Are rapists going to Hell?

[Grumpuss]

Well, that's an interesting quandary. If the pervading culture around one does not implicitly condemn certain attitudes or actions then one can certainly think themselves as good, even if they harm others. For example, homophobic actions harm people. This has been studied and accepted by various scientific disciplines for decades. But even among people who define their morality literally by seeing what causes harm and what doesn't. If the surrounding culture condones homophobic behaviors, then even when one is supposed to strive to avoid causing harm, one can engage in homophobic behaviors and still consider themselves "being good." So then it becomes a question of culture vs religion. How much of such behavior is condoned by one's religion or Holy Book and how much of it is merely culture superseding the teachings of said religion. How much are they intertwined.
People will inevitable use some interesting interpretations in order to become more civilized (for lack of a better phrase.)
I guess it depends on how liberal one is about their religious beliefs and how much freedom they perceive themselves to have. For religions not really reliant on Scripture, this may be a little easier for them to do so. But there are many highly Liberal Churches of many religions, so.

You're going off on quite a few tangents there.

Uhh, I was born and raised Hindu. Grew up around Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists my entire life. (Granted, they were probably the more liberal sects to begin with, but still.) Like I will always research these things, because I am rather curious by nature. But you essentially told a Hindu they don't know much about Hinduism. Like I know Hinduism is rather.............vast, but what the hell man?

Then you're excusing your own religion by essentially blaming the "Abrahamic" faiths for these types of issues. There are arranged marriages in Hinduism. Rape culture is prevalent and a majorly nasty problem in India. Either you don't know, or you are willfully denying what is established reality.

Well, yeah. We were a barbaric species for quite some time. With numerous atrocities committed by people of every religion one can think of. (Maybe with exception of Jains, they seem to hurt themselves more than others.)
But umm, aren't most religions older than the Middle Ages, anyway? I mean Hinduism is about 6,000 years, you have ancient "Pagan religions" Ancient Greek, Roman, Norse etc. Didn't they have their own moralities? I'm pretty sure Jesus is older than the Magna Carter by a long stretch.
So I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

The majority of pagan religions were excluded and or made extinct from mainstream society. The very word, "pagan" has the definition nowadays has taken on the meaning of irreligious, fringe heretic, not to be trusted. Most of them are indeed extinct, unless you count neo-pagan traditions the same as the huge followings that Greeks and Norse pantheons enjoyed.

Can't speak for a Muslim or Mormon, but unless a person is kind of a sociopath or a pedophile or really really really sexist, I can't imagine many Hindus considering taking a crying 12 year old to bed to be an action which is not "sinful." It's against the concept of Ahinsa to hurt a child, either way you look at it. And crying is sort of a universal human concept of harm taking place. So I don't know how culture could absolve them in that scenario.
(Please note, I am not saying it is the opposite is true for Muslims or Mormons. Obviously.)

Sociopath and pedophile doesn't enter into it. The culture/religion absolves the person of a criminal act, to an extent. But the child is still crying and hurt by it, using nearly every definition of the word. Child brides are an abomination to most cultures, and it's only in very conservative, very traditional ways (sometimes inclusive of a particular religious justification) that it's still found in regular, sizable operation.

 

[Spideymon77]

I know this thread is for people who believe Hell exists, but I have a few words to say.

If Hell existed, I wouldn't want anybody to go there. Don't get me wrong, rape is horrible and there is no excuse for it. Is burning in Hell for all eternity really the answer though?

I would accept an alternative. Maybe the person who committed the horrendous crime should experience the crime themselves and the demons, or whatever, force empathy and pain out of them.

That's the ideal for me, anyways.

 

[osgart]

yes, rapists go to hell, it is far more serious than sin, to be a rapist. There are definite lines of justice.

although I'm not sure that hell is forever nor do I think it should be.

let the punishment fit the crime. I am of the belief that repentance is eventual in everyone, but if justice is not served, than evil will go on and on.

it's all a matter of proper punishment.

 

[SomeRandom]

You're going off on quite a few tangents there.

Sorry, I tend to have a wandering mind and precious little in the way of attention span.

Then you're excusing your own religion by essentially blaming the "Abrahamic" faiths for these types of issues. There are arranged marriages in Hinduism. Rape culture is prevalent and a majorly nasty problem in India. Either you don't know, or you are willfully denying what is established reality.

No I didn't. I even stated previously that all the world's religions are responsible for numerous atrocities throughout the ages. Whether that be Buddhists burning people alive, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dalit treatment or even the burning of heretics/witches. I think some Jain monks committed some atrocities in Madurai. No one is innocent, no one.
But here's a fun fact, Hinduism does not equate to India, nor Indian culture. Sure they are intertwined to a large extent. But even then to say that is overtly simplistic and intellectually lazy. It's like saying Christianity equals America. Sure, much of the culture has been shaped by Christianity, but on the other hand Christianity is not defined by American culture. Or the Middle East, for that matter, where it originated from.
You asked a question pertaining to a person's worldview as shaped by their specific religion. I answered using that specific criteria. And as I stated I am staunchly against arranged marriage. I mean arranged dating is one's own proclivity, like I don't care about that, but arranged marriage is from an unenlightened time and should be scrapped imo.

Sociopath and pedophile doesn't enter into it. The culture/religion absolves the person of a criminal act, to an extent. But the child is still crying and hurt by it, using nearly every definition of the word. Child brides are an abomination to most cultures, and it's only in very conservative, very traditional ways (sometimes inclusive of a particular religious justification) that it's still found in regular, sizable operation.

Yes, I agree it is despicable, regardless of religion or culture. Equally distressing is that the law does nothing. For example in Australia and in some states of America, you can get married as young as 15/16 with parental approval. Whereas in India the minimum age is legally 18 for girls and oddly 21 for boys. Child brides are an affront to civilized society in this day and age.

 

[Grumpuss]

Sorry, I tend to have a wandering mind and precious little in the way of attention span.

No need to apologize. I just didn't want to have to start going in 5 new directions and confuse the response.

No I didn't. I even stated previously that all the world's religions are responsible for numerous atrocities throughout the ages. Whether that be Buddhists burning people alive, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dalit treatment or even the burning of heretics/witches. I think some Jain monks committed some atrocities in Madurai. No one is innocent, no one.
But here's a fun fact, Hinduism does not equate to India, nor Indian culture. Sure they are intertwined to a large extent. But even then to say that is overtly simplistic and intellectually lazy. It's like saying Christianity equals America. Sure, much of the culture has been shaped by Christianity, but on the other hand Christianity is not defined by American culture. Or the Middle East, for that matter, where it originated from.
You asked a question pertaining to a person's worldview as shaped by their specific religion. I answered using that specific criteria. And as I stated I am staunchly against arranged marriage. I mean arranged dating is one's own proclivity, like I don't care about that, but arranged marriage is from an unenlightened time and should be scrapped imo.

Generalizing is useful, and in the cases you listed, appropriate for discussion. Going back to the OP, you can still arrive at arranged marriage and rape culture going back through the ages and being tied closely to religious justification. Mormons and Muslims can (and still do) engage in plural marriage, which much of the world considers sexual slavery. If a slave is kept primarily to have sex, that's rape.

Yes, I agree it is despicable, regardless of religion or culture. Equally distressing is that the law does nothing. For example in Australia and in some states of America, you can get married as young as 15/16 with parental approval. Whereas in India the minimum age is legally 18 for girls and oddly 21 for boys. Child brides are an affront to civilized society in this day and age.

It all comes down to age of consent. I've met some pretty foolish 18/21-year-olds, but for the most part they are competent. But a lot of the arranged marriages take place outside of the law, as you know. Kids as young as 10 or 11 getting "sold" to other families generally can't be on the up and up.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I wonder if arranged marriage should be used as a euphemism for rape also. It's done against the woman's will, and nearly always with the express purpose of producing children.

I have a friend in an arranged marriage. It was not forced on her. She wanted it. Her friend had 5 arranged suiters and rejected them all. None were forced on her either.

For these it really was little different than match.com except parents found suitable suiters.

Personally I think it's archaic but it works for some.

 

[1robin]

As enlightened and compassionate as modern society has become towards gender equality, women continue in many ways to be second class citizens, if not outright slaves. Women in some countries and cultures obviously have it better than others. The extent to which family and obligation play into the formula often include the presence of a religion. Segregation, arranged marriages and even underage coupling are all widespread practices, even today, depending on which parts of the world you're referring to, and through which cultural lens. The crimes may seem quite serious to a more objective, 3rd party observer, but it is entirely possible, even likely that many of the people perpetrating them maintain a personal belief in God. They may even be devout members of an established religion, which may or may not provide internal guidance on how a woman's sexual rights are respected.

How one conducts himself/herself in life would therefore follow some kind of path to salvation, whether it be an Abrahamic God, Hindu pantheon, Buddhist spirit, etc. It would follow for those believers who are not living gods, that the rules were designed by others and we can not rewrite them to suit our own subject experience of judgment of ourselves. Being respectful to the part of society that is more than 50% of the population and not violating them, as we are told the god(s) of our faith want can and will clash against what many consider to be being a good acolyte. While we hope and expect we have kind and merciless deities to at least partially absolve us when mental derangement is a mitigating factor, what is the effect upon our immortal souls and/or spiritual afterlife when we force women to have sex against their will?

Yeah, maybe she was beaten and gang-raped. But... religion says it's her fault for going out unescorted after dark?

Please know that what one religion may consider foul and sin-worthy can be quite different than what another may consider tolerable. I am not looking for any rants explaining why one religion's worldview is superior to all others, or how defensible you consider it to rape someone, based on the woman's place in society, her permissiveness or previous conduct. It's always complicated, but the presence of a crying victim kind of speaks for itself, no matter how the rapist rationalizes it to himself. Myself, I believe this is a question left up to God to judge who shall be rewarded with bliss and who is damned. To pass judgment on others for what happens in the afterlife, is to speak for God, and is a sin. But we can of course keep asking questions and try to live well, free from chaos.

Is it a sin to rape a woman in all situations, and to procreate, even when it involves doing so against a woman's will? Arranged marriages and expected obligations of women are still very much common practice. And to what extent are the machinations of demons (if you believe in their influence) to be blamed or mitigated against?

You ask a simple, short, emphatic question and sneak in a pack of mastodon's with it. I will just answer the question for now.

In Christianity, all accountable men and women are going to Hell unless they repent from all their sins.

 

[Skwim]

Are rapists going to Hell?

Don't see why. God condoned and even encouraged rape.

(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”​

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

.​

 

[Grumpuss]

I have a friend in an arranged marriage. It was not forced on her. She wanted it. Her friend had 5 arranged suiters and rejected them all. None were forced on her either.

For these it really was little different than match.com except parents found suitable suiters.

Personally I think it's archaic but it works for some.

Sure, why not. Some people don't care about the methodology. Others learn to live with it. You can probably find women who like being kept out of key decisions or wear burqas.

You ask a simple, short, emphatic question and sneak in a pack of mastodon's with it. I will just answer the question for now.

In Christianity, all accountable men and women are going to Hell unless they repent from all their sins.

We must believe in a different type of Christianity from each other. I don't believe we're all born with sin, and I believe that God appreciates our repentance, but also considers good deeds for our salvation. The reverse was popular to believe a while back, and it was feared unbaptized babies wouldn't go to Heaven.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Sure, why not. Some people don't care about the methodology. Others learn to live with it. You can probably find women who like being kept out of key decisions or wear burqas.

You miss the point. These women were not kept out of the decision. They had the final say. The parents made the match. The women, not the men, had the say so, yea or nea. The word 'arranged' does not mean forced in all cases.

 

[1robin]

We must believe in a different type of Christianity from each other. I don't believe we're all born with sin, and I believe that God appreciates our repentance, but also considers good deeds for our salvation. The reverse was popular to believe a while back, and it was feared unbaptized babies wouldn't go to Heaven.

I didn't say anything out our differences in core doctrines. I said you ask a mouse of a question then smuggle in a planet sized commentary upon a multitude.

As for out differences it does not matter what you or I think, it only matters what God has said.

1. The bible says we inherit or corrupt nature (desire to sin from Adam), but lets say that was not true. We would all still have plenty of sins of our own by which to be condemned. Find me anyone who has reached the age of accountability without sin.

2. Believing in a God who requires grace and works to be save, is like saying a scientist requires a square circle to be saved.

Give me the exact line at which the mixture of repentance and grace combine to produce salvation:

3. Whatever got babies into this discussion does not come from the statement in your post immediately before it. I have no idea what the context is.

 

[Grumpuss]

I didn't say anything out our differences in core doctrines. I said you ask a mouse of a question then smuggle in a planet sized commentary upon a multitude.

As for out differences it does not matter what you or I think, it only matters what God has said.

1. The bible says we inherit or corrupt nature (desire to sin from Adam), but lets say that was not true. We would all still have plenty of sins of our own by which to be condemned. Find me anyone who has reached the age of accountability without sin.

2. Believing in a God who requires grace and works to be save, is like saying a scientist requires a square circle to be saved.

Give me the exact line at which the mixture of repentance and grace combine to produce salvation:

3. Whatever got babies into this discussion does not come from the statement in your post immediately before it. I have no idea what the context is.

Look to Jesus.

 

[Erebus]

I know this thread is for people who believe Hell exists, but I have a few words to say.

If Hell existed, I wouldn't want anybody to go there. Don't get me wrong, rape is horrible and there is no excuse for it. Is burning in Hell for all eternity really the answer though?

I would accept an alternative. Maybe the person who committed the horrendous crime should experience the crime themselves and the demons, or whatever, force empathy and pain out of them.

That's the ideal for me, anyways.

More or less sums up my view on the matter. Eternal torment far exceeds any worldly crime in my opinion, even when it's something truly heinous.

Now to be made to understand the harm you caused is something I could accept. I believe that some Buddhists and Hindus have temporary hells that function that way, though I seem to recall the time spent there seeming pretty unreasonable.

To be honest, a hell focused on building understanding rather than retribution may not need any physical suffering at all.

 

[1robin]

Look to Jesus.

I have and do, were you making an argument?

Whatever it was, it wasn't a single thing I asked of you.

 

[Grumpuss]

I have and do, were you making an argument?

Whatever it was, it wasn't a single thing I asked of you.

Sigh. The words and deeds of Jesus are chronicled in the Bible. I try to follow the lessons he taught, to the best of my ability.

You introduced a whole bunch of Original Sin style justifications to your own philosophy, which is fine, except it ignores the Savior's contribution.