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

[Crucible]

I'm betting the reasonable folk are wondering why you think a woman dancing in a bar means she's promising have public sex with any men, let alone several at once.



You are the one blurring them with legalism.



The character Jody Foster played was not stripping. What was her character doing that was immoral? The depiction of that incident in the film is what we are focused on.

Your avatar disturbs people

:rotfl:

 

[Town Heretic]

Nonsense. The rapist is accountable for his own actions, and there is no accountability for an INNOCENT victim...one who was doing nothing WRONG.

But, a stripper is doing something wrong. Therefore, she is accountable for her own wrong behavior. That wrong behavior has consequences of it's own. The rapist has consequences of his own and the stripper has consequences of her own. Bad behavior has consequences.

You're claiming in any action there is only room for guilt on one side. That's absolutely false and you can shout if from the rooftops it will not make it true.

I think your position is morally and intellectually indefensible and I believe I've set out a pretty clear case on the point. Most people are doing something wrong every day. It doesn't merit rape. Nothing does, because rape is a criminal and moral violation, an offense against God and state. No one deserves what no one is entitled to commit by either measure.

 

[glorydaz]

Did you deserve forgiveness of your sins?

No, I don't. It was by God's grace that I received it.

That has NOTHING to do with our suffering the consequences for our wrong doing in this life. We train our children to be accountable for their bad behavior. They suffer consequences when they do wrong. We got that from God....reaping what is sown....it is right and suffering consequences is one of the best learning tools there is. Of course, God is going to employ it.

 

[Crucible]

Female empowerment = being sheep who shouldn't make an account of being sheep, expect consequences of being a sheep, or doing anything less than continue being a sheep.

:rotfl:

Same retarded liberal logic, as with anything else.

Rape is so bad, that I'm going to wear this shirt my baby niece wears, go get drunk, and make copious attempts at a guy I've never met. And it's everyone else' fault if something should happen!
Or, even better:
I was raped a while back, it was so horrible. Let's go make some more irresponsible choices!
~feminology~

Say what you want, but what the liberals on here are doing- you perpetuate that. If I wanted to be a misogynist, I could just agree with you all and let fate serve my hatred. Isn't that a nice slice of irony

 

[glorydaz]

I think your position is morally and intellectually indefensible and I believe I've set out a pretty clear case on the point. Most people are doing something wrong every day. It doesn't merit rape. Nothing does, because rape is a criminal and moral violation, an offense against God and state. No one deserves what no one is entitled to commit by either measure.

It's too bad that you've given up presenting a case and have decided to start scolding me instead. But, since we're being outspoken here, let's be that. You're looking at this from the perspective of a humanist, and the case you've set out is clearly that of a humanist. The case you've made is not supported by scripture, and that's why you've had to resort to scolding me. Because you say so isn't enough.

Rape is morally offensive, but so is abortion and God allows both. God allows all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. You've simply got God in a little box and refuse to let him be God. That's evidence of a humanist right there. Anyway, your righteous indignation is noted, but I'll do as David, the prophets, and Paul did. I'll continue to ask that God reward bad behavior according to the evil done. Why? Because I believe firmly in the Godly principle of reaping what we sow. Because I trust that God knows exactly what He is doing, and neither you nor I do. Because I trust God to use whatever means necessary to turn people to Him, and to conform us into the image of the Son. I would thank God if my daughter was a stripper, and He allowed her to be raped if it got her to see the error of her ways. And it would work a lot better than a hundred lectures. Pain and suffering are great teachers.

And, unlike you, I'll not presume to dictate to God what He can or cannot do. Nor would I be so naïve as to deny that God uses evil men all the time to bring about His purposes. You won't even admit that God allows suffering....deserved or not. There's no reasoning with a man who thinks he is the decider of what God can do. I noticed you assigned bad motives to David to explain away this text....just as you assigned bad motives to me. What David says here is "indefensible" to a humanist....but he is doing what all believers are called to do. We are to ask that God give them according to their deeds.....so that reaping what they sow will come into effect and do it's work in their lives. David isn't saying this to be vindictive or because of his personal guilt. You missed the point.

Psalm 28:3-4
Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts. Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert.​

 

[kmoney]

I'm betting many of these folks on here have no idea that promising what you don't plan on giving is WRONG. The lines between right and wrong are so blurred now, because humanism has made room for every man's opinion, that stripping is not even seen as WRONG. :nono:

I'm betting the reasonable folk are wondering why you think a woman dancing in a bar means she's promising have public sex with any men, let alone several at once.

:thumb:

 

[kmoney]

I'm betting many would disagree with you on that one.


If someone breaks into my house, I would figure they meant to do me and my family harm. They could very well get shot, and if they got shot, I would say they deserved whatever they got. Doing wrong is a risky business. You never know what you might reap....which is why reaping what you sow is such a powerful principle....which was set up by God, Himself.

For a moment I'll agree that someone who breaks into your home and tries to do harm to your family deserves to be shot. That scenario is not like the rape case. The deservedness of the robber getting shot would be based in your right to defend yourself and your family. If you attack someone then you may come away hurt or not come away at all. There is no comparable element in the dancer/rape scenario.

 

[kmoney]

To defraud another person is to stir up in them desires that cannot be righteously satisfied. A woman can defraud a man by the way that she dresses, talks, or acts. A man can defraud a woman by improper touching or by talking about a marital commitment that he is not able or intending to carry out.

ok.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It's too bad that you've given up presenting a case and have decided to start scolding me instead. But, since we're being outspoken here, let's be that. You're looking at this from the perspective of a humanist, and the case you've set out is clearly that of a humanist. The case you've made is not supported by scripture, and that's why you've had to resort to scolding me. Because you say so isn't enough.

Rape is morally offensive, but so is abortion and God allows both. God allows all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. You've simply got God in a little box and refuse to let him be God. That's evidence of a humanist right there. Anyway, your righteous indignation is noted, but I'll do as David, the prophets, and Paul did. I'll continue to ask that God reward bad behavior according to the evil done. Why? Because I believe firmly in the Godly principle of reaping what we sow. Because I trust that God knows exactly what He is doing, and neither you nor I do. Because I trust God to use whatever means necessary to turn people to Him, and to conform us into the image of the Son. I would thank God if my daughter was a stripper, and He allowed her to be raped if it got her to see the error of her ways. And it would work a lot better than a hundred lectures. Pain and suffering are great teachers.

And, unlike you, I'll not presume to dictate to God what He can or cannot do. Nor would I be so naïve as to deny that God uses evil men all the time to bring about His purposes. You won't even admit that God allows suffering....deserved or not. There's no reasoning with a man who thinks he is the decider of what God can do. I noticed you assigned bad motives to David to explain away this text....just as you assigned bad motives to me. What David says here is "indefensible" to a humanist....but he is doing what all believers are called to do. We are to ask that God give them according to their deeds.....so that reaping what they sow will come into effect and do it's work in their lives. David isn't saying this to be vindictive or because of his personal guilt. You missed the point.

Psalm 28:3-4
Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts. Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert.​

You made an excellent case. You could beat him in a court of law.

 

[kmoney]

It's an over-reaction from when innocent victims were demonized. Now that prostitutes, harlots, and strippers have risen to the status of innocents, they reap the benefits of all the work the do-gooders in this world have accomplished.

It's because rape has become the one act that takes away all the sin of the one who was raped in the view of this politically correct age. If they were raped after slitting their own baby's throat, they would be declared innocent of all guilt.

And this thinking does encourage people to be victims....by assuring them that they have every right to tempt and entice men without any fear of having to pay the piper. Some are so full of themselves...so in love with themselves that they truly think they are above the consequences of God's moral laws.

The point isn't that all victims of rape are innocent, morally and legally. The point is that nothing they are doing at the time means they deserved to be raped. They are two separate issues.

 

[Crucible]

The point isn't that all victims of rape are innocent, morally and legally. The point is that nothing they are doing at the time means they deserved to be raped. They are two separate issues.

'Reaping what you sow' and 'deserved outcome' are two different entities, but I doubt this conversation would have gone in any other direction period if it were stated otherwise.

Because society is built in a way where young women are basically immune to accountability. All this stuff comes right from college feminist hipsters, who even try to rationalize a concept that a woman can change her mind after sex and call it rape or that yes can sometimes mean no and the male should suffer consequences.

Absurdity.

 

[kmoney]

Sowing and reaping has been brought up often. The point or implication appears to be that whatever someone reaps they deserve. I don't think that's the case. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

'Reaping what you sow' and 'deserved outcome' are two different entities, but I doubt this conversation would have gone in any other direction period if it were stated otherwise.

Because society is built in a way where young women are basically immune to accountability.

This goes along with the last post I just made. So would you say that a stripper could reap being raped but wouldn't deserve being raped?

 

[Town Heretic]

It's too bad that you've given up presenting a case and have decided to start scolding me instead.

There's no point in making the same points again and again. I wouldn't have gone into it at all except in response. Scolding? I'm simply taking a strong exception to your thinking on the matter.

But, since we're being outspoken here, let's be that. You're looking at this from the perspective of a humanist,

You should stop trying to do that. I object to your notion as a Christian, not a humanist.

Rape is morally offensive, but so is abortion and God allows both.

God doesn't stop us from sinning. It doesn't follow that He desires our sin. So allow in the sense you're using it can be misleading.

God allows all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. You've simply got God in a little box and refuse to let him be God.

Saying that God won't commit a rape or command one isn't a box, except in as much as recognizing what the Holy and Good are is a box. And it's your "all kinds of reasons" that begins to suggest a connection between God and sin that isn't acceptable or rationally defensible.

That's evidence of a humanist right there.

No, it isn't.

I'll continue to ask that God reward bad behavior according to the evil done. Why?

He will, but often not in this life. And you should never assume that a rich man is righteous and the suffering are rebellious.

Because I believe firmly in the Godly principle of reaping what we sow.

Ultimately many will, though if you rely on the cross you won't, thank God.

Because I trust God to use whatever means necessary to turn people to Him, and to conform us into the image of the Son.

You can trust His house to be undivided, too. Evil will never enter into it as a means.

I would thank God if my daughter was a stripper, and He allowed her to be raped

I'm stopping right there, because that's the tragic confluence of your misapprehension on the point and it sums it better than I could else.

you assigned bad motives to me.

Quote me assigning your motives. I think you mean well, but it's still horrible thinking.

What David says here is "indefensible" to a humanist

What you're arguing is indefensible to a rationalist of any stripe. It's just wrong headed for the reasons given. So David will fail and Judas betray and Peter reject and Paul struggle against a thorn...and the cross is there to catch us when we fail.

Psalm 28:3-4
Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts. Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert.​

Everyone who loves good desires the end of evil and its punishment. It's understandable. But I think the cross is a more mature focus of hope and I'd pray the wicked turn from evil and are saved, that none perish but that all have eternal life. I think I'm called to that hope, but in fairness, I have Christ as an example and the cross to contemplate and the psalmist didn't.

That's the beauty of the cross, it reflects our collective, willful, evil behavior and the only means by which we can escape its consequence and find another walk.

Thank God for grace.

 

[ClimateSanity]

:thumb:

She is teasing all the men with the prospect of sex. She is not a paid dancer. In less sick societies, that's exactly how a normal man wouldpercieve her actions. Today , men expect women to act slutty but not deliver.....unless you take them out and waste a wad of money on them.

 

[ok doser]

glory, on elo:

You "explain" a lot of things and are almost always WRONG. :chuckle:

like artie

:think:

for the same reason

A person who breaks into a home doesn't deserve (to) be shot. :idunno:

they do in my neck of the woods

how about a person, high on crack, holding a shotgun, breaking into a home?

do they deserve to be shot?

I want to know what that means too.

you should start a callout thread like anna's :banana:

Now that prostitutes, harlots, and strippers have risen to the status of innocents

it amazes me that "Christians" ignore this

and that some retards are trying to cover this by arguing "grace" :doh:

Now what was Jodi Foster's character sowing in the film? Where is the law, either religious or secular, that makes her actions depicted in that film immoral. It's not immoral for a single woman to dress attractively, or to drink or dance at a bar. This isn't a Muslim country (yet).

dude :doh:

you just went full retard

never go full retard :nono:

She was provoking men to rape her by not wearing her burqa.

the other two women in that scene were not raped

:think:

musta been those burqas they were wearing :idunno:

It's too bad that you've given up presenting a case and have decided to start scolding me instead. But, since we're being outspoken here, let's be that. You're looking at this from the perspective of a humanist, and the case you've set out is clearly that of a humanist. The case you've made is not supported by scripture, and that's why you've had to resort to scolding me. Because you say so isn't enough.

town has a strong emotional attachment to the subject - i won't speculate on the reasons why

any logical or rational argument he might have been able to make has been demolished

refusing to admit that he's wrong, he falls back on the only thing he has - unsupported declaration and emotion driven scolding

if you push it far enough, i predict that he'll put you on ignore :chuckle:

So would you say that a stripper could reap being raped but wouldn't deserve being raped?

i don't give a rip whether a stripper has reaped being raped while tied with a rope and is ripe for a wrap

 

[ok doser]

I'm betting the reasonable folk are wondering why you think/

full stop

elo, when you presume to tell someone what "they think", it's a good bet it's gonna be followed by some retarded nonsense


roll tape:

...a woman dancing in a bar means she's promising have public sex with any men, let alone several at once.

and you don't disappoint :first:

 

[ok doser]

Sowing and reaping has been brought up often. The point or implication appears to be that whatever someone reaps they deserve. I don't think that's the case. :idunno:

Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

what does this mean to you?

 

[ok doser]

The point isn't that all victims of rape are innocent, morally and legally. The point is that nothing they are doing at the time means they deserved to be raped. They are two separate issues.

we've plowed this ground before, but one more time

if some victims of rape are not morally innocent (let's just consider the moral aspect) then what is a deserved punishment for their iniquities?

to be struck barren?
to get stds?
to be beaten but not raped?

 

[ok doser]

I object to your notion as a Christian, not a humanist.

then argue using scriptural support instead of Merton and Lewis platitudes