Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist

[Richard Amiel McGough]

CWH
If you have read the book on the Rape of Nanking

I have the book and it is a read that can shake one to the core, when looking at what goes on in Total War to destroy a people in more ways than one, of the mind and body, of everything. It shows the lowest elements of evil and carnal men of what they would do for their emperor/god.... sick sick sick is putting it mildly. Many times I wish that I had never read it, it has been years but I still can not get the discussed feelings of what happened there and knowing that it has happened many times over and over in history.

It sounds like a book every Christian should read while chanting "This is the kind of thing that God ordered Israel to do. This is the kind of thing that God ordered Israel to do. This is the ..." Maybe then they would begin to understand the depth of horror attributed to God in the Bible.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just wanted to note that though he (MandM) didn't mention this in his article, the phrase 'and they be found' suggests she didn't resist and consented by not crying out. I say this because of the context, it doesn't say 'and he be found' to have done this act, but 'and they be found.'

Deut.22:28-29, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found;---."

8610. taphas
Strong says: A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, to lay hold of.

Note that the bride-price called the 'mohar' is said to be for the protection of the woman, it was not for the father to keep as if the man was buying 'property' that belonged to the father.

Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children.

I now leave it to the readers

Twospirits

I don't see how the use of the plural proves anything. The act of sexual intercourse require two people so the plural is to be expected.

You are incorrect about the mohar. Yes it became a "protection for the women" in later Jewish tradition, but originally it was a "bride price" paid to the father who owned the bride.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I have not said the wife did not remain married to the husband, I and others have argued that this is what was set out at the beginning and Jesus confirmed, A wife leaving a husband is not free to marry again, so long as her husband is alive. This does not stop the wife leaving the husband, for which I and others have given an example.

Good morning David,

The example you gave does not prove that women were free (under the law) to leave their husbands. It only shows that a woman did that once. The text doesn't say if her leaving was in accordance with any law in the Bible, and the fact that there is no such law is confirmed when you have to try to prove your case by appealing to a non-normative historical narrative.

Your assertion that Rose is wrong has no foundation in the Bible. It was later Jewish tradition that transformed the mohar from being a "bride price" belonging to the father into a "divorce penalty." God himself wrote a bad law that had to be "civilized" by Jewish tradition..

Traditions of men do tend to muddle things, but I do not see what is the bad law you are referring to.

The law was "bad" because it institutionalized the male ownership of women. They were treated like property that could be bought or sold. We even see this in the Tenth Commandment where women are classed along with other possessions like the cattle that you are not supposed to covet!

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.

See that? The women are classed along with THINGS that you are not supposed to covet. This is the OT view of women.

But all this totally misses the point anyway. The point is this: The Torah commands that the victim must marry her rapist and that he could never divorce her. Any fair judgment must agree that this is a barbaric law.

It has been argued by others that the event we are considering here is not rape. You continue to say it is despite Twospirits giving you a much better understanding of the words that you use to argue your case that rape is the correct term. You are sticking to your guns no matter what, and do not even contemplate that you might be wrong. I think we have passed the point in this thread for you to continue to make this assertion.

Yes, "it has been argued by others that the event we are considering here is not rape" but their arguments had many obvious flaws. First they didn't even get the Hebrew correct. Second, their argument that the word "taphas" did not imply a forceful taking ignored the fact that it is used in the same context to speak of forcefully taking a rebellious son to be stoned to death as well as the forceful taking of a city in war. They gave no justification for assuming a non-violent interpretation of that word in that context but merely asserted that a different word (chazach) would have been used. Third, they ended their argument with a blatant logical fallacy of "Begging the Question." Their article proved only one thing - it proves how people are willing to pervert logic in their desperate attempt to deny what the Bible plainly states. It is pathetic.

Your assertion that TwoSpirits gave "a much better understanding of the words" makes it seem like you have only one standard of truth: If something agrees with your conclusion, it is true, else it is false. It is absurd in the extreme to suggest that TwoSpirits gave a "better" (let alone "much better") interpretation. If you think my judgment is erroneous, I hope you will attempt to support your words. It gets very tedious trying to discuss serious topics when such absurd assertions are just tossed into the mix with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You have done this many times in our conversations. You frequently claim to have "answered" a point even after your "answer" was shown to be fallacious. It makes it seem like you are not really participating in these discussions. And worse, it makes it seem like you have no respect for TRUTH at all, and that is a most ironic position for a person claiming to believe in Christ.

I'm sorry for the sharp criticism, but I am treating you exactly as I want people to treat me. I got a long letter from a reader of my site the other day, and he really ripped into me from head to toe. I found his criticism extremely valuable and told him so. He was afraid he might offend me, but I gave him a hearty "thank you." I hope you received my comments in the spirit intended.

All the very best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

I don't see how the use of the plural proves anything. The act of sexual intercourse require two people so the plural is to be expected.

You are incorrect about the mohar. Yes it became a "protection for the women" in later Jewish tradition, but originally it was a "bride price" paid to the father who owned the bride.

Not if it's rape, the man is the one solely responsible for that act of sexual intercourse, because the act was "forced" upon the woman against her will/consent. And the punishment was death as is seen in Deut. 22:25. The punishment in Deut. 22:28-29 is different indicating it was not rape as the text "and they be found" indicates; she consented and didn't resist his advances making them both responsible. Since she wasn't betrothed, and he "humbled her," he was obligated by "law" to marry her. His punishment being he could never divorce her as long as he lived.

I found some more information on the Biblical meaning of the Mohar and thought I'd post it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...fY0Xm5nUc0nX2Q

The Mohar. The funds, called mohar, are so important that this clause is called ikkar ketubah—the basic part of the ketubah, or simply the ketubah. Mohar is the cash gift the groom gives the bride, as Eliezer, Abraham's servant, gave "precious things" to Laban, Rebecca's father, and as Jacob gave seven years of service for the hand of Rachel. The great sage and the ketubah's most important author, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach, decreed that this serve as protection for the bride rather than only a gift, and ordained that the funds were not given but set aside for the bride. During marriage, therefore, it was considered a debt which was paid only in case of death or divorce, and the mohar thus became a divorce or life insurance settlement rather than a mere marriage gift. This arrangement also enabled poor grooms to marry without any immediate monetary expenditure. The Talmud provides another reason, mishum china, to give the woman a secure financial position at the time of divorce so that she may remarry, and make the trials of marriage less poignant.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...nqm8Eopb1XOuFA

The mohar was originally the purchase price of the bride, and it is therefore understandable why it was paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride. In ancient days, marriage was not an agreement between two individuals, but between two families.
The newly married man usually did not found a new home for himself, but occupied a nook in his father's house. The family of the groom gained, and the family of the bride lost, a valuable member who helped with all household tasks. It was reasonable, therefore, that the father of the groom should pay the father of the bride the equivalent of her value as a useful member of the family.
Yet in the course of time the mohar lost its original meaning as a purchase price paid to the father for his daughter and assumed the significance of a gift to the near relatives of the bride. As far back as in early biblical times, it was customary for a good father to give the whole of the mohar or at least a large part of it to his daughter. A father who appropriated the whole mohar for himself was considered unkind and harsh.
The portion of the mohar which the bride received from her father, and the mattan, which the groom presented to her, were not the only possessions she brought to matrimony. A rich father sometimes gave his daughter a field or other landed property as well as female slaves.

Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I don't see how the use of the plural proves anything. The act of sexual intercourse require two people so the plural is to be expected.

You are incorrect about the mohar. Yes it became a "protection for the women" in later Jewish tradition, but originally it was a "bride price" paid to the father who owned the bride.

Not if it's rape, the man is the one solely responsible for that act of sexual intercourse, because the act was "forced" upon the woman against her will/consent. And the punishment was death as is seen in Deut. 22:25. The punishment in Deut. 22:28-29 is different indicating it was not rape as the text "and they be found" indicates; she consented and didn't resist his advances making them both responsible. Since she wasn't betrothed, and he "humbled her," he was obligated by "law" to marry her. His punishment being he could never divorce her as long as he lived.

You are trying to force a meaning onto the plural that is not necessarily there. It is possible I suppose, but you have presented nothing to prove your case. And it appears you have ignored the conclusions of the scholars on this point. I have found many standard commentators that all agree this passage is about rape. Can you find one published scholar who makes a good case that it was not rape? If not, you are just making up private arguments with no scholastic support, and I have no interest in disputing fringe opinions.

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard
On this occassion I think your conclusions are bad. When I came to this forum, you said something like; I hope you feel at home here. I was regarded as perhaps having traditional views and this forum was not traditional in its views.

As you know by now, I do not hold with traditional views of modern-day Christianity believing in the Trinity, the Devil, Satan and the nature of Jesus, the Immortal Soul etc. If my views are not the traditional views of modern-day Christians, then perhaps I am more at home here than I thought I would be. It seems I have to defend against blatant lies being put forward as truths.

You are trying to force a meaning onto the plural that is not necessarily there. It is possible I suppose, but you have presented nothing to prove your case. And it appears you have ignored the conclusions of the scholars on this point. I have found many standard commentators that all agree this passage is about rape. Can you find one published scholar who makes a good case that it was not rape? If not, you are just making up private arguments with no scholastic support, and I have no interest in disputing fringe opinions.
All the best,

Richard

I disagree with your assertions here that the passages in Deuteronomy 22 being discussed are all to do with rape. Verse 22is most obviuosly not rape. Verse 24 is rape if the damsel cries out (rape!). Where the damsel is in a city (a place where she can be heard) she must cry out. If she does not cry out, then consent has to be inferred and it is not rape.

You do not need to find a published scholars commenting on this passage to say it is not about rape, when it is so obvious. The passage is to do with intercourse, but not exclusively about rape. If you have found published scholars commenting to support your view, it just goes to show how wrong you all can be and I would have thought an intelligent person like yourself would not make such a false conclusion.

I might not agree with Twospirits on other matters, but on this one, I do not see how you can say his comments are on the fringe. By what you say; "I have no interest in disputing fringe opinions", you might as well shut this forum down now!

Will we be chatting for much longer??


David

[David M]

I'm sorry for the sharp criticism, but I am treating you exactly as I want people to treat me. I got a long letter from a reader of my site the other day, and he really ripped into me from head to toe. I found his criticism extremely valuable and told him so. He was afraid he might offend me, but I gave him a hearty "thank you." I hope you received my comments in the spirit intended.

All the very best,

Richard

Hello Richard
Your criticism is accepted. You write a lot more than I do. I find myself reading a lot more of your posts than I reply do and I gain from both sides of the argument and I look for truth on both sides and discard that which is an obvious lie and hold in obeyance anything that is a possibility. I think we use the verses we are familiar with and maybe insert words or ignore words unintentionally to support our view. The only way, as we have agreed elsewhere, is to focus on one topic or indeed on one specfic verse and analyse it to get the most number of possible meanings. While there can be several interpretations of a verse/passage, these should all be held in obeyance before making a conclusion about a broad topic.

At the moment, with longish posts including questions, we are picking and choosing an not answering all of each others questions in the way we expect our own questions to be answered. May be this is the nature of this forum. Maybe we can get some topics going and include them in a Bible Study section. I note you have a Biblical Studies section which comes under Christianity, it might be better to have a completely separate section as a root topic. Discussing Bible topics is not always from the Christian perspective, and Jewish and language scholars could be very helpful in understanding Old Testament texts.

Maybe we can get more contributors commenting on a specific verse to get a number of interpretations. It is inevitable that this could lead to side-trails and where that begins to happen, we have to be discplined and not follow down the side-trail but stick to the point. I am not sure where to start, maybe setting up a separate section or move the Biblical Studies section out of the Christianity section to form a root section on its own.

Regards

David

[Unregistered]

“Should a man find a virgin young woman who is not betrothed… (Deuteronomy 22:28). The precept is to punish the seducer with fifty shekels of silver. Should a man find a virgin young woman who is not betrothed - these are Israel, who, from the aspect of the Shekhinah are called ‘daughter.’ And take hold of her and lie with her, and they be found, the man lying with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty weights of silver, and she shall be his wife inasmuch as he abused her. He shall not be able to send her away all his days (ibid. 28-29). The sages and all the members of the academy say: a man - this is Israel from the aspect of the blessed Holy One [Tif'eret]. And take hold of her - with the knot of tefillin and with zizit. Who is not betrothed - an only daughter, who is the nefesh. And lie with her - with the prayer of lying down, namely הַשְׁכִּיבֵנוּ [‘cause us to lie down’]. Shall give to the young woman’s father fifty weights of silver - these are the twenty-five and twenty-five letters of the Shema” (Ra’aya Meheimna).


שקל shekel “weight of silver” and נפש nefesh “vital spirit/animal soul” לנשים “for wives” (Genesis 34:21), וְחַטָּאתוֹ “and sinned,” (2 Kings 21:17) all have a gematria (numerical coefficient) of 430.

[Unregistered]

“…As for the raped woman who does not want to marry her rapist..: it is permitted to either the woman or her father to refuse the marriage, and the rapist pays a fine and the matter is settled. If she desires [to marry the rapist] and this is also her father’s wish, they force him, and he pays a fine, as is written, and she shall be his wife and this is a prescription. Even if she is lame or blind or leprous, he is forced to marry her and can not send her out by his own will ever, as it says, and he may not put her away all his days and this is a prohibition” (Maimonides, Mishnei Torah, Hilkhot Na`ara Betula 1:3).

[Rose]

“…As for the raped woman who does not want to marry her rapist..: it is permitted to either the woman or her father to refuse the marriage, and the rapist pays a fine and the matter is settled. If she desires [to marry the rapist] and this is also her father’s wish, they force him, and he pays a fine, as is written, and she shall be his wife and this is a prescription. Even if she is lame or blind or leprous, he is forced to marry her and can not send her out by his own will ever, as it says, and he may not put her away all his days and this is a prohibition” (Maimonides, Mishnei Torah, Hilkhot Na`ara Betula 1:3).

According to the Bible a daughter is the property of her father until she marries and then she is the property of her husband. So, if the father insists on his daughter marrying her rapist she has no choice but to obey. Also, a father may sell his daughter as a slave to whomever he wishes, as it explicitly says in the verse below.

Exo.21:7-9 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.