16yr old girl forced to marry her rapist, commits suicide (Morocco)

[skins]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What I find most interesting about that passage is the way it's phrased as a punishment for the man. "If you rape a woman, your penalty is 50 bits and being forced to marry her against your will. And you can't divorce her ever. Oh, and since women are considered property, you must pay the fine to her legal owner, her father."

It's not outright stated, but the message is also inferred that this punishment is considered beneficial to the victim. "Now that you've been violated, no respectable man will take you as a wife, so we'll hook you up with your attacker. Don't worry, he'll take care of you."

Taken in cultural context of when it was written, women were essentially property to be taken or left as a man saw fit. Forcing a man to take responsibility for his actions in this way was probably a progressive way of dealing with the situation. Very sad yes, but likely a reality.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

You should have read the verses before the ones you quoted:

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

The difference between verses 25-27 and verses 28-29 is location; location; location. Also, in the first instance she was alone and no one could hear her cry out.

In the verses you quoted she was probably in the camp and was a willing party to the fornication. She didn't cry out and she would most likely have had to sneak off with him to his tent or dwelling. In cities there would be one room houses that shared walls with the houses on either side. These homes were usually occupied by near relatives. I'm not sure why your translation calls it rape unless they think it is implied. The King James version simply says he lay with her. The KJV is a literal translation; Is yours?

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Modern day Christianity would be abhorred by such a practice and yet many Christians still pick and choose passages and laws from the OT at whim to whatever suits them and then use apologetics to explain away why their modern day cultural biases allow them to pick and choose what religious tenets they follow or not (homosexuals should be put to death as per Leviticus, etc.).

I know some Christians do pick and choose concerning the law. But, in this case the problem seems to be your understanding. Christians are not under the law but, the law does teach us a lot about the God we serve.

[Yeah_Baby]

"A willing part to the fornication."


Do you always talk like you live in the Victorian Era?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I know a couple who are in an arranged marriage. This was planned for many years without the kids even knowing about it. They are both from India but lived in Calgary for many years before the families made them marry.

They have been together for 16 years or so? She is now about 35.

One shouldn't assume that in the Jewish tradition the bride and groom have no say in the matter. Rachel was asked if she would go marry Isaac. She was not forced into it. Off the top of my head I can't think of an instance where there is indication this wasn't commonly the case.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

"A willing part to the fornication."


Do you always talk like you live in the Victorian Era?

I guess I was talking in legal terms.
Fornication is a sin but, it isn't adultery. It is a biblical term which seemed fitting to the conversation.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You should have read the verses before the ones you quoted:

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

The difference between verses 25-27 and verses 28-29 is location; location; location. Also, in the first instance she was alone and no one could hear her cry out.

In the verses you quoted she was probably in the camp and was a willing party to the fornication. She didn't cry out and she would most likely have had to sneak off with him to his tent or dwelling. In cities there would be one room houses that shared walls with the houses on either side. These homes were usually occupied by near relatives. I'm not sure why your translation calls it rape unless they think it is implied. The King James version simply says he lay with her. The KJV is a literal translation; Is yours?


I know some Christians do pick and choose concerning the law. But, in this case the problem seems to be your understanding. Christians are not under the law but, the law does teach us a lot about the God we serve.

The previous verses are irrelevant. Location is irrelevant. It's marital status that is relevant.

The previous verses that explain why and when a man and woman should be stoned if rape occurs (because the girl didn't cry out - maybe she was scared he would kill her?), are explicitly regarding a woman who is engaged to be married (therefore, you can perhaps inference the cultural attitude that she was already the property of another man).

Deuteronomy 28 explicity has to do with unmarried and unpledged virgin girls which is similar situation to what the topic of this thread is about.

If you want to get even deeper into it, verse 13 says that a girl can be stoned to death by the entire village if her husband is unhappy with her and claims that she wasn't a virgin and no proof can be found. If proof is found, the husband has to pay a fine to her father and she gets to continue being his wife and they cannot be divorced.

To sum up:

1. If a husband is dissatisfied with his wife and makes a claim that she wasn't a virgin when he married her, his wife is to be publically stoned to death unless proof can be found that she was a virgin when she married him. If proof is somehow found, she still has to remain married to her husband (who publicly called her a whore) until she dies.

2. If a man rapes a girl who is engaged, both are to be stoned to death (unless the girl was raped in a field where no-one could hear her scream).

3. If a man rapes a virgin girl who is not engaged to anyone, he owes her father 50 pieces of silver and then he is to marry her and they can never be divorced.

As for your devotion to the KJV, I understand where you are coming from. When I was a kid, I too preferred that version but the notion that it is somehow the most perfect and literal translation is a myth and fallacy among Christians. For example, fourteen different Hebrew words were translated into the single English word "prince". This occurs many times in it's translation. Also, in the day and language of the KJV, "lay with" always indicates sexual relations without fail. It's cognate with sex. The original KJV was also bound with the Apocrypha, something which you will not find today but are fascinating reads in and of themselves.

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

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. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22 13:29 NIV

I'm sorry, but I simply believe all of that to be absolutely abhorrent, unjust, and unethical at the very core of my being. If this "law does teach us a lot about the God we serve" is true as you say; what it taught me was that Christianity was a fallacy and it's God was not worthy of worshiping or believing in. It taught me that the Bible is a product of it's times - simply a chronicle of one Levantian tribe and it's cultural history along with all it's imperfections and atrocities that were normal for the times...Taking any of that as an article of faith or any of it as being divinely inspired takes a tremendous leap of faith and possibly an extreme disrespect toward women.

[Yeah_Baby]

I abhor debates about exegesis on messageboards.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I abhor debates about exegesis on messageboards.

Hey, it's a religious thread...and another description for exegesis is: "pointing out how absurd something is by reading it in plain sight"

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I guess I was talking in legal terms.
Fornication is a sin but, it isn't adultery. It is a biblical term which seemed fitting to the conversation.

fornication is a sin?

Seriously? Having sex is a sin? Or am I comically not aware of what fornication actually means?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

fornication is a sin?

Seriously? Having sex is a sin? Or am I comically not aware of what fornication actually means?

Welcome to Abrahamic Religions 101! Fornication is a sin indeed as the word fornication implies sex outside of marriage which can get you stoned by all the men in the village! Sex inside marriage though, I don't know what you call that.

[Mr.Coffee]

haha wait a tick, Im still confused, I thought to fornicate was just to have sex, regardless of marriage or anything, just another word for sex. Adultery is sex outside of the marriage... and I understand that being a sin. But Calgaryborn states fornication is a sin, meaning even in marriage it's a sin?

I don't get what he's trying to say is all.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

haha wait a tick, Im still confused, I thought to fornicate was just to have sex, regardless of marriage or anything, just another word for sex. Adultery is sex outside of the marriage... and I understand that being a sin. But Calgaryborn states fornication is a sin, meaning even in marriage it's a sin?

I don't get what he's trying to say is all.

Our English word fornication comes from the Roman slang for brothel. Fornix in Latin means arches and Roman prostitutes used to ply their trade under the arches of buildings.

fornication [ˌfɔːnɪˈkeɪʃən]
n
1. voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage
2. (Law) Law voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Bible sexual immorality in general, esp adultery

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

fornication is a sin?

Seriously? Having sex is a sin? Or am I comically not aware of what fornication actually means?

When you think about it, Baptism, the first sacrament in the Catholic Church, is considered to be the cleansing of "original sin." So I would think that the Church considered the act of procreation to be that sin. I would say that it seems rather an archaic notion now but the tradition lingers.

[burn_this_city]

The original sin is Adam and Eve eating the apple if I'm not mistaken.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The original sin is Adam and Eve eating the apple if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, I think the correct term would be ancestral sin, the collective guilt of man.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Welcome to Abrahamic Religions 101! Fornication is a sin indeed as the word fornication implies sex outside of marriage which can get you stoned by all the men in the village! Sex inside marriage though, I don't know what you call that.

Less frequent and BJless.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Sex inside marriage though, I don't know what you call that.

Scarce?

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

When you think about it, Baptism, the first sacrament in the Catholic Church, is considered to be the cleansing of "original sin." So I would think that the Church considered the act of procreation to be that sin. I would say that it seems rather an archaic notion now but the tradition lingers.

When I went to Catholic school, the religion teachers told us it was because everyone was assumed to be a sinner when they were born. Perhaps that could be it more specifically but I don't really know or care exactly what it means at this juncture.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

One shouldn't assume that in the Jewish tradition the bride and groom have no say in the matter. Rachel was asked if she would go marry Isaac. She was not forced into it. Off the top of my head I can't think of an instance where there is indication this wasn't commonly the case.

Who assumed anything?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

"A willing part to the fornication."


Do you always talk like you live in the Victorian Era?

Calgaryborn prays for that daily.