Is it kool to rape a girl?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PluckyAli

Well-Known Member
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Pakistan
Hi all,And peace.
Whenever I have a prob with some verse either biblical or quranic i am going to scream.This verse does not makes sense.

"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" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}"

In other words,If you want to marry your ideal girl all you have to do is to rape her,then she is all yours.Is this really practicle?.Is this the status of women in christianity?.I live in a society where women is respected more then the word respect and this verse is unacceptable for me.I mean the author of bible did not notice that men can actually misuse this verse or not?


 
Whenever I have a prob with some verse either biblical or quranic i am going to scream.This verse does not makes sense.

This is why one is advised to seek guidance on matters of Scriptural interpretation. The assumption that because one can read one can understand what is read is something of a leap, especially when dealing with sacred texts.

In the first place tradition is a viable and reliable guide.

In the second place an authorised spokesperson is (or should be) a reliable guide.

In the absence of both (and sadly I do not count the West being a 'traditional Christian culture') all manner or error and assumption arises, and the question you ask is indicative of this.

The short answer is 'no.'

Thomas
 
Anybody want to come to my backyard this weekend?

I'm going to be boiling a kid in its mothers milk!

Yes, some of the rules we see in Deuteronomy and Leviticus may seem foreign, odd, and out of place with regard to modern morality.

One thing about the Bible that you must remember is this: context, Context, CONTEXT!!

The laws were written in the bronze age, and were based on the living culture at the time. Many of the laws in Deut and Levit were designed to protect the honor of the tribe, not necessarily the individual.

Other laws were designed to reinforce a cultural barrier between the tribes of Israel and those pesky cannanites (such as the reference I made to boiling a kid in its mothers milk, idolatry, the prohibition of temple prostitutes, etc.)

I also liked what Thomas had to say; It is best to get a guide, spiritual leader, interpretor, etc. if you are new to the bible. There are many levels of interpretation, and if you follow the wrong path, there can be ugly consequences.
 
hi pluckyali,

i think what we have here is an extreme example of bad translation. what the original hebrew says is "WeThuPhShaH WeShaKhaW 'IMaH" - "and takes (not "seizes") and lies down with her". clearly, we're talking about sex taking place here, but it isn't explicitly rape. that's part of the point. if you look earlier up in verse 25, which is a similar case at first glance, you see the additional phrase "WeHeHiZiQ-BaH HaIYSh" - literally "and the man overpowers her", which is far more obviously a rape. this sense of "overpowering" is absent in verse 28, so you're talking about two different situations. what the commentators suggest here is that we're talking about a woman who is "not engaged" (and therefore available) and we're also talking about their being discovered, which means it's in the city and not in the field (because the assumption is that if something takes place in the city and the girl was *unwilling*, she would have cried out and been overheard (see verse 24) and rescued, which wouldn't be possible in the countryside - see verses 25-6, where the man is punished with the same penalty as murder, incidentally, while the girl is considered innocent. so what we are talking about here is sex taking place (which is one of the ways in which a marriage can be formalised, albeit not preferable) but it being unclear whether they are married or not. what this is basically trying to prevent is the "love rat" (as they are called in the tabloids) having his way of the girl and then her being unable to get a husband subsequently because everyone knows about it and she's not a virgin without having been properly married. normally, you see, a man can divorce his wife as well as the other way round, but in this case, because he has acted dishonourably in the first instance (by not having a proper wedding) he is punished by not being able to initiate a divorce. however, this does not stop her agreeing to the marriage (thereby retroactively legitimising her loss of virginity) and then subsequently divorcing him (even without seeing him ever again) thus becoming entitled to alimony (even in the bronze age, people!) and the status of divorcée, which makes her available to marry someone else even though she's not a virgin.

but then again, if you read a translation of one verse in isolation, you're not going to understand the issues!

The laws were written in the bronze age, and were based on the living culture at the time. Many of the laws in Deut and Levit were designed to protect the honor of the tribe, not necessarily the individual.
Click to expand...
yeah, but they're still being used now and even then, as i think i've made clear above, the individual was even then and is still very much protected.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
this whole thread is intriguing to me .... what if the original reference has nothing to do with sex at all .... for example the "bridal veil" is a symbol for the veil that covers the brain (also called the arachnoid, the spider's net) and under this veil in the inner sanctum of the brain (the holy of holies or sometimes called the bridal chamber) the merging of the feminine and male energies within the human body takes place to open the brain to the place of visions or revelations .... the bridal veil could also be called the "shroud",just depends on one's traditions and what story is told .... all intepretations depend on where one is at in their undersanding of the text (literal interpretation or deep inner meanings) .... this merging of the female and male energies within the body (you might also look at it as our own DNA) is the ultimate marriage of the sky father and earth mother .... its inner meaning has nothing to do with human sex, but has everything to do with human spirituality .... so I don't have an answer to a possible meaning of the original reference from Deuteronomy, but I'm intrigued enough now to see if it is possible to go deeper into a possible interpretation (which some may not agree with, but that is not a problem .... all I can do is share my own perception and ideas .... always subject to modification as I continue to learn) .... mahalo (thank you) plucky ali for the original question .... this whole thread makes me think of the serious misinterpretation about the "virgins" that await those that give their lives in acts of terror .... believing this will take them to "paradise" .... when I return (have to go now) I'll tell everyone a story about King Amangons (from the tales of King Arthur and the Holy Grail) and the rape of the virgins (the maidens of the wells) .... it also has an inner meaning and from this we might derive a possible connection .... me ke aloha pumehana, pohaikawahine
 
PluckyAli said:
Hi all,And peace.
Whenever I have a prob with some verse either biblical or quranic i am going to scream.This verse does not makes sense.

"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" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}"

In other words,If you want to marry your ideal girl all you have to do is to rape her,then she is all yours.Is this really practicle?.Is this the status of women in christianity?.I live in a society where women is respected more then the word respect and this verse is unacceptable for me.I mean the author of bible did not notice that men can actually misuse this verse or not?
Click to expand...

no.. but it must be fun to beat your wife?

PluckyAli said:
Certainly,It's kewl to beat your wife.When i will get married,i have a plan to beat my wife daily only because the quran clearly says so to beat your wife and fortunately i am a muslim,It will be fun,ahahah.
Click to expand...
 
It is an interesting passage. A few decades ago in Chile, such a case arose. A man raped a woman and agreed to marry her to avoid prosecution, apparently they still have such a law on the books. What I was amazed was the number of preachers who publicly came forward and declared such a law as going against the laws of God and the Bible. Makes you wonder if they ever read the book at all.

If there is an ancient Rabbi interpretation of this law (although it seems sort of obvious what it means) I would suggest a word search of the Mishna. That way we know what it meant to the people who wrote it instead of using idle speculation and bias.
 
hi all,
Shocked to see some interesting interpretaion of the above verse.Beat means beat and rape means rape,it doesnot need any interpretaion in my point of view.No matter how you interpret the above verse,it's still going to be morality problem.I will come back to find possible holes in your interpretaions when i am free.

dear faithfulservant
I was the one who started the original thread about women in islamic section.I wanted to know about in which cirumstances one is allowed to beat his wife not what are alternative explanations for that verse.

When awaiting the fifth posted that verse in this section,that was also according to plan,I wanted to know about the reaction of muslims.And my message that you quoted was in 100% sarcastic language.
 
Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to read across text. When I first read that I thought you were being real and wondered if muslim men really feel like that. Can I suggest interjecting something like <sarcasm> in the future because I really did believe that you were serious and it put a bad taste in my mouth.
 
PluckyAli said:
hi all,
Shocked to see some interesting interpretaion of the above verse.Beat means beat and rape means rape,it doesnot need any interpretaion in my point of view.No matter how you interpret the above verse,it's still going to be morality problem.I will come back to find possible holes in your interpretaions when i am free.

dear faithfulservant
I was the one who started the original thread about women in islamic section.I wanted to know about in which cirumstances one is allowed to beat his wife not what are alternative explanations for that verse.

When awaiting the fifth posted that verse in this section,that was also according to plan,I wanted to know about the reaction of muslims.And my message that you quoted was in 100% sarcastic language.
Click to expand...

it sounds like you were baiting people .... "according to plan, I wanted ..."

too bad because that takes away from the process of real dialogue and understanding .... as for alternative interpretations it doesn't sound like that was even your interest or inclination .... while I still believe there is an inner meaning that can be gleaned I'll not bother to continue with my above posting .... pohaikawahine
 
PluckyAli said:
hi all,
Shocked to see some interesting interpretaion of the above verse.Beat means beat and rape means rape,it doesnot need any interpretaion in my point of view.No matter how you interpret the above verse,it's still going to be morality problem.I will come back to find possible holes in your interpretaions when i am free.
Click to expand...

You've been given the Jewish interpretation of their own Jewish scriptures written in the Jewish langauge - why are you therefore so convinced that a non-Jewish interpretation from an English translation is therefore the more superior?

Unless there is an obvious misunderstanding or dishonesty in bananabrain's explanation, then where is the objection to accepting the answer presented to your question?
 
There is a fragment in Numeri where the Israelites won a battle against the Midyanites. They took possession of their cows, their sheeps and their daughters. Notice that the cattle is mentioned first. In those days, women were regarded as a possession. It's terrible when people take these portions of the Bible as advisory.
However, it's not only a costume of the Bronze Age: it still happens in Sudan, Somalia, Uganda...
 
queenofsheba has an interesting point. but its true that women are put after money if they are ever listed. I heard a preacher say "if you devout yourself more to God the money and women will follow." Of course he was going a little far and its out of context but it still is funny the way he said,
money -1 women -2

and banabrain is right. He gave a slightly drawn out but by all means brilliant explaination of the quote which completely destroyed all loopholes or problems and if pluckyali fails to see the overwhelming intelect that has ended his shenanigan he is being a little troublesome fish.

Plus faithfulservent I think that Pluckyali's sarcasm, was blatantly obvious and slightly funny. I think it might be a cultural difference because in the UK people often make completely "overthetop" statements for comical value. I've heard that in the US things run differently and i have no idea about canada. To have "wondered if muslims really do feel like that" is being very gullable and unwitty.

By the way i haven't been on at all because I have had exams and then been away in Germany doing a music course. I got my GCSE results today and they are EXCELLLLENT! I got AA in science(double award) which I got E in my mock exam and all Bs and Cs in my coursework and modules which means i must have done Increadibly well in the exam to bring my grade up sooooo much. Im a very happy man and hope i can infect everybody with my bursting joy.

Kaspar
 
Moral relativity.
In one age you can kill you mother
and in another the same culture could say something like
"we always given our mothers respect full funerals".

In one age a God is a killer and in the next he is forgiving.

You shouldn't let this affect your faith.

What really change is not the god or the holy scripture,
It is the rediscovery of your God,
the new, brave and bright faith in how you god was all druing all those ages.

Don't confuse you history with religion,
your religion's (no mater which religion) old versions
were always another religion than your.

Most of the bible come from other religions even before Judaism,
but that doesn't make Judaism less valid.

But don't deny moral relativty or the fact that your religion has changed through the ages.
You should se it as becoming more true,
belive becouse you belive in something
not becouse of legacy.
 
Hi all,
Can I suggest interjecting something like <sarcasm> in the future because I really did believe that you were serious and it put a bad taste in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Yes,but it would be no fun.It's hard for me to get serious at times but i know since we can't see each other we don't know which mood are we in.The lack of emotions on net make it a limited place.


it sounds like you were baiting people .... "according to plan, I wanted ..."
Click to expand...
Not really.I was just not serious.If I were or wanted to bait people i would never had written "according to plan...I wanted" statment.

too bad because that takes away from the process of real dialogue and understanding
Click to expand...
It sometimes help to take things lightly on net.
as for alternative interpretations it doesn't sound like that was even your interest or inclination.
Click to expand...
Yes,but now i have changed my mind to listen to every alternative explanations.

while I still believe there is an inner meaning that can be gleaned I'll not bother to continue with my above posting
Click to expand...
Go on with your explanation.Many folks are waiting...
 
if you look earlier up in verse 25, which is a similar case at first glance, you see the additional phrase "WeHeHiZiQ-BaH HaIYSh" - literally "and the man overpowers her", which is far more obviously a rape. this sense of "overpowering" is absent in verse 28, so you're talking about two different situations. what the commentators suggest here is that we're talking about a woman who is "not engaged" (and therefore available) and we're also talking about their being discovered, which means it's in the city and not in the field (because the assumption is that if something takes place in the city and the girl was *unwilling*, she would have cried out and been overheard (see verse 24) and rescued, which wouldn't be possible in the countryside - see verses 25-6,
Click to expand...
I would love to comment but unfortunately i could not find any of these verses you wrote.Could you be more specific about references.Could you give direct reference from www.biblegateway.com or any other website.I could not find the bold face letter references.I can't continue without them.
 
I would love to comment but unfortunately i could not find any of these verses you wrote.
Click to expand...
you started by quoting some verses from deuteronomy chapter 22. these references are from the same chapter, ie deuteronomy 22:24-6; i'd have thought it would be simple enough. what i have done is look at the hebrew original and done a fairly rough job of explaining the difference between whatever translation you are working from and the intent of the original language. the transliteration is my own.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
hi pluckyali,

i think what we have here is an extreme example of bad translation. what the original hebrew says is "WeThuPhShaH WeShaKhaW 'IMaH" - "and takes (not "seizes") and lies down with her". clearly, we're talking about sex taking place here, but it isn't explicitly rape. that's part of the point. if you look earlier up in verse 25, which is a similar case at first glance, you see the additional phrase "WeHeHiZiQ-BaH HaIYSh" - literally "and the man overpowers her", which is far more obviously a rape. this sense of "overpowering" is absent in verse 28, so you're talking about two different situations. what the commentators suggest here is that we're talking about a woman who is "not engaged" (and therefore available) and we're also talking about their being discovered, which means it's in the city and not in the field (because the assumption is that if something takes place in the city and the girl was *unwilling*, she would have cried out and been overheard (see verse 24) and rescued, which wouldn't be possible in the countryside - see verses 25-6, where the man is punished with the same penalty as murder, incidentally, while the girl is considered innocent. so what we are talking about here is sex taking place (which is one of the ways in which a marriage can be formalised, albeit not preferable) but it being unclear whether they are married or not. what this is basically trying to prevent is the "love rat" (as they are called in the tabloids) having his way of the girl and then her being unable to get a husband subsequently because everyone knows about it and she's not a virgin without having been properly married. normally, you see, a man can divorce his wife as well as the other way round, but in this case, because he has acted dishonourably in the first instance (by not having a proper wedding) he is punished by not being able to initiate a divorce. however, this does not stop her agreeing to the marriage (thereby retroactively legitimising her loss of virginity) and then subsequently divorcing him (even without seeing him ever again) thus becoming entitled to alimony (even in the bronze age, people!) and the status of divorcée, which makes her available to marry someone else even though she's not a virgin.

but then again, if you read a translation of one verse in isolation, you're not going to understand the issues!


yeah, but they're still being used now and even then, as i think i've made clear above, the individual was even then and is still very much protected.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...
Hello bananabrain and everyone else.

I will comment on bananabrain explanation.
Let's assume your translation is correct.If we are talking about just sex there then it's going to be big problem for men.hOW?. Read below
In verse 25-6 we came to know that the punishment for rape is death(although this is not accurate as i will explain in my another message).Which clearly rules out any possibility of rape in the above verse because the men has not been ordered to killed.They are just having sex with the permission of women and men(without either men or women permission it's termed as rape which is not the case here).
Unfortunately i have to admit there is some sense of men overpowering the women in the above verse,because we see it talks about men violating a girl and not the reverse.It asks man to pay the girl's father and not vice versa.
If both are having sex with each other(with the girl and boy permission) then it should not just blame men for violating her.Both have broken the law by having premartial relationship.Both should be punished instead of only guy(guy is punished cuz he must marry the girl,pay his father and he can never divorce her).Why should a guy be punished for just having sex with her permission.Why not both be punished or why not both be left free?.

Now girls can misuse this interpretation by having a sex with their mate(assuming the guy don't know anything about christianity) and then allowing themselves to be discovered.Consequently guy had to marry her and he could never divorce her(ofcourse girl will never want to divorce her cuz that's what she wanted).
One thing more,it is not possible to find the place of sex or rape in the above verse.Although rarity,but they can be very well discovered in the fields.About screaming of women it's not necessary that women should scream when she is being raped because a man can shut her mouth by various methods.One can derive that the sex is taking place in the city because no girl would go alone in the field,but again it maybe she lives there and it's normal for her to go to the fields.Or it maybe the girl is driving across the fields and the guy happens to meet her.So,It's unreasonable to make any comment about the place.
Finally banana brain talks about their being married or not.It's unclear from the verse whether they are already married(to differ persons) or not but it's sure they are not married to each other.If polygamy is not allowed in the bible then one can suggest both are not already married.
From all this discussion it seems neither of the interpretation of the verse makes sense.There must be some third interpretaion or is it just contradiction?.

b'shalom

p.ali :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top