Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[genuineoriginal]

Face it: people who claim they could rape someone today and still be saved while they commit that rape are evil.

My position is that rapists are to be put to death, swiftly and without mercy.
I also believe that nobody is to be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses, who are to be put to death themselves if it is found that they give false testimony.
I do not take the death penalty lightly, nor do I take rape lightly.

You are on the side of evil.

You are a liar.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Feel free to post the verses that describe this along with the punishments prescribed in the Bible.

Are you now going to contest that ungodly men didn't attempt to rape other men in certain Bible stories? Or are you just going to call their proposal of forced sex something other than the crime of rape?

Are you going to say that what one of David's sons did to their sisters wasn't rape, although it's obvious it was forced sex?

Now you are just making up your own Bible?

You know what verse I reference or you are dense. I think you are just being obtuse and evasive.

This is the definition of rape before feminists got it changed in the 1970s:
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

Do you have any idea why this was the definition for so many centuries?

Because men were too ashamed to report rape and get the laws redefined to be less sexist?

 

[elohiym]

My position is that rapists are to be put to death, swiftly and without mercy.

No, you only believe that should be done to some rapists, but your lack of mercy is noted. Hopefully you will get what you deserve for your sins, too, right?

I also believe that nobody is to be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses, who are to be put to death themselves if it is found that they give false testimony

So how much of the Mosaic Law do you want to strictly adhere to? Should a murderer be released if the only evidence is DNA?

I do not take the death penalty lightly, nor do I take rape lightly.

Rather you just take legal separations lightly even though they are perversions of a bill of divorce, and you completely reject the definition of rape provided by the authorities ordained by God (per Romans 13:1-7).

You are a liar.

Nah. At worst, I'm slightly mistaken about you.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I'm not.



According to what definition? You've been on the side of those arguing certain situations are not rape because of a definition. I'm trying to simplify this by stating first that I have never forced another person to have sex against their will. If you can say the same, then do so.



You can only speak for yourself.

I've never forced another person to have sex against their will. It may be unintentional but this is evil surmising. We are discussing the feminist abuse of the rape charge. This does not indicate a rapist. I'm shocked you would ever think I forced sex on anyone.

 

[elohiym]

Rather I've confronted you because you use 1 John 3:9 to claim you don't sin while you still commit acts that are condemned as sin under the law, e.g. coveting and other acts listed in Galatians 5:19-21. Your argument that the sin you are committing is not really sin, or not counted against you, is garbage and part of a false gospel you have been preaching for years.

And, GD, when you try and condemn strippers while claiming your sins are not counted against you because you are under the law, it not only hypocrisy but blasphemy.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You poor pathetic confused man.

Of course women need protection against abusive husbands.
The only thing wrong with your vain imaginations against God's institution of marriage is the inclusion of "rape" in the list.

A husband can most certainly abuse his wife, but a husband can never rape his wife, since rape is : "A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

I don't accept your definition of rape. A husband can rape his wife, sometimes brutally. A woman needs legal recourse against such an act by her husband.

By the way, you forgot to respond to my second request. Why?

 

[elohiym]

I've never forced another person to have sex against their will.

See how simple that was?

 

[glorydaz]

You've not proven me a liar or a pervert, so are a false accuser. Your definition of Christian is asinine, so who cares? At least I can honestly make the claim that I have never forced any person to have sex against their will, but you have avoided saying that about yourself when given the opportunity. Twice now.

You can "honestly" make whatever claim you want, but only a fool would believe you. You have priors.



The question is.....do those who do bad things deserve to suffer for them here in this life, or do they not? Does the guy that grabs a little girl off her porch, rapes her, slits her throat, and throws her body in a dumpster deserve to suffer in this life for what he did?

 

[elohiym]

A husband can rape his wife, sometimes brutally. A woman needs legal recourse against such an act by her husband.

Yes, else men will get away with rape.

 

[glorydaz]

I've never forced another person to have sex against their will. It may be unintentional but this is evil surmising. We are discussing the feminist abuse of the rape charge. This does not indicate a rapist. I'm shocked you would ever think I forced sex on anyone.

It's not unintentional. They have priors. He and his wife get their jollies this way. The more details about anything sexual they can get people to divulge, the happier they are. Next they'll be asking you if you were frustrated when you kept yourself from raping, and what you did to relieve your frustration. :chew:

Simply put....they are the Dynamic :troll: :troll: Duo.

 

[elohiym]

The question is.....do those who do bad things deserve to suffer for them here in this life, or do they not?

Do you? Did you get what you deserved?

Does the guy that grabs a little girl off her porch, rapes her, slits her throat, and throws her body in a dumpster deserve to suffer in this life for what he did?

First tell me if it's possible such a man could be a believer while he does the act? If you say no, you undermine your false gospel and I win our long-standing debate. I say he can't possibly be a believer while doing such acts.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I've never forced another person to have sex against their will. It may be unintentional but this is evil surmising.

No, it isn't. We didn't assume anything about you or anyone else. Glad to hear you don't force sex. Don't stand with those who do. Don't tell rapists that some people deserve it. Rapists target people they think aren't as protected from them, like the ones some insist ask for rape by dancing in a club in a short skirt. People who claim that dancing mini-skirt wearers are sluts deserving of rape are supporting rape/rapists and inciting them to target those kinds of women especially (in the hopes of getting a pass for their predation).

We are discussing the feminist abuse of the rape charge.

Do you think people can deserve rape for being too alluring in dress and behavior and by being vulnerable to rapist predation?

Some here think that forced sex isn't rape.

Some think that it's wrong to defend "sluts" from rapists, alleging they deserved the abuse.

This does not indicate a rapist. I'm shocked you would ever think I forced sex on anyone.

We wouldn't dream of wondering if you raped someone unless you refused to state otherwise in clear terms like this after being asked, point-blank.

 

[elohiym]

I'm shocked you would ever think I forced sex on anyone.

I'm shocked by several things you've posted recently. You have been sounding a bit like a radical Islamic fundamentalist. I'm waiting for you to post an example of acceptable dancing for women that doesn't require them wearing a burka.

 

[elohiym]

It's not unintentional. They have priors. He and his wife get their jollies this way. The more details about anything sexual they can get people to divulge, the happier they are. Next they'll be asking you if you were frustrated when you kept yourself from raping, and what you did to relieve your frustration. :chew:

ClimateSanity, you don't see the difference between the question we asked you and the blatant false accusation that is being made about us? Where is your rebuke for the evil surmising and reviling that GD does constantly on this forum? Selective morality sucks. What will you reap for that?

 

[glorydaz]

And, GD, when you try and condemn strippers while claiming your sins are not counted against you because you are under the law, it not only hypocrisy but blasphemy.

Proving you're a double loon. :doh:

What we must suffer in this life as a result of our bad behavior has NOTHING to do with the law of sin and death as a consequence in the next. My not being under the law for righteousness has nothing to do with the principle of reaping what we sow while here on earth in this body of flesh.


Blasphemy has nothing to do with the principle of reaping what we sow, and hypocrisy has nothing to do with my recognizing the immorality of a stripper's behavior. I know the difference between right and wrong, and I'm betting the stripper has a better idea of it than you do.

So, when a stripper does something immoral, or if I were to do something immoral, I would know without a doubt that both of us would suffer the consequences of our bad behavior in this life.

 

[glorydaz]

ClimateSanity, you don't see the difference between the question we asked you and the blatant false accusation that is being made about us? Where is your rebuke for the evil surmising and reviling that GD does constantly on this forum? Selective morality sucks. What will you reap for that?

There were no false accusations, but now you're whining when you have to reap what you sow? :shocked:

Here I am diligently providing you with a hands on lesson of those very things you deny and you complain about it. Go figure. Proving once again that you whiners can dish it out but you sure can't take it. No wonder you deny reaping and sowing.....you think you should be immune to it, and set up a whine when you get a taste of what you deserve. :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

My position is that rapists are to be put to death, swiftly and without mercy.

Rape did carry a death sentence, until someone figured out that what the state was encouraging was rapists murdering their victims.

I also believe that nobody is to be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses, who are to be put to death themselves if it is found that they give false testimony.

That would accomplish two things. The first is that no one is going to want to bear witness, since an honest mistake (and multiple witness misidentification has a history) would end with their death. The second is that people will die who are innocent. Neither of those things is a good idea given the advances we have made in terms of better, more reliable ways to link criminals to their crimes.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

What did elo get banned for saying?

 

[glorydaz]

You are doing a poor job of being vindictive. Much like the others.

Could that be because I'm not trying to be vindictive? :think:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are you now going to contest that ungodly men didn't attempt to rape other men in certain Bible stories? Or are you just going to call their proposal of forced sex something other than the crime of rape?

I see you are starting to understand.

Are you going to say that what one of David's sons did to their sisters wasn't rape, although it's obvious it was forced sex?

Rape is: "A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."
Does what he did fit that definition?

You know what verse I reference or you are dense. I think you are just being obtuse and evasive.

The verses you are referencing do not say what you seem to think they say.

Because men were too ashamed to report rape and get the laws redefined to be less sexist?

No, the laws were written the way they were because of a compelling State interest in preserving the institution of marriage.

The State has a compelling interest in preserving marriage as the exclusive institution where procreative sex was permitted to occur as a way of ensuring the parenthood of the children, enforcing the support of the mother and children by the father, and preserving the inheritance of property to legitimate heirs.

Sex outside of marriage was criminalized to prevent children of unknown parenthood, mothers and children without the support of the father, and the many legal battles to establish which offspring would have legal rights of inheritance.

From the start of the feminist movement, the feminists have constantly campaigned to redefine marriage as a joining of two people in love instead of an institution that was created for the preservation and regulation of procreation.

This redefinition of marriage has created the current "homosexual marriage" and criminalization of sex within a marriage through the abolishment of the marital exception in rape laws.