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

[glorydaz]

How is it a fail, to show what the scriptures say, that prove what lifeisgood said was wrong?

God did punish david with the loss of his child, it says it outright. (to anyone who can read)

What's that got to do with her declaring that women of an "immoral" disposition deserve to be raped?

Because God does punish us for our bad behavior. If God does that, then we can know for sure we deserve that punishment. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? Surely this common sense understanding is not beyond the natural man's grasp, is it? :think:

Surely this is not something that requires spiritual discernment.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

 

[Angel4Truth]

What's that got to do with her declaring that women of an "immoral" disposition deserve to be raped?

She agreed with what i said which has a specific context and was in response to a specific post, so how is a "fail" either the bible says what it says or it doesnt.

Perhaps you need to stop confusing contexts.

So basically you said what i said was a fail. please define what is fail about it, do you deny God punished David with the loss of His child and that scripture says it specifically?

Again for context:

I repeat: So did David the king. yes, admittedly so. Like you and like me, we all deserve death. His punishment was the loss of his child. I do not see the death of the child as David's punishment, per se. -The death of this child came as no surprise to David because it had already been foretold by Nathan. -Nathan had already explained the reason for death of this child to David. -David's mourning during the child's sickness was an act of repentance. -The death of this child was accepted as God's final answer to David's petitions for the child's life. -David was comforted by the fact that what he asked for (and was denied) was grace. -David found consolation and comfort in the death of the child because he was assured that, although the child could not return to be with him in life, he would go to be with the child in heaven. https://bible.org/seriespage/13-death-david-s-son-2-samuel-1214-31 You dont know your bible, it says the loss of the child would be his punishment from God, outright. 2 Samuel 12 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! 9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’” 13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. So, is your not seeing it willful or selective reading? It says it plain as day.

where is the fail? Or will you like many others pretend i said anything that i didnt say by taking what i say from context?

PS lest anyone want to pretend i think something i dont, see this post for my position on all of this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526405&postcount=861

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because God does punish us for our bad behavior. If God does that, then we can know for sure we deserve that punishment. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? Surely this common sense understanding is not beyond the natural man's grasp, is it? :think:

Surely this is not something that requires spiritual discernment.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

Most victims of rape do not fall into your 'lascivious' category so what are they getting punished for exactly? Being imperfect human beings?

Trying to justify your execrable position that people deserve rape and that there's anything remotely spiritual about it on your part would be laughable if it weren't so sick.

You have no idea how damaging rape actually is as you've continually demonstrated on here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

She agreed with what i said which has a specific context and was in response to a specific post, so how is a "fail" either the bible says what it says or it doesnt.

Perhaps you need to stop confusing contexts.

So basically you said what i said was a fail. please define what is fail about it, do you deny God punished David with the loss of His child and that scripture says it specifically?

Again for context:

You dont know your bible, it says the loss of the child would be his punishment from God, outright. 2 Samuel 12 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! 9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’” 13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. So, is your not seeing it willful or selective reading? It says it plain as day.

where is the fail? Or will you like many others pretend i said anything that i didnt say by taking what i say from context?

The only 'context' I'm interested in is how it can be remotely justifiable to advocate that some people deserve to be raped Angel. Not interested in this side bar thanks unless you can tie it in, how so and why.

 

[ClimateSanity]

So, does your bizarre line of reasoning extend to anyone who's posed nude, topless for magazines etc?

These woman are anonymous. They cannot be followed home.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The only 'context' I'm interested in is how it can be remotely justifiable to advocate that some people deserve to be raped Angel. Not interested in this side bar thanks unless you can tie it in, how so and why.

Why do you keep asking me what i think and try to attribute to me something i dont, when YOU were already answered?

Why do i need to back anything i don't think?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526405&postcount=861 Read this again till you get it, since it was in response directly to you about this.

Is your memory that bad?

I never said anyone deserves to be raped, not once ever, and i even said i dont agree with the word usage, would you like blood now?

Will you be a wanton liar like a few others here have been, and keep pressing that i think something i dont? I am responding to SPECIFIC contexts ONLY.

 

[Arthur Brain]

These woman are anonymous. They cannot be followed home.

So? If a glamour model strips for a magazine isn't she also "promoting rape" by your 'logic'? Shouldn't they also be publicly humiliated and put on a 'sex offenders' register for enticing men to ogle them in a periodical?

 

[glorydaz]

Fail. What people balk at is the abhorrent notion that some people deserve to be raped through the self righteous piety and ignorance of people such as yourself. That's it.

Actually, my "righteousness" has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about RIGHT and WRONG. There is really such a thing, you know?

And I'm not so ignorant as to think for one minute we don't deserve to suffer for our bad behavior here in this life. We are thinking human beings who are responsible for our own behavior....not just a bunch of apes ruled only by instinct.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why do you keep asking me what i think and try to attribute to me something i dont, when YOU were already answered?

Why do i need to back anything i don't think?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526405&postcount=861 Read this again till you get it, since it was in response directly to you about this.

Is your memory that bad?

I never said anyone deserves to be raped, not once ever, and i even said i dont agree with the word usage, would you like blood now?

Will you be a wanton liar like a few others here have been, and keep pressing that i think something i dont? I am responding to SPECIFIC contexts ONLY.

I'm not if you actually read back. In regards to 'context' then the 'fail' part I addressed to GD directly and why.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Actually, my "righteousness" has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about RIGHT and WRONG. There is really such a thing, you know?

And I'm not so ignorant as to think for one minute we don't deserve to suffer for our bad behavior here in this life. We are thinking human beings who are responsible for our own behavior....not just a bunch of apes ruled only by instinct.

Of course there is. Rape is wrong. Saying that people deserve to be raped is also wrong.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm not if you actually read back. In regards to 'context' then the 'fail' part I addressed to GD directly and why.

Then you didn't understand what she said. She agreed with me about what happened in that specific context, do i need to teach you that on a message board, there are several conversations in a thread going at once and not just one? So they each have separate contexts.

Ive responded to SPECIFIC ones. So to take my responses and make them about something its not, is at the least disingenuous or the worst a total lie.

So you calling her agreement with my post a fail, is to say i said something false, or that i said something about YOUR conversation with her, which i did not. I even provided context.

This selective reading happening by a few lately is disturbing.

 

[intojoy]

Arthur doesn't realize that strippers are not happy little campers doing what they love to do. They have a conscience that is hounding them all the time. They have parents and family who they know disapprove of what they do. They have no self esteem though they may put on a "good act". Arthur thinks by telling strippers the truth about where their life is leading them, and why they suffer because of what they do.....we're mean and unsympathetic. He doesn't realize that he and his cohorts are who has no compassion or love for them at all.

The ones I dated liked what they did. It's called self deception. $500 to a K per day is what kills their conscience

 

[intojoy]

And you believe strippers deserve gold medals and praise, right? :chew:

10/4

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then you didn't understand what she said. She agreed with me about what happened in that specific context, do i need to teach you that on a message board, there are several conversations in a thread going at once and not just one? So they each have separate contexts.

Ive responded to SPECIFIC ones. So to take my responses and make them about something its not, is at the least disingenuous or the worst a total lie.

So you calling her agreement with my post a fail, is to say i said something false, or that i said something about YOUR conversation with her, which i did not. I even provided context.

This selective reading happening by a few lately is disturbing.

Then apply the same standards to yourself and see in 'context' why I said her post was a fail. If you can be objective enough on the matter I was addressing her position that people can actually deserve to be raped which is after all at the core of this thread. You're going off on tangents that I wasn't even focusing on...

 

[Angel4Truth]

Then apply the same standards to yourself and see in 'context' why I said her post was a fail.

In context, you called my post a fail, since her post was in direct response to MY conversation, not YOURS with her.

If you can be objective enough on the matter I was addressing her position that people can actually deserve to be raped which is after all at the core of this thread. You're going off on tangents that I wasn't even focusing on...

yes, you are confusing contexts and grabbing at anything you think you can use even if it means you need to pretend i think something i dont. Thats called cheap. Running with garbage like that, helps other people lie about other people too.

 

[patrick jane]

The ones I dated liked what they did. It's called self deception. $500 to a K per day is what kills their conscience

They DESERVE that money -

 

[intojoy]

So, is glorydaz, advocating that if glorydaz had been raped while playing the harlot (I am assuming you were not raped, as you have not declared that you were), that being raped would have been the impetus for glorydaz to change her immoral ways?

Can't find that in my Bible.

Ask her about Ariel Castro. If good ol AC sees a stripper he has the green light to blame them for taking them hostage and chaining them to a hole.

The worst reality of this is that Yeshua lives in us, we have the blessed opportunity to bring Christ into every encounter. It is this failure that glory self gaze has failed in. Sad. Knowledge puffs up but love edifies.

"You whore, you brought it on yourself" or "God allows suffering in our lives and we thru Christ can turn our suffering into a blessing to others of like sufferings in a way that most cannot witness, some who suffered tremendously can bring Yeshua into an encounter with a victim of rape and produce fruit in the lives of those who hear and see the love of God manifested in them."

Those who sow in tears shall surely reap in joy.

My wife was abducted as a child and gave birth to a son at 11 years old. She today is a wife and mother and a women to whom I owe a debt of love that can never be paid. We are more than conquerors thru Christ the Lord.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The day will come, Arthur, when your knee will bow and you will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. You really should look beyond what you can see with your eyes.

The day will never come where I say that people actually deserve to be raped.

 

[Angel4Truth]

2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.

The larger point that started all this - we all suffer consequences for bad decisions. All, any adult learned this by the end of grade school, to argue that matter is idiotic.

 

[glorydaz]

Speaking of "deserve."

Notice the qualifier he provided, which I highlighted? It makes a totally different point than you want him to have made.

I grant that "deserve" seems to be more of a moral judgment which others may be making, or which some (like you) want to dishonestly make on behalf of others who are NOT making it. Either way, I and others am not and have not made any such judgment. I'm simply appealing to the universal law of natural consequences: choose to put yourself in a situation with an increased likelihood of avoidable danger and you must bear some responsibility if that danger results. Condense it down to "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" and the principle is the same. There's nothing remotely sociopathic in pointing that out; it's what good parents teach their children because it's a fact of life.

It's also God's viewpoint on the matter.

So it's YOU, with your typically shallow, emotion-driven thinking, who are wicked and evil for denying that fact.

Oh, so there's a "qualifier" now for flat out stating that people can deserve to be raped then, "because of their actions"? You think that already wasn't part and parcel of the thread, his whole quote included? Get a grip you prat.

You've just 'justified' rape, in that a victim of such has "earned" it by their "actions", be it baring a leg or stripping off on Broadway or any other scenario you could feasibly or rather not come up with.

This isn't about inadvisable behaviour or your pompous sense of morality or situational ethics believe it or not.

Then you didn't understand what she said. She agreed with me about what happened in that specific context, do i need to teach you that on a message board, there are several conversations in a thread going at once and not just one? So they each have separate contexts.

Ive responded to SPECIFIC ones. So to take my responses and make them about something its not, is at the least disingenuous or the worst a total lie.

So you calling her agreement with my post a fail, is to say i said something false, or that i said something about YOUR conversation with her, which i did not. I even provided context.

This selective reading happening by a few lately is disturbing.

It's the Liberal's MO. Artie is a liberal, and there is simply no room in the liberal's mind for reasoning and common sense.

Artie will allow no "qualifiers" from others because then he'd have to actually address what a person is saying. But he insists on using "qualifiers" liberally in his rebuttal. It's a trick of an attorney who tries to keep pertinent evidence from being presented. "A yes or no answer" will not cut it if one wants the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth.