad, Muhammed allowed his troops to rape women. He married a 9 year old. In Iran and other countries they permit that. You have nothing to be proud of.
 
The passage from Deuteronomy does not condone rape. It does, however, acknowledge that such things do happen, and demands that a man who commits rape must shoulder the responsibility for his actions. An extremely “enlightened” attitude in a time when women worldwide were considered “chattle”. This law would serve to discourage rape, because the rapist would be bound to his victim (and her family) for life - no escape. Yikes!

God bless,
Paul
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Emad, Muhammed allowed his troops to rape women. He married a 9 year old. In Iran and other countries they permit that. You have nothing to be proud of.
Click to expand...
He married a six year old and consummated it when she was 9 all for a political alliance.
 
yeah only cest and the other ones like him would turn this into an Islam bashing thread… what if the person that asked this question was not Muslim? i bet you wouldn’t respond…

the original poster is not ignorant or anything… rather is being like some of you who quote things out of context or show that the Qu’ran is evil while as it is easy to do the same thing to the Bible…
 
This thread is not about Islam or it’s Prophets, do you believe that verse is a command from God? If someone raped your daughter you think it is a good idea that he marry her?
 
Semper Fi:
He married a six year old and consummated it when she was 9 all for a political alliance.
Click to expand...
the christians are christians , anyway I must be good with you . as what Muhammad taught me, if he didnt , I would be not.
Emad showed the verses and he talk in logic , so show verse and be logic…
 
The NAB translates these verses, Deut 22:28-29:

If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.

Rape is not specified in this translation, it would be interesting to know what the original Hebrew text says. As I read this, it is not about rape, but about a man and woman being accountable for their actions together.
 
Emad,

Are you sincerely interested in learning about this verse or is this thread nothing more than the typical example of trying to bolster your own faith by intentionally misrepresenting another’s faith? If you wish to learn I for one will welcome all of your questions. I sincerely hope you do and this is not the typical ploy so often used on this forum. Which I must admit by your initial comment looks all too suspect.

I have to agree with Muslim… conditionally. I have had several of my threads, ones which I was sincerely asking questions, be completely sidetracked or closed because people wanted to use it as a springboard to attack my faith. The “others like him” that Muslim refers to should most certainly include several Muslim members of this forum that have made a virtual career of sidetracking threads and attacking Christianity.

I am not saying I am not guilty of sidetracking a thread or of even of bashing something I do not completely understand, however we should all guard against starting a thread simply to bash the faith of others.
 
We in Christianity see our religion growing and changing as our knowledge grows and changes. You will not find one Christian dominated country where this is the punishment for rape, just as we no longer follow the ‘eye for an eye’ law. We don’t slaughter cattle and birds for sacrifice yet you will find laws about how to do this in the OT. You are not going to get anyone here to take you seriously whith these sort of attacks on our religion. I suspect that you are well aware of the punishment for rape in the Judaic/Christian world and it is not the Bible verse you quoted.
 
And I would not want this OLD law to be a law here in the States. I would not want my Daughter to marry a rapist for life because he has sexual intercouse with her.

Imagine perverted men using the law to marry a woman against her will.

A 50 year old pervert to prowl outside a high school and rape the prettiest girl he could find. And then he would be forced( given the pleasure in his mind) to marry her.

Thank God some OT laws are not real laws!
 
To the Christian (like myself) there is a significant difference between what Moses “allowed because of the hardness of your hearts” and the higher Law that Christ brought us in the NT. Many things that were necessary in OT times were specifically taught by Jesus as no longer required. In any case, what is the point of this question? Are you saying that rape victims are required by God to become the lifelong spouse of their attackers? What do you hope to accomplish by that?
 
Hi all!

Hmm, thinking off the top of my head (such as it is http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/smile.gif ), and not having any copy of Deuteronomy with our Sages’ comments on me (I’m at the office) & trying to remember a lesson I went to on these verses a long time ago, I don’t think that Deuteronomy 22:28 is referring to what we would call felony rape. The word translated as rape (v’tafsah)simply means “to catch/take hold of”; it doesn’t have the violent, forceful connotations that the verb used in Genesis 24:2 to describe Shechem’s raping of Dinah. (The verb used in Genesis, vayikakh, means “to take” & in this context, clearly connotates force. The verb used in II Samuel 13:11 & 13:14, vayekhezak is even more emphatic & is even more connotative of foreceful violence than vayikakh.) The word translated “he humbled her” merely means that he had sexual relations with a woman that he should not have had relations with; ipso facto, this is considered to be disgraceful, whether she consented or not. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is talking about a man who has sexual relations with an unbethrothed woman (the crucial difference in comparison to Deuteronomy 22:23), i.e. two people whose hormones were aboil & couldn’t wait to get married.
Look at the three cases, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 22:25-27 & 22:28-29. The first is talking about consensual, adulterous sex. (A bethrothed woman, even though she & her husband-to-be were not yet married & could not have sex with each other, was, nevertheless forbidden to anyone else. If she voluntarily had sex with another man, this would be adultery.) The second talks about someone raping a bethrothed woman. Since she was raped against her will, she is not culpable. The third talks about an unbethrothed woman & a man (whether married, bethrothed or neither; in Jewish law, adultery = a married/bethrothed woman voluntarily having sexual relations with a man other than her husband, period) having consensual sex. I recall learning once that according to Jewish law, the man was obliged to marry her if she wished & that if he did so, he could never divorce her (she, however, could initiate divorce proceedings against him).

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif
 
In Iran today you can marry a 9 year old girl because Muhammed did. Is it bashing to point out something that Muslims consider perfectly legal? Especially in response to an anti-semitic thread?
 
JB.:
The NAB translates these verses, Deut 22:28-29:

If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.

Rape is not specified in this translation, it would be interesting to know what the original Hebrew text says. As I read this, it is not about rape, but about a man and woman being accountable for their actions together.
Click to expand...
the Jerusalem Bible has:

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed and seizes her and lies with herand is caught in the act the man who has lain with her must give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels; she shall be his wife since he has violated her, and as long as he lives he may not repudiate her.

As unenlightened as this sounds to modern ears I imagine that at the time God was trying to impose some rule on a bunch of semi-barbaric tribes.
In their society, and other societies at the time, rape was a species of theft so this law actually is forcing the perp to make restitution to the father as custodian of the family’s honor and to the girl who could only have her reputation restored by marriage.
NB: unlike any other husband under the OT rules the rapist is not allowed to divorce his wife.
 
Emad said:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)”

Enlighten me.
Click to expand...

How much would that 50 silver shekels be worth today? Even if a shekel was the equivalent of a dollar, $50 at a very consevative rate of 1% inflation per year for 5000 years is quite a sum.
 
40.png
Lance:
How much would that 50 silver shekels be worth today? Even if a shekel was the equivalent of a dollar, $50 at a very consevative rate of 1% inflation per year for 5000 years is quite a sum.
Click to expand...
That’s probably why the remnants of a dowry come in the form of the bride’s family paying for the wedding. Thank God I only have 1 Daughter, her May wedding is killin me! :eek:
 
40.png
JoeyWarren:
That’s probably why the remnants of a dowry come in the form of the bride’s family paying for the wedding. Thank God I only have 1 Daughter, her May wedding is killin me! :eek:
Click to expand...
I know whereof you speak. I paid for 2, it set my retirement back a year of so. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top