Religion and women.

[dumbest man on earth]

Explain how those six words describe the fine words by the accomplished author.

Sorry Jan Ardena, but I cannot do that, simply because those those six words DO NOT describe those six words as fine words by the accomplished author.
You know that.
You know that I typed those six words to describe the Poem by Rudyard Kipling as "fine words by an accomplished author".
Do you disagree, Jan Ardena?
Is that Poem by Rudyard Kipling NOT a great example of of fine words by an accomplished author?

That’s not what the quote said.
It spoke of reprogramming every facet and department of YOUR mind.

The quote spoke NOTHING of "reprogramming", the word "reprogramming" is not even 'spoke of' in the quote.
You know that.

You can’t do that if YOU are the mind. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Do tell, Jan Ardena?
Previously you Posted :

But if you respect the fact that you are married, and love your spouse, you can cure yourself of urges and unwanted desires if you choose to. Don’t you think?
I mean people give all kinds of addictions, and bad habits everyday, by putting their focus elsewhere, until they begin to see the nastiness of what they used to do, desire to do. At which point the very idea of it becomes truly repugnant.

So, you, Jan Ardena, CAN have your cake and eat it when it suits you?

Yes.

That is (or should be)the purpose of religion.
And the purpose of that is to realise the true self.
That is how we begin to love God.

At any point in your Religion, Jan Ardena, will you realise your true self?
At any point in your Religion, Jan Ardena, will you begin to love your God?
At any point in your Religion, Jan Ardena, will you begin to love your God's other creations that realise their true selves?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells...

Regarding “Islam” in pre- Muhammad times.
“Islam” literally means “submit to God”.
What you’re referring to is the religious religion institute known as “Islam”.
You’re correct the religious institute did not exist prior to Muhammad. But Islam itself has always existed

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorry Jan Ardena, but I cannot do that, simply because those those six words DO NOT describe those six words as fine words by the accomplished author.

Huh?

You know that I typed those six words to describe the Poem by Rudyard Kipling as "fine words by an accomplished author".
Do you disagree, Jan Ardena?
Is that Poem by Rudyard Kipling NOT a great example of of fine words by an accomplished author?

I’m not sure what you mean by “fine”.
The dictionary describes “fine” as very good, or of high quality.
So in effect you’re saying the words used by this accomplished author are very good. Okay, glad we sorted that out.

Is that Poem by Rudyard Kipling NOT a great example of of fine words by an accomplished author?

Words are simply words DMOE. I don’t you how you distinguish between high quality words, and low quality one (if such things exist). Care to explain?

The quote spoke NOTHING of "reprogramming", the word "reprogramming" is not even 'spoke of' in the quote.

You’re right it didn’t. But a little common sense should reveal to you that f you don’t program your mind, it is already programmed. This means that it needs to be reprogrammed.
I mean he did say , and I paraphrase, if you don’t do it the world/ government, or whatever, will.

So, you, Jan Ardena, CAN have your cake and eat it when it suits you?

No you can’t.
And I have no desire to explain it to you again.

At any point in your Religion, Jan Ardena, will you realise your true self?

Yes.

At any point in your Religion, Jan Ardena, will you begin to love your God?

Yes,

At any point in your Religion, Jan Ardena, will you begin to love your God's other creations that realise their true selves?

If you love God, you live all of God’s creatures.
I even love you DMOE

 

[Bells]

Really?
How do you know that?

Because it's basic biology. And because I know more about this subject than you do.

It’s not the same thing, and furthermore you have no clue at to whether what you say is true or not

Physiological responses is common with rape victims, Jan. It's also why we end up with even more psychological scars afterwards, because of this prevailing belief, such as what you are spouting.

That’s not what we’re discussing.

We're not discussing rape?

Really?
So all biology students know that if a women puts a gun to dudes head and orders him to have sex with her, he is going to get an immediate hard-on, because he his scared out of his wits.
And she is going to get her kicks while holding the gun to his head?

Wow, how very descriptive..

Disturbingly so.

No, Jan. It's about her manipulating him physically to get the response while she holds the gun to his head.

So if someone asks you to kill them, it’s okay in principle, because they consent?

I have to ask, what is wrong with you?

Murder does not equate having consensual sex outside of marriage, Jan.

No it’s not.
I put that into the concordance, and it came up with the original KJV transliteration.

It is the traditional text.

No.
The man is punished if he forces himself on a married woman. It went without saying in those times, that a married woman would not have sex outside of marriage. Obviously times have changed.
Unless it was witnessed, or otherwise known, there is no way of telling if he forced himself on an unmarried virgin. He is forced to marry her, as she has lost the chance of creating good off-spring.

And more twisting to excuse it.

He rapes her, if she's not owned by any other man, he gets to marry his victim.

Do you understand that this is wrong, yes?

Do you understand that the notion of ownership of another person is wrong, yes?

Do you understand that being forced to marry your rapist is wrong, yes?

Instead of trying to find every single excuse under the sun, just, ooooohhh, I don't know, actually acknowledge that it is actually wrong and morally repugnant. You know, for the sake of actually coming across like a decent human being.

Wrong!!!!
The verse states that if it is known that he forced himself on her, he dies. She said s protected by the law.

Only if she is married or betrothed. If she is not, then she is forced to marry him. The text is clear.

Stop making excuses.

 

[wegs]

@Jan - Why are we going in circles with you about rape? Rape is always wrong. Always. Period. Suppose you found yourself in a situation where a man raped you, would you be going on for pages as you are?

No blame should be placed on rape victims. If you had to sum up in one sentence what you’re trying to posit about rape, what would it be?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Huh?

I’m not sure what you mean by “fine”.
The dictionary describes “fine” as very good, or of high quality.
So in effect you’re saying the words used by this accomplished author are very good. Okay, glad we sorted that out.

Words are simply words DMOE. I don’t you how you distinguish between high quality words, and low quality one (if such things exist). Care to explain?

You’re right it didn’t. But a little common sense should reveal to you that f you don’t program your mind, it is already programmed. This means that it needs to be reprogrammed.
I mean he did say , and I paraphrase, if you don’t do it the world/ government, or whatever, will.

No you can’t.
And I have no desire to explain it to you again.

Yes.

Yes,

If you love God, you live all of God’s creatures.
I even love you DMOE

@ Jan Ardena

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Jan Ardena.

I Posted in good faith...I Posted Honestly...

You have repeatedly shown that YOU DO NOT!

 

[Bells]

@Jan - Why are we going in circles with you about rape? Rape is always wrong. Always. Period. Suppose you found yourself in a situation where a man raped you, would you be going on for pages as you are?

No blame should be placed on rape victims. If you had to sum up in one sentence what you’re trying to posit about rape, what would it be?

I find his attempts to establish what constitutes a rape victim equally offensive.

The entire 'is it really rape' schtick just shines through.

 

[Write4U]

@Jan - Why are we going in circles with you about rape? Rape is always wrong. Always. Period. Suppose you found yourself in a situation where a man raped you, would you be going on for pages as you are?

Excellent point! In prison this is not an uncommon practice, but hey.....it's among criminals anyway, so who cares.

 

[billvon]

I don’t see how your point follows on, and I bet you’re not going to explain why you think it does, because you’re incapable.

"If he gets an erection he must want to have sex with her"
"If she decides to wear sexy clothes she must want to have sex with him"

Equally invalid - and equally ignorant.

 

[wegs]

I find his attempts to establish what constitutes a rape victim equally offensive.

The entire 'is it really rape' schtick just shines through.

Agreed. I’m not sure what he’s on about with regards to adultery, marriage and rape. As if there’s a connection between all three, and that somehow is the motivating factor in rape cases. Rapists can be married. Rapists sometimes rape their own wives. Rapists don’t exclusively rape women - although it’s typically a crime perpetrated by a man. Rape is often a crime whereby the guy knows his victim; the perp isn’t always a stranger lurking in a back alley waiting. Perhaps we’re assuming too much in that most people know this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan - Why are we going in circles with you about rape? Rape is always wrong. Always. Period. Suppose you found yourself in a situation where a man raped you, would you be going on for pages as you are?

I’m not going round in circles. I’m showing that the idea that religion/Christianity is not the cause of men abusing women.
How come you’re not showing that? This is ultimately about belief in God. From an atheist perspective, if you believe in God, you are religious, if you are religious, you are okay with men abusing women. Do you see how it works?
That is where this is going. So it is important to show that atheists are completely wrong. All they want to do, is do away with religion, by any means necessary, despite not having clue about religion, or God.

Anyway I know Bells has an itchy trigger finger, and will most probably ban me.
So I want to say to you, if you believe in God, stand up for your belief. Or will find your belief growing weaker, till one day you might just decide to stop. I hope you don’t. Look deeply into any scripture you find, and gain more insight, and understanding.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because it's basic biology. And because I know more about this subject than you do.

Okay. I can see where this is going, so I’ll leave it there.

Physiological responses is common with rape victims, Jan. It's also why we end up with even more psychological scars afterwards, because of this prevailing belief, such as what you are spouting.

This seems to be a common analysis. Tell me what you think, if you like...

In the case of an erection, stress and anxiety can interrupt how your brain sends messages to the penis to allow extra blood flow. Stress and anxiety about ED can also contribute to a cycle of ongoing ED. Experiencing ED can lead to behavioral changes that contribute to anxiety and incidences of ED.
https://www.healthline.com/health/erectile-dysfunction-anxiety-stress

I don’t know about the other men here, but I would think that some psycho woman slobbering frantically over my penis, holding a gun to my head, threatening to squeeze the trigger if I don’t get hard enough, for her to rape me, would kind of cause a bit of stress and anxiety.
Please explain the biology, and, or the psychology that would bypass that.

We're not discussing rape?

That is rape yes.
But that’s not one woman holding a gun to your head.
Of course multiple people can hold you down, or a woman could spike his drink, or a few women could hold down a guy. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to get hard while she gets her kicks.
Which is what we were specifically talking about.

Wow, how very descriptive..

Disturbingly so.

Meaning what?
I might be a rapist?
I hope you’re not going there.

No, Jan. It's about her manipulating him physically to get the response while she holds the gun to his head.

So we’re back to this.
So she holds a gun to his head, to the point where the dude is incapable of defending himself. What does she then do in order to get this stressed man to get an erection?

I have to ask, what is wrong with you?

You can always answer the question.

Murder does not equate having consensual sex outside of marriage, Jan.

Consent doesn’t necessarily make it right.
My point is that in some cultures, adultery is classed as a heinous crime, and in other cultures it’s actually encouraged. Consent does not make it right.

It is the traditional text.

It’s not a transliteration of the original text.
So where did it come from?

He rapes her, if she's not owned by any other man, he gets to marry his victim.

It doesn’t say he raped her...

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekelsof silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Ive taken the liberty to look at what his meant by the bold statement, as that seems to be the only reference you could use to claim rape...
That phrase is translated from the Hebrew word taphas, which is described as...

1. to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
   1. (Qal)
      1. to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
         
         
      2. to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
   2. (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
      
      
   3. (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

Now please explain how that verse means the woman has been raped, as opposed to consenting.

Do you understand that this is wrong, yes?

Yes I understand that rape is wrong.

Do you understand that the notion of ownership of another person is wrong, yes?

Yes.
Where is the talk of ownership, in that verse?
Bethrothed means the person to whom one is to be married to. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re referring to.

Do you understand that being forced to marry your rapist is wrong, yes?

Yes.
Do you understand that there is no mention of rape in that verse, according to the Hebrew lexicon.

Instead of trying to find every single excuse under the sun, just, ooooohhh, I don't know, actually acknowledge that it is actually wrong and morally repugnant. You know, for the sake of actually coming across like a decent human being.

You’re the one claiming that verse is about that.
I’m simply showing you that it is not. It’s simply two people having sex and getting caught.
I already showed you what happens, in that same culture, to rapists. They get harsher punishment than rapists do today.
It says it right there in black and white...

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

In this those days women who were betrothed or married, did not engage in sexual activity outside of marriage, they were upheld as chaste.
Not looked down upon.

Only if she is married or betrothed. If she is not, then she is forced to marry him. The text is clear.

Stop making excuses.

Lol! There’s no need to make excuses.
For those people it was all about progeny.
Not like today where it is about independence.

If you try and use today’s standard to make judgments on that culture, you will never understand it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs..

Agreed. I’m not sure what he’s on about with regards to adultery, marriage and rape.

Adultery in that society, is seen in the same heinous light as we see rape today. Because no good progeny can come from adulterous people, spiritually speaking.
Do you understand that?
That is why God accepted Seth as Adam progeny, therefore able to continue the linage.
I think you said it yourself, that the Bible is ultimately about Jesus Christ.
But he had to come through a perfect linage.

 

[Write4U]

I’m showing that the idea that religion/Christianity is not the cause of men abusing women.

No, it's just the idea that religion/christianity was the cause for the bloodiest wars in history and the cruelest way of enforcing obedience.

This was the Inquisition's Creed;

The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit").

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, it's just the idea that religion/christianity was the cause for the bloodiest wars in history and the cruelest way of enforcing obedience.

This was the Inquisition's Creed;

 

[Write4U]

..............

..........

You may smile as if I just proved your point. You do realize that witchcraft was especially favored by the inquisitors.

Tie you up and throw you in the river. If you float you're a witch and get burned at the stake.
If you sink and drown you are innocent and still dead.

IMO, that's raping a woman of her innocence and her life.

 

[sculptor]

...I’m showing that the idea that religion/Christianity is not the cause of men abusing women.
...

agree

Religion may not be the cause, but it may be used as an excuse.
As can the law---when I married my 1st wife, the laws in the state of Illinois allowed me "to beat my wife, within reason"
Foolishly, I shared this tidbit with her, and without skipping a beat, she replied "not if you like waking up in the morning".
I was fascinated by her brain and quick wit.(nice body too)
.................................
but, then again
I was once ejected from a church by a red faced redneck southern baptist preacher
who screamed at me
"OUT OF MY CHURCH YOU SACRILEGIOUS SON OF A BITCH".
(I wonder if he was a wife beater?)

 

[billvon]

So she holds a gun to his head, to the point where the dude is incapable of defending himself. What does she then do in order to get this stressed man to get an erection?

A man goes out with his friends to a bar. An attractive woman talks to him. She comes on to him. He becomes aroused but knows that nothing will happen because he is married. She says "hey can you help me? I got a flat and I need some help." He says OK. They go outside and she sticks her hand in his pants and finds him aroused. He says "HEY! I'm married! Back off." She pulls out a gun and says "no worries, I'm forcing you, so it's not your fault. But we are having sex."

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found . . .
Now please explain how that verse means the woman has been raped, as opposed to consenting.

"Lay hold on her" means he used physical force to keep her from fleeing. That's rape no matter how many mealy mouthed excuses you use.

If you try and use today’s standard to make judgments on that culture, you will never understand it.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do.

Your posts are pretty much never-ending strings of hypocrisy.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To lay hold - : to take and hold (something) : to grab

To force - coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

 

[billvon]

To lay hold - : to take and hold (something) : to grab

Right. If you lay hold of a woman so she can't get away, so you can have sex with her, that's rape.

It is pretty scary that you don't get that.