By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Jesus Christ of Nazareth loves you!

ninetailschris on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:
ninetailschris said:

1.When you say allow it you make it seem like it's like a good deed. That's not how it works as it even uses words that are crime words meaning this if you rufused would have been killed and the woman would would be trouble because of lack of support. It's called making best of situation. If he is put in jail he is not able to make a profit for the woman and if he isn't married with her she isn't going to have anyone to physically her with labor that man do. So, not only does he have to work more he also has to more general labor for his new wife and possible children that society would mostly forced him to do because the father(of woman) would want his generation to go on. Again this is crime. If he rufused he would have been stone. When forced to marry her he is paying with lot more labor.

Again you can't ignore these factors.

1.Don't work don't get feed.

2. No support from a man means  you will die off . No food or water.

3.HAving children back in those time was VERY important to that woman because it meant there generation goes on and that was honorable in the society they were in Honor is the most important thing.

4. You have to have a man to do certain things a woman just can't do in those days. Like go get food yourself if your low on curreny or cattle work.

5. It was treated as crime when using the word "violated her" it was nothing to laugh about. And remember if he tried to rape her in front of father they would try to stop him and kill. But once it happens it's over there is no going back it's damaged. There forced to pick between letting your child die from lack of support or find a solution. You didn't get anything for free in the country you had to work like collectivist. 

6. To stess again when they say forced to marry that means if you disagree your dead. If you don't support her your dead. This guy can't screw up and do adultury because he would be stoned. You don't think he has ANY pressure?  It's like having a gun to your head everywhere you go because if you screw up BAM you're punished. He has work more to pay off the father and support the woman so again he has to do LOT forever. 

You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there  child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like:

" Ok you think your smart? You will now have to pay off what you made me loss money from no longer getting money from girl and you have to pay for my girl for the rest of your life. Guess wha you going to have to be working a lot more than you had to do before and you will have children from my girl and will have to do more. Any if you screw up  you pay for your crimes of not doing the honorable thing and making up for mistake."

Putting him in jail or killing him would do nothing for girl as she would still be screwed over and die from lack of food/water. This can't be avoided because we all know if your not working or not making money therefor no one is getting supported. Again the father of the woman or the woman herself would have requested to the man. If this was in a modern world the woman could get a job and have the man arrested but in OT life wasn't that simple. It's better to solve a problem than to just cause more.


Again, you're asserting that there are rules involved after raping someone. I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing the fact that the bible does not say raping is morally wrong or should not be done. It says that raping can be done, but there are rules afterwards. 

It's the same as saying "you can stab someone, but you must take care of them afterwards." Sure, the suspect could take him to the hospital, pay for his stitches, give him a bed, feed him, etc, etc. But none of this negates the fact that stabbing people is wrong. 

The bible shouldn't say "Take care of the woman you rape." The bible should say "Raping is wrong and is a sin."

The bible is saying that a man is fine and good if he rapes a woman, as long as he takes care of her. That's wrong in my book.  Perhaps you disagree though.

 

Violate:to break, infringe, or transgress ([a law, rule, agreement,promise, instructions], etc.). 

Defintion.


1."does not say raping is morally wrong or should not be done" uses the word violate a word used to describe a crime happening. If I told you I violated your mother would you think I meant I touched her in way with was deem ok. No, they are telling you in what there saying is a crime happening and here is the punishment. It is worded like that because it is stated a law in passage. You can't jump around it. You continue to ignore the word violate a word commonly use in there day to refer to a crime and even to today.  

"It's the same as saying "you can stab someone, but you must take care of them afterwards." Sure, the suspect could take him to the hospital, pay for his stitches, give him a bed, feed him, etc, etc. But none of this negates the fact that stabbing people is wrong. "

VIOLATE VIOLATE VIOLATE <-

Not going to say anything else UNTIL you address the violate in passage which is obviously in reference to a crime happening. If your argument is why doesn't the bible say DON'T RAPE WOMEN! Than the answer is obvivous.... because it was common sense if you tried you would die. Do we need laws in school saying don't rape your fellow students or did it become obvious? High Context society hurts the argument even more.

"The bible shouldn't say "Take care of the woman you rape." The bible should say "Raping is wrong and is a sin."

First part.Of course it should say leave the girl you raped to die. It best if she doesn't get support because dying is much much better than eating and having water. Jay so I ask you should they have just killed the man and left the woman you die? Because you can't say support her because they had limited resources and the only way to surivive is to work and woman can't. So, Jay don't side-step the argument tell me would she just be better off killing herself or not eating to death?  Don't argue oh in todays times because you keep on ignore the context of time and what was possible.

"Raping sin part"

Violate. Tells us it was crime that was common knowledge. In a High Context society heck even in today society of COURSE raping a woman is crime.  They offer up the best solution at the time.  I already listed  the labor and other stuff she just can't do on here own and job. YET you still argue like they were happy about when they use the word violate a  FREAKING word used to describe sexual crime happening.

"The bible is saying that a man is fine and good if he rapes a woman, as long as he takes care of her. That's wrong in my book.  Perhaps you disagree though."

Jay I'm going to call you out on just being dishonest. I listed the things he has to do. I listed labor and pressure on on him. They even use the word violate. You are either lying to yourself to justify your own personal bias or just can't read.

YOU IGNORE ALL OF MY POINTS. Below  you ignored that it says violate. You obviously have a bias because you saying things he doesn't even say. It says this a crime and here is the punishment which i pointed out yet you dodged it.

"1.Don't work don't get feed.

2. No support from a man means  you will die off . No food or water.

3.HAving children back in those time was VERY important to that woman because it meant there generation goes on and that was honorable in the society they were in Honor is the most important thing.

4. You have to have a man to do certain things a woman just can't do in those days. Like go get food yourself if your low on curreny or cattle work.

5. It was treated as crime when using the word "violated her" it was nothing to laugh about. And remember if he tried to rape her in front of father they would try to stop him and kill. But once it happens it's over there is no going back it's damaged. There forced to pick between letting your child die from lack of support or find a solution. You didn't get anything for free in the country you had to work like collectivist. 

6. To stess again when they say forced to marry that means if you disagree your dead. If you don't support her your dead. This guy can't screw up and do adultury because he would be stoned. You don't think he has ANY pressure?  It's like having a gun to your head everywhere you go because if you screw up BAM you're punished. He has work more to pay off the father and support the woman so again he has to do LOT forever. 

You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there  child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like:

" Ok you think your smart? You will now have to pay off what you made me loss money from no longer getting money from girl and you have to pay for my girl for the rest of your life. Guess wha you going to have to be working a lot more than you had to do before and you will have children from my girl and will have to do more. Any if you screw up  you pay for your crimes of not doing the honorable thing and making up for mistake."

Putting him in jail or killing him would do nothing for girl as she would still be screwed over and die from lack of food/water. This can't be avoided because we all know if your not working or not making money therefor no one is getting supported. Again the father of the woman or the woman herself would have requested to the man. If this was in a modern world the woman could get a job and have the man arrested but in OT life wasn't that simple. It's better to solve a problem than to just cause more."




"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

Around the Network
Jay520 on 17 September 2012
richardhutnik said:

The Bible also makes mention of divorce.  Does the fact it does mean God approves of divorce?   Just because they are rules doesn't mean the conduct under those rules are approved.

And just so long as you give letter of divorce to a woman, that means the divorce is ok?  In no way do you argue that just because some law is written on a subject to address an issue, that means that God approves of something.  It doesn't mean you are morally good either.  

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV

 

[snip]

 

Exactly. It says in those quotes that God does not like divorce. This is not the same as raping. There is nothing which says rape is a sin or that God frowns upon rape. 

Besides, it's common fact that if you're actions don't go against the Bible, then you're, by default, morally good. Since raping (and taking care of the victim later) doesn't go against the Bible, then, by the default, we should assume that it's morally good.....

....But You are right that the bible does not say if raping is approved or disapproved. So let's look at the possibilites of both, since we cannot know for sure.

1. If raping is approved, then the bible is just flat-out immoral.

2. If raping is disapproved, then that's not fair to people. It's not fair that there are actions that God disapproves of, that isn't in the Bible. How would the people know if raping is right or wrong? Christians moral code is directly from the bible. And from the bible, the only thing they know about raping is what they must do after raping someone. They have no idea of if raping is good or bad. So, if raping is disapproved, then that's just not fair to Christians, because it's impossible for them to know beforehand.

If raping is wrong. Then there are an infinite amount of potential actions that are also wrong, which aren't mentioned in the bible.

- - -

A bit of a side-bar: If the Bible doesn't say if rape is wrong or not, then how do Christians know if rape is wrong or not? A common argument by Christians against atheists is that atheists don't have one objective moral code. They say that we atheists form subjective moralities and that we cannot know if our morals are correct. Well, if you ask Christians what there stance is on raping, their answer will probably always be "raping is wrong." But they would have no basis for this morality because the Bible never says "raping is wrong" (it doesn't say either way). So, these Chritians would actually be hypocrites, because they're forming morals from their own self. This isn't strictly relavent; I just thought it was interesting.

- - -

Another point: The bible is the word of God. The Bible tells people how to live there lives. There shouldn't even be room for ambiguity concerning something as powerful as rape, especially considering rape is mentioned multiple times.



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
ninetailschris said:

Violate:to break, infringe, or transgress ([a law, rule, agreement,promise, instructions], etc.). 

Defintion.


1."does not say raping is morally wrong or should not be done" uses the word violate a word used to describe a crime happening. If I told you I violated your mother would you think I meant I touched her in way with was deem ok. No, they are telling you in what there saying is a crime happening and here is the punishment. It is worded like that because it is stated a law in passage. You can't jump around it. You continue to ignore the word violate a word commonly use in there day to refer to a crime and even to today.  

"It's the same as saying "you can stab someone, but you must take care of them afterwards." Sure, the suspect could take him to the hospital, pay for his stitches, give him a bed, feed him, etc, etc. But none of this negates the fact that stabbing people is wrong. "

VIOLATE VIOLATE VIOLATE <-

Not going to say anything else UNTIL you address the violate in passage which is obviously in reference to a crime happening. If your argument is why doesn't the bible say DON'T RAPE WOMEN! Than the answer is obvivous.... because it was common sense if you tried you would die. Do we need laws in school saying don't rape your fellow students or did it become obvious? High Context society hurts the argument even more.

"The bible shouldn't say "Take care of the woman you rape." The bible should say "Raping is wrong and is a sin."

First part.Of course it should say leave the girl you raped to die. It best if she doesn't get support because dying is much much better than eating and having water. Jay so I ask you should they have just killed the man and left the woman you die? Because you can't say support her because they had limited resources and the only way to surivive is to work and woman can't. So, Jay don't side-step the argument tell me would she just be better off killing herself or not eating to death?  Don't argue oh in todays times because you keep on ignore the context of time and what was possible.

"Raping sin part"

Violate. Tells us it was crime that was common knowledge. In a High Context society heck even in today society of COURSE raping a woman is crime.  They offer up the best solution at the time.  I already listed  the labor and other stuff she just can't do on here own and job. YET you still argue like they were happy about when they use the word violate a  FREAKING word used to describe sexual crime happening.

"The bible is saying that a man is fine and good if he rapes a woman, as long as he takes care of her. That's wrong in my book.  Perhaps you disagree though."

YOU IGNORE ALL OF MY POINTS. Below  you ignored that it says violate. You obviously have a bias because you saying things he doesn't even say. It says this a crime and here is the punishment which i pointed out yet you dodged it.

You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there  child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like:

" Ok you think your smart? You will now have to pay off what you made me loss money from no longer getting money from girl and you have to pay for my girl for the rest of your life. Guess wha you going to have to be working a lot more than you had to do before and you will have children from my girl and will have to do more. Any if you screw up  you pay for your crimes of not doing the honorable thing and making up for mistake."

Putting him in jail or killing him would do nothing for girl as she would still be screwed over and die from lack of food/water. This can't be avoided because we all know if your not working or not making money therefor no one is getting supported. Again the father of the woman or the woman herself would have requested to the man. If this was in a modern world the woman could get a job and have the man arrested but in OT life wasn't that simple. It's better to solve a problem than to just cause more."

I ignored your points because they were saying what the man had to do after rape. Not whether or not rape was wrong.

- - - -

About the word 'violate'

In the context of raping I think this is the definition of 'violate' being used: to molest sexually, especially to rape.

So yeah, it's more likely that 'violate' means raping rather than 'commiting a crime.' Of the many definitions of 'violate', you have to assume it's talking about committing a crime. but you don't have to assume that 'violating' means raping. Since it makes sense.

- - - -

If your argument is why doesn't the bible say DON'T RAPE WOMEN! Than the answer is obvivous.... because it was common sense

Uhhm no. According to Christians, the bible teaches you exactly how to live your life. Nothing is up to a person's common sense. If common sense was a factor, then it becomes based upon a person's subjective feelings. If it becomes based upon a person's subjective feelings, then morals become subjective. That goes against the Christian code that the Bible teaches you exactly how to live your life. If the Bible doesn't say something is wrong, then Christians have no justification for saying it's wrong.

- - - -

I deleted those six points because they justified what the man had to do after raping a woman. That was never my point.

- - - - 

As for this: You mistake allow and violated. Because if he tried raping someone girl and ddidn't get sucessful that is what we like to call a public stoning to death(kick him in deep hole were he would die before being actually stone). Please tell me how that was ALLOWED. It seem like they had there hands tied behind there hands and had to make rational decision for there  child. No one in the passage is saying oh man you did a great job here is babe. It's more like:

 

You are right. Raping was disapproved in society. That was never my point. Was raping disapproved in the bible? No. Therefore, you don't know how God felt about rape. You just know he mentioned it, and said what to do afterwards. He didn't say it was morally wrong or right.

- - - -

I'll say this again:

I'm not arguing why the bible tells the man to stick with the vitcim. I'm asking why the bible doesn't say raping is wrong to begin with? You can say "because it's common sense." But that doesn't hold weight because someone's else's common sense can go against your own. Then, how would you settle your difference? You can't use the bible, so how would you know who was right? Would you use your subjective feelings? You can't do that because subjective feelings could be wrong?

- - - - 

You seem to be making the argument that raping is wrong, even though it's not mentioned in the bible. 

 

If raping is wrong, then that's not fair to people. It's not fair that there are actions that God disapproves of, that isn't in the Bible. How would the people know if raping is right or wrong? Christians moral code is directly from the bible. And from the bible, the only thing they know about raping is what they must do after raping someone. They have no idea of if raping is good or bad. So, if raping is disapproved, then that's just not fair to Christians, because it's impossible for them to know beforehand.

If raping is wrong. Then there are an infinite amount of potential actions that are also wrong, which aren't mentioned in the bible.

If there really are morally wrong actions that are not explicitely stated in the bible (which you are suggesting)...then the bible doesn't sound like a well crafted model for living your life.



richardhutnik on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:
richardhutnik said:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV

Exactly. It says in those quotes that God does not like divorce. This is not the same as raping. There is nothing which says rape is a sin or that God frowns upon rape. 

Besides, it's common fact that if you're actions don't go against the Bible, then you're, by default, morally good. Since raping (and taking care of the victim later) doesn't go against the Bible, then, by the default, we should assume that it's morally good.....

....But You are right that the bible does not say if raping is approved or disapproved. So let's look at the possibilites of both, since we cannot know for sure.

1. If raping is approved, then the bible is just flat-out immoral.

2. If raping is disapproved, then that's not fair to people. It's not fair that there are actions that God disapproves of, that isn't in the Bible. How would the people know if raping is right or wrong? Christians moral code is directly from the bible. And from the bible, the only thing they know about raping is what they must do after raping someone. They have no idea of if raping is good or bad. So, if raping is disapproved, then that's just not fair to Christians, because it's impossible for them to know beforehand.

If raping is wrong. Then there are an infinite amount of potential actions that are also wrong, which aren't mentioned in the bible.

- - -

A bit of a side-bar: If the Bible doesn't say if rape is wrong or not, then how do Christians know if rape is wrong or not? A common argument by Christians against atheists is that atheists don't have one objective moral code. They say that we atheists form subjective moralities and that we cannot know if our morals are correct. Well, if you ask Christians what there stance is on raping, their answer will probably always be "raping is wrong." But they would have no basis for this morality because the Bible never says "raping is wrong" (it doesn't say either way). So, these Chritians would actually be hypocrites, because they're forming morals from their own self. This isn't strictly relavent; I just thought it was interesting.

- - -

Another point: The bible is the word of God. The Bible tells people how to live there lives. There shouldn't even be room for ambiguity concerning something as powerful as rape, especially considering rape is mentioned multiple times.

I am assuming you are not a Christian, and don't have regard for the Bible, by the way you argue.  You have a narrow opinion how the Bible should be used, and apply it to Christians, telling them what is right and wrong, and how they fall short.  Frankly speaking, you are not qualified to do this.  You can use it to justify your own views, but you are very much incomplete in your understanding of things and even how the Bible and Christian faith works.  Your attitude also isn't the appropriate one to fit the Bible, and you would be hard pressed to show anywhere that Jesus, who demands people have him as their Lord, would call upon people to have the Bible as something you use to see what you get away with.  The question is not: Can one rape and be ok with God?  But rather, what does God call for sexuality and what is the appropriate way to respond to this?  And if God ends up wanting people to be at least betrothed before they engage in any form of physical intimacy, then how the heck would you need to then have a requirement that such involvement has to be consentual?  See, you are all irate over this by lack of consent.  In your morals do you find the act of sexuality without a commitment wrong?  And that such a relationship be one of mutual support and love?  If you do, then why would you bother to even add, "but it is wrong if it not consentual"?   It is like, if you aren't supposed to be somewhere, period, do you need to add that you shouldn't murder someone in the spot that you aren't supposed to be?

As for the Law and righteousness and things you want to hold Christians accountable for, this is what is written Jesus said:

Matthew 19

New International Version (NIV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor,and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 

So, by Christian standards, your concept of morals and ethics isn't even in the ballpark.  Your view is one of where everyone does as they please so long as no one else is forced to do things they are opposed to.  With you, rape is wrong only because it is against the will of the woman, that is all. Such an ethics is devoid of love, which is a big foundational thing in Christianity.  And without the proper framework, and you understanding what the framework is, it is really pointless to discuss this.  All I can ask you is: Under what context and framework can you show that Jesus approves of rape?  

By the way, if you are so opposed to lack of consent being evil, I presume you NEVER bother to do things against people's wishes, EVER.  



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
richardhutnik said:
Jay520 said:
richardhutnik said:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV

Exactly. It says in those quotes that God does not like divorce. This is not the same as raping. There is nothing which says rape is a sin or that God frowns upon rape. 

Besides, it's common fact that if you're actions don't go against the Bible, then you're, by default, morally good. Since raping (and taking care of the victim later) doesn't go against the Bible, then, by the default, we should assume that it's morally good.....

....But You are right that the bible does not say if raping is approved or disapproved. So let's look at the possibilites of both, since we cannot know for sure.

1. If raping is approved, then the bible is just flat-out immoral.

2. If raping is disapproved, then that's not fair to people. It's not fair that there are actions that God disapproves of, that isn't in the Bible. How would the people know if raping is right or wrong? Christians moral code is directly from the bible. And from the bible, the only thing they know about raping is what they must do after raping someone. They have no idea of if raping is good or bad. So, if raping is disapproved, then that's just not fair to Christians, because it's impossible for them to know beforehand.

If raping is wrong. Then there are an infinite amount of potential actions that are also wrong, which aren't mentioned in the bible.

- - -

A bit of a side-bar: If the Bible doesn't say if rape is wrong or not, then how do Christians know if rape is wrong or not? A common argument by Christians against atheists is that atheists don't have one objective moral code. They say that we atheists form subjective moralities and that we cannot know if our morals are correct. Well, if you ask Christians what there stance is on raping, their answer will probably always be "raping is wrong." But they would have no basis for this morality because the Bible never says "raping is wrong" (it doesn't say either way). So, these Chritians would actually be hypocrites, because they're forming morals from their own self. This isn't strictly relavent; I just thought it was interesting.

- - -

Another point: The bible is the word of God. The Bible tells people how to live there lives. There shouldn't even be room for ambiguity concerning something as powerful as rape, especially considering rape is mentioned multiple times.

I am assuming you are not a Christian, and don't have regard for the Bible, by the way you argue.  You have a narrow opinion how the Bible should be used, and apply it to Christians, telling them what is right and wrong, and how they fall short.  Frankly speaking, you are not qualified to do this.  You can use it to justify your own views, but you are very much incomplete in your understanding of things and even how the Bible and Christian faith works.  Your attitude also isn't the appropriate one to fit the Bible, and you would be hard pressed to show anywhere that Jesus, who demands people have him as their Lord, would call upon people to have the Bible as something you use to see what you get away with.  The question is not: Can one rape and be ok with God?  But rather, what does God call for sexuality and what is the appropriate way to respond to this?  And if God ends up wanting people to be at least betrothed before they engage in any form of physical intimacy, then how the heck would you need to then have a requirement that such involvement has to be consentual?  See, you are all irate over this by lack of consent.  In your morals do you find the act of sexuality without a commitment wrong?  And that such a relationship be one of mutual support and love?  If you do, then why would you bother to even add, "but it is wrong if it not consentual"?   It is like, if you aren't supposed to be somewhere, period, do you need to add that you shouldn't murder someone in the spot that you aren't supposed to be?

As for the Law and righteousness and things you want to hold Christians accountable for, this is what is written Jesus said:

 

Matthew 19

New International Version (NIV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor,and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 

So, by Christian standards, your concept of morals and ethics isn't even in the ballpark.  Your view is one of where everyone does as they please so long as no one else is forced to do things they are opposed to.  With you, rape is wrong only because it is against the will of the woman, that is all. Such an ethics is devoid of love, which is a big foundational thing in Christianity.  And without the proper framework, and you understanding what the framework is, it is really pointless to discuss this.  All I can ask you is: Under what context and framework can you show that Jesus approves of rape?  

By the way, if you are so opposed to lack of consent being evil, I presume you NEVER bother to do things against people's wishes, EVER.  

 


This is becoming tiring. I plan to make a thread on this topic soon to see what christians believe on this specifc topic.



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 17 September 2012

Jay sure is very passionate about his ''lack of belief''...



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
Player1x3 said:
Jay sure is very passionate about his ''lack of belief''...


In this case specific, I do have a belief. I believe that the Chrisitian God doesn't exist.

But when it comes to the possibility of any unknown, general God existing, I have no belief either way.



Player1x3 on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:
Player1x3 said:
Jay sure is very passionate about his ''lack of belief''...


In this case specific, I do have a belief. I believe that the Chrisitian God doesn't exist.

But when it comes to the possibility of any unknown, general God existing, I have no belief either way.


belief in a negative - disbelief - lack of belief ????

 

make up your mind, free thinker :p



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
richardhutnik said:
Jay520 said:

Besides, it's common fact that if you're actions don't go against the Bible, then you're, by default, morally good. Since raping (and taking care of the victim later) doesn't go against the Bible, then, by the default, we should assume that it's morally good.....

....But You are right that the bible does not say if raping is approved or disapproved. So let's look at the possibilites of both, since we cannot know for sure.

1. If raping is approved, then the bible is just flat-out immoral.

2. If raping is disapproved, then that's not fair to people. It's not fair that there are actions that God disapproves of, that isn't in the Bible. How would the people know if raping is right or wrong? Christians moral code is directly from the bible. And from the bible, the only thing they know about raping is what they must do after raping someone. They have no idea of if raping is good or bad. So, if raping is disapproved, then that's just not fair to Christians, because it's impossible for them to know beforehand.

If raping is wrong. Then there are an infinite amount of potential actions that are also wrong, which aren't mentioned in the bible.

- - -

A bit of a side-bar: If the Bible doesn't say if rape is wrong or not, then how do Christians know if rape is wrong or not? A common argument by Christians against atheists is that atheists don't have one objective moral code. They say that we atheists form subjective moralities and that we cannot know if our morals are correct. Well, if you ask Christians what there stance is on raping, their answer will probably always be "raping is wrong." But they would have no basis for this morality because the Bible never says "raping is wrong" (it doesn't say either way). So, these Chritians would actually be hypocrites, because they're forming morals from their own self. This isn't strictly relavent; I just thought it was interesting.

- - -

Another point: The bible is the word of God. The Bible tells people how to live there lives. There shouldn't even be room for ambiguity concerning something as powerful as rape, especially considering rape is mentioned multiple times.

1. I am assuming you are not a Christian, and don't have regard for the Bible, by the way you argue.  You have a narrow opinion how the Bible should be used, and apply it to Christians, telling them what is right and wrong, and how they fall short.  Frankly speaking, you are not qualified to do this.  You can use it to justify your own views, but you are very much incomplete in your understanding of things and even how the Bible and Christian faith works.  

2. Your attitude also isn't the appropriate one to fit the Bible, and you would be hard pressed to show anywhere that Jesus, who demands people have him as their Lord, would call upon people to have the Bible as something you use to see what you get away with.  The question is not: Can one rape and be ok with God?  But rather, what does God call for sexuality and what is the appropriate way to respond to this?  And if God ends up wanting people to be at least betrothed before they engage in any form of physical intimacy, then how the heck would you need to then have a requirement that such involvement has to be consentual?  See, you are all irate over this by lack of consent.  In your morals do you find the act of sexuality without a commitment wrong?  And that such a relationship be one of mutual support and love?  If you do, then why would you bother to even add, "but it is wrong if it not consentual"?   It is like, if you aren't supposed to be somewhere, period, do you need to add that you shouldn't murder someone in the spot that you aren't supposed to be?

As for the Law and righteousness and things you want to hold Christians accountable for, this is what is written Jesus said:

 

Matthew 19

New International Version (NIV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=NIV

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor,and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 

3. So, by Christian standards, your concept of morals and ethics isn't even in the ballpark.  Your view is one of where everyone does as they please so long as no one else is forced to do things they are opposed to.  With you, rape is wrong only because it is against the will of the woman, that is all. Such an ethics is devoid of love, which is a big foundational thing in Christianity.  And without the proper framework, and you understanding what the framework is, it is really pointless to discuss this.  

4. All I can ask you is: Under what context and framework can you show that Jesus approves of rape?  

5. By the way, if you are so opposed to lack of consent being evil, I presume you NEVER bother to do things against people's wishes, EVER.  

 

I might as well respond since I'm here.

1. From what it appears, you're saying since I have no regard for the Bible, then I cannot use against Christians. Okay then.

2. Good Point. The Bible says pre-marital sex is wrong, therefore rape is inherently wrong. That is true. However, I could ask Christians, "Is pre-marital rape any more wrong than pre-marital sex?" If they say yes, then I woud like to know what they base their beliefs off of. If they say no, then I really wouldn't know what to say.

3. No. I don't say rape is wrong "because it is against the will of the woman." I say rape is wrong "because it against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist." 

Do you believe rape is wrong? Why?

4. I cannot. But he doesn't disaprove of it either. So Christians must really be confused when concerning the morality of rape. At least, I would assume as such.

5. As I said at point #4. It's not about simply being a lack of consent. It's the lack of consent in conjunection with the lifelong harm on the person.



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
Player1x3 said:


belief in a negative - disbelief - lack of belief ????

make up your mind, free thinker :p


Yes, I believe in the negative of the existance of the Christian God.

Aside from the Christian God and other man-known deities, I am open to the possibility a God existing.

Where is the confusion?