Religion and women.

[wegs]

So do I.

Good.

No.
Rape is a terrible crime.
But to accuse religion of being the cause of rape, is wrong.

I agree in the sense that rape is a gross violation of how God designed us, and how we are to treat one another. The Bible condemns rape when it's mentioned, but I think some of these discussions confuse social inventions and rules, with insisting that God is ''okay'' with treating women poorly. Christians should model love and compassion (like Jesus) when helping victims of rape. Jesus himself treated women with equity, approaching them to share the Gospel, when it was considered taboo for a lone man to be in the company of a lone woman. He broke social constructs to do the right thing in order to help those in need. The Pharisees on the other hand...

I don't believe though that Christians have the market cornered when it comes to compassion for victims of rape, and sexual misconduct. We have secular laws that offer a general blueprint of how we are to conduct ourselves, and treat others. If we violate those laws, there is punishment of some type. Sadly, many Christian men are violators of women, and I think what is being brought up here in the discussion, is that the Bible can seem like a source for invalidating the worth of women. But, that could be due to the social constructs of that time period. Assuming God is telling humankind to rape each other, and/or mistreat each other goes against what we (as believers) have come to learn about God.

At the end of the day, we as individuals are responsible for our actions, good and bad. I disagree with Alex in that all Christian men are ''programmed'' to believing that mistreating women is fine, because that's not what the Bible states. There are a great many Christians (and followers of other religions) who commit heinous crimes all on their own. If they're using their religion as a scapegoat, that's on them...not God. Just my thoughts for now.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That’s not a response to the question.

Well I did not decide to write those words for any other reason so clearly you have my response. Don't be a pork chop.

That is a deflection

I learnt it from you. Deflection is a big part of your game..

Why don’t you want to answer the question?

Because I don't have my bible here and I would like to give you the correct answer by reading my bible first...don't you have your bible handy?

Why don’t you answer the question?

For the reason above.

You won’t know until you answer the questions

Why won't you answer the question? It would seem that you have something in mind and already know the answer..do you know the answer to your question.?

Can you show that they believe in God or not?

I am confused I thought you were claiming they were nice Christians criminals.

Another simple request

Why are you asking me to do stuff can't you manage without my input?

You use it because it means something.

Yes and I have explained what it means to me so stop telling me what you think I am thinking cause you really do not know. It is rude of you to take my words and attach your meaning simply because you want to preach your unsupported afterlife nonsense...heck you could not even get what "kick the bucket means".

Just because you have been conned to believe the afterlife nonsense don't think that folk who actually think will go along with it...it is a con...you have been conned...
As I asked before do you know Where this after life nonsense started? Of course you won't.. if you studied the history you will see that it is a con..your are the victim of unsupported wishful thinking flying against the facts we find in history.
It is a pity you are so scared of death as that fear has you believing nonsense.

What are you afraid of?

Christen men coming near any one I care for.

You tried to accuse me of approving murder and rape

Well I am sorry you take it that way..let's start all over..in billvons story do you condemn the killing of all the people as described and also the keeping of the virgins to be given as property to to killers. What is you view?

Here is your chance to state your position...I feel a deflection is about to hit.

And don’t think I wasn’t aware of your lies in getting me banned the last

I honestly do not recall but it would be your actions that got you banned.. the mods have you pegged ... what was the reason given by the mods? And why can't you accept personal responsibility for your actions?... this is what we see with Christian men never their fault and a persecution complex...get over it.

If that were true, you would engage me in discussion before accusing me.

Well as I side earlier..give us your position and stop being a sook.

And be aware you reap what you sow...the way I deal with you has grown from the evasive manner and refusal to answer questions in the past..now that you get a mild version of that approach you can't take it..Maybe you should have thought more about you flippant manner in the past now that the chooks come home to roost.

But you won’t because you’re an evil man who would have easily send an innocent person to jail, or their death, if you could.

Stop spitting out your dummy ..if you are so upset just tell us your opinion as requested many times earlier...the fact is you won't.. Will you...you just want to play the victim...grow up.

Nothing you say is credible with regards to the truth.

So you have nothing but hate and spite to offer..very Christian of you..

You are an evil, hateful man.
I’ve tried to be reasonable with you, overlook your two-faceness, and tried to engage you in discussions, and you continue with with your lies and folly.
It is clear you are afraid of real discussion.

Do you think anyone does not remember the way you handle discussions?
Stop being a pork chop.

So all this performance demonstrates your determination to talk about anything rather than address the issues....which boils down to the facts in the material that Christian men are more likely to use domestic violence than others, that the bible has many passages which put woman down, and some Christian men cite these passages as their authority to be cruel to their wives...and the poor response from priests and ministers when domestic violence victims seek help by telling them to pray that the violence will stop or that God gives them strength to endure..those are the issues you avoid for no other reason than it shows that bible does treat women as second rate a fact you try to brush aside by saying but look at this good bit over here...ever heard the expression " one bad apple spoils the lot"...That's what we have with the bible saying some nice things but then saying stuff that is just wrong..so wrong...and that is the fact you can't deal with..so you take it out on those around you..it's not me that is the problem..I did not write those passages, I did not write the accounts of domestic violence you could read in the material provided...why is it with you lot that it is always someone else's fault...
Grow up.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

If take hold of a woman and she enjoys the feeling of being held, and becomes sexually aroused and wants nothing more in that moment than to have sex with you, that’s not rape.

So if the woman consents, it’s rape too?
What do you have against men?

 

[billvon]

So if the woman consents, it’s rape too?
What do you have against men?

"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"

So again.

You are walking down a street. You see a man come up to a woman on a trail in a park. It's clear that they haven't met before; he just found her. He lays hold of her, pulls her down, and starts tearing her clothes off. She yells.

Do you just keep walking, certain that she consented to it? Or do you intervene?

Think hard about your answer.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"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"

So again.

Hang on...

1 : to take and hold (something) : to grab Lay hold of that rope and pull. 2 : to understand (something) The idea is difficult to lay hold of.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lay hold of

...okay I’m ready.

You are walking down a street. You see a man come up to a woman on a trail in a park. It's clear that they haven't met before; he just found her. He lays hold of her, pulls her down, and starts tearing her clothes off. She yells.

IOW he forces himself on her?
The Bible covers that, but it doesn’t use the term “lay hold on her”, it uses the term “force her”.
Do you know the difference?
I would intervene, because clearly she is being assaulted.

Think hard about your answer.

Why?

 

[billvon]

IOW he forces himself on her?
The Bible covers that, but it doesn’t use the term “lay hold on her”, it uses the term “force her”.
Do you know the difference?

Yes. "Force her" means she is being forced to do something unspecified. "Lay hold on her" is much more specific - she is being held by force and made unable to flee.

If you are still confused (and you clearly still are) let's check out some other translations of the Bible.

NKJV: If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

That's clearer. If he seizes her (let's hope you know what that means) and then has sex with her, that's rape.

Still all confused? Still looking for a way out? Check out the New International Version, a version that uses simpler language to allow for more English-speaking people to understand it:

NIV: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Pretty clear, even for you.

I would intervene, because clearly she is being assaulted.

So if he does what the Bible describes it's rape. But it's not rape because you think "lay hold on her" is a harmless consensual thing to do. Even though other translations explain that it is rape.

OK then.

Quick lesson on consent for you - if a woman says "take me in your arms and love me" she is giving explicit consent. If she's trying to get away, and you lay hold on her (or seize her) so she can't, and have sex with her - she is explicitly NOT giving consent, and in fact is rape. This could be a very important distinction to make if you ever come upon a woman in a park or something.

 

[Write4U]

Is a layline a come-on for sex on a sail boat..........

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You are a sad wee example of a man.

" man(?) "

...less keys!

 

[billvon]

Is a layline a come-on for sex on a sail boat..........

Pretty sure a lei line is something that happens in Hawaii.

 

[Write4U]

Pretty sure a lei line is something that happens in Hawaii.

Hawaiian dancers at luau

 

[Bells]

So if the woman consents, it’s rape too?
What do you have against men?

That passage is clearly defined as rape and has been interpreted as such by all and sundry.

Except for you.

And the end result is that the victim is made to marry her rapist.

You have avoided my last response to you that addresses this yet again. You have kept repeating that the passage does not suggest that she has not consented. What you fail to note that it clearly indicates rape.

But let's go with your excuses for it. It does not say that she hasn't consented? It leaves it open, in your opinion, correct? Here is what you keep deliberately ignoring.. Whether she consented or not, she is still required to marry him.

Creating strawman arguments is just pitiful and ridiculous.

To reiterate, no one is saying that religious text or religions or belief in God created rape.

What I am saying is that religious organisations have historically and presently protected rapists and abusers and have through text and practice, demonised victims while protecting the abuser. That passage is but one example.

This is well established fact.

There are a variety of reasons for this. Be it this obsession with virginity and purity for women, to a patriarchal system of belief that pushes the purity doctrine and viewing women as the lesser sex - which you yourself have espoused in this very thread..

That Eve, was created to basically be Adam's helper or servant and not even his wife, which might promote her as being somewhat equal. Instead, you push the ideology that Eve was simply created to serve Adam..

Remember this, Jan?

Why not?
God created her as a help for Adam.
Not even as a wife.
Or do you you have a different take on it?

Im not questioning it.
I asked you the question.
If you believe A&E were the first humans, then woman was created to help man. You agree wit that. Right?
Generally the “help” in any situation, is not equal in status to the one they are commissioned to help.
Also why did Eve listen to the Serpent, was she not satisfied with her masters?

Eve was created to serve Adam. Her masters are men.. She is immediately demoted to the role of slave or servant.. Well, would be slave since she is not being compensated for her labor.

And then you decided to throw in the little tidbit questioning why Eve listened to the Serpent and whether she was not satisfied with her masters..

And people wonder why the Church and religion in general have a problem with women?

This misogynistic bullshit has been peddled for generations.

It's not that you defend that passage as not being rape. It's simply down to the fact that you believe that women are here to serve men.

 

[Write4U]

Creating strawman arguments is just pitiful and ridiculous.

I agree with your argument and can bear witness to its veracity.

p.s. Please forgive Bells, I couldn't resist. I know it is a serious subject......

But, in the spirit of "lei line" the strawman argument becomes a strawwoman argument........

 

[wegs]

Deuteronomy 22:28 is also describing if a man were to have sex (rape or consensual) with a woman, he was obliged to marry her. He should have sought ''permission'' from her father, and then negotiated a price. As were the customs of those times, I guess women were considered to be under their father's ''rule.'' So, it's up to the father if he were to give his daughter away to a rapist, but I don't believe that ever actually happened. Sadly, if a woman was raped back during that time period (and this is even the custom today in some Middle Eastern cultures), she was considered ''un-marriageable.''

Of course, this places the full blame on the woman, which is clearly wrong. Rape was punishable by death though, so this too was part of the law. But, women were not forced to marry rapists, and rapists were put to death if convicted. Of course there's a plot twist, depending on who may be interpreting the passage - and the woman could be seen as giving consent, but personally I feel that's absurd because of the term ''violated'' within the passage.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her.

Is this what Jan is debating, that this passage could be seen as consensual sex? If that's the case, Jan - I don't know of any commonly thought interpretation that suggests the ''virgin'' was consenting. How could we possibly interpret ''violated'' any other way than rape?

 

[Michael 345]

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her.

Few points. I understand (have not checked, to lazy, rape is considered penetration of any orifice although it might be written more specific on the charge sheet

Now with the above in mind consider Immaculate Conception

Considered to be around 14 at the time Mary is thought to have been engaged to Joseph and a virgin

Since god did not take her virgin (not violated) he is off the hook for rape and the fifty shekels

Would that possibly be the thinking behind those who wrote the bible, frame the conception in such a way god is not breaking the rules as they stood?

 

[James R]

Don’t think I don’t notice your avoidance of almost every question I’ve asked since knowing you in these forums.

Doesn't your religion teach you not to tell lies, Jan? Or is it just that you're not that good at following the teachings?

You’re an atheist, you have no clue as to what is God, or what it is to have faith in God.

We've been through that a hundred times. I used to be a theist, just like you. Well, a lot more honest than you, but otherwise with the same sorts of beliefs about God and faith and the rest.

You’re just an angry person James.

Not in general. Like everybody else, some things make me angry or annoyed.

Your history of dodging and weaving your dishonest way around this forum - as you continue to do - justifies my becoming tired of you and your antics.

The first step you need to take to pull yourself out of this moral hole you've dug for yourself is to start being honest with yourself. Once you can do that, you can probably also start to be honest in your discussions with other people.

My impression is that you're very set in your ways, so I don't hold out much hope. You know the truth. You're smart enough to take all the pieces I've taught you and to put them together to come to the obvious conclusion. But you're emotionally stuck and immature. This last-gasp defensiveness we're now seeing from you ought to be beneath you, Jan, but apparently your identity is so tightly bound to your self-constructed worldview that you're utterly unable to step outside and look at it honestly from somebody else's point of view, even for a moment. That is why you're stuck and unhappy.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,. Why don’t you ever talk about that?

Don't tell lies, Jan. You and I have discussed that topic at length, as you know.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Would that possibly be the thinking behind those who wrote the bible, frame the conception in such a way god is not breaking the rules as they stood?

Did god get marys consent? If no concent does that mean we are looking at god being guilty of rape..if she consented then she may be guilty of adultery.
It would be interesting to have this explaniled by Jan.
But who needs to worry it was all invented some would say.
alex

 

[billvon]

Deuteronomy 22:28 is also describing if a man were to have sex (rape or consensual) with a woman, he was obliged to marry her. He should have sought ''permission'' from her father, and then negotiated a price. As were the customs of those times, I guess women were considered to be under their father's ''rule.''

Well, more than that - they were considered property. Once ownership was transferred to another man, then he was in charge - thus the details of what the new owner could do to the person who ruined his property.

The rest of that section of Deuteronomy is even worse in some ways. There's a section where if a man marries a woman but decides she's no good, then it is her parent's responsibility to prove she was a virgin (which was the definition of "good" - unsoiled) by producing the bloody sheet; the evidence of her deflowering with her new husband. If they cannot do that - the woman is stoned to death. There's a subtext there that the primary value of a woman is that she was reserved for one man's exclusive "use" and that the father's job is to preserve that value for her husband's use.

However, saying that that's what Christianity was all about, or that that should be heeded today, is inaccurate. That was more a description of the morals of the time. And indeed you could argue that since in some cases the laws both spared the woman and required her to be treated well (if she did everything right) was actually an advance over previous morality, where the man could do whatever he wanted with his wife (or wives.) And in the New Testament that is called out even more clearly. Sure, there's still a lot about women being weak vessels and that the man was in charge, but there was a lot more along the lines of "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies."

IMO it's a mistake to use the Bible as a detailed moral guide. There's some good stuff in there, but it was written a long, long time ago and morality evolves; it's as wrong to use Deuteronomy to justify the position of women in a marriage as it is to use Ephesians to defend the ownership of slaves.

 

[James R]

Not from Gods perspective. Women are needed to create progeny, and virgins are unadulterated by impure men. What’s wrong with that?

The whole second part is sexist. That's what's wrong with it. What's wrong with you?

No one has put forward anything to argue regarding me being sexist. So far all I’ve gotten are emotional responses.

Don't tell lies, Jan.

Besides, as a supporter of your "God's perspective", that makes both you and him sexist.

Not from Gods perspective.

You only give reasons why your God wouldn't be worth worshipping, if he existed.

 

[Bells]

Well, more than that - they were considered property. Once ownership was transferred to another man, then he was in charge - thus the details of what the new owner could do to the person who ruined his property.

The rest of that section of Deuteronomy is even worse in some ways. There's a section where if a man marries a woman but decides she's no good, then it is her parent's responsibility to prove she was a virgin (which was the definition of "good" - unsoiled) by producing the bloody sheet; the evidence of her deflowering with her new husband. If they cannot do that - the woman is stoned to death. There's a subtext there that the primary value of a woman is that she was reserved for one man's exclusive "use" and that the father's job is to preserve that value for her husband's use.

However, saying that that's what Christianity was all about, or that that should be heeded today, is inaccurate. That was more a description of the morals of the time. And indeed you could argue that since in some cases the laws both spared the woman and required her to be treated well (if she did everything right) was actually an advance over previous morality, where the man could do whatever he wanted with his wife (or wives.) And in the New Testament that is called out even more clearly. Sure, there's still a lot about women being weak vessels and that the man was in charge, but there was a lot more along the lines of "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies."

IMO it's a mistake to use the Bible as a detailed moral guide. There's some good stuff in there, but it was written a long, long time ago and morality evolves; it's as wrong to use Deuteronomy to justify the position of women in a marriage as it is to use Ephesians to defend the ownership of slaves.

I think one of the biggest issues with the text is the fact it has not evolved.

One of the biggest issues with so many religious organisations and believers is that they have failed and refused to acknowledge that parts of the text is no longer applicable and in some instances, should be condemned outright.

What it needs is a reckoning of sorts, for lack of a better term. Or a revolution.. Something..

As a species we evolved and change. We hope to improve.

The text is not and a lot of religious organisations are failing to keep up and refusing to.

Some may try to claim that the New Testament is that reckoning, but the violence and gendered violence in particular remains, as does the attitude towards women: https://www.shilohproject.blog/sexual-violence-and-rape-culture-in-the-new-testament/

It's not helped by religious text that seeks to lay blame on the woman for violence committed against her or upon her body.. https://theconversation.com/how-the...ry-attitudes-to-rape-and-sexual-assault-76900

 

[Michael 345]

Did god get marys consent?

Don't think so

Angel came down and said she had been chosen

No mention of rejection (that would have been a turn up "No thanks. Joseph is the one for me. Go find another Mary" )

No mention of acceptance either "Ya sure, do your thing"

rape..if

Well as I posted rape is penetration of any orifice but since it appears while some sort of magic was involved (seed was generated inside) and no orifice involved sorry not rape. Clever god

Caused pregnancy without consent could be a charge to persue. Proving paternity without current DNA (does god have DNA?) technology, very problematic