nPeace
Veteran Member
We can discuss it, if you like, because I don't get where you are seeing that I am saying other than what the Bible say, except where I think it's all in your mind. Not what I said.Of course I hate what JWs keep preaching in this thread. It's blurring the lines between rape and consensual sex. This is what makes people shocked here among other things.
Rape is rape. Consensual sex is consensual sex.
Don't abuse Jesus' holy name to spread your own JW teachings about rape. Rape is rape ... and this is what you need to set straight, I think.
Okay, So you think the Government has misused the word, when they use the term 'statutory rape'.In answering your question, rape cannot involve consent, I think.
Also, you do not think that women consent in any way, when they say no, but show otherwise, or are indecisive, or say yes, and then no.
The context says these passages in Deuteronomy 22,23-27 deals with rape. You see it different. I don't think any amount of preaching - which I am not doing, nor about to do - will change your mind. That's your belief.the passage explicitely says "she did not scream": However, this doesn't transform this verse into a rape story or a rule covering rape.
There are all sorts of sex during which the woman does not scream.
Dear fellow reader, let me explain why this is so important a passage: Jehova Witnesses, as can be seen in this thread, try to use Deuteronomy 22:24 in an attempt to "show" that there is no rape without screaming. But Deuteronomy 22:24, at least its Hebrew version, does not mention rape. Their argument is moot, as I see it.
...
Post #155well, no reader could have come up with the idea that you did NOT agree with the representation of your opinion in #155.
If you did not agree, you could have made that clearer.
no, I mean this hypothesis written by your fellow JW (see #155):
"@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream,"
so there it is: no scream no rape - as a hypothesis.
Now you even state clearly:
I did explained... just like polygamy, which God allowed, but never approved, and which he no longer put up with many many years after.
The common culture of war, which he allowed his people to engage in, until many years after... etc. etc.
This one?
Remember, you hypothesized 'no scream no rape'. That's your idea. It is not what is written. It is not what I said.
i agree 100% with what is written there. Why do you think there is a problem?
Let's clear this up once and for all.
Did I say no scream no rape?
How did I contradict myself? See above.ah.
So, here you're contradicting yourself. See above.
Yes, you admitted you assumed it, by saying it was your hypothesis.So, it's not lack of humbleness here if I read your posts as they are written. I just don't assume hidden messages that noone can read, that's all.
Personal? If anything, you made it personal, my friend. Let's deal with it.this is getting personal. Stop this.
Do you think it fair you can say what you like about a person, but they can't say anything about you. (which I didn't say, but simply asked you questions)? How is that fair?
If you really want to talk about personal, we can do that here too. Let's start with this one, since it's closer... "Don't abuse Jesus' holy name to spread your own JW teachings about rape." That's not personal?
How is this...
It's like someone so determined to put their own words, or thoughts in someone's mouth, in order to create an argument they think will give them some sort of satisfaction.
What would you get out of that Thomas, other than a big fat ego? What will you feed it with? Surely there would be no room for God's word, or spirit.
...any more personal?
Anyone can go to court and say all of that. What does the evidence reveal though?I always attempt to leave room for God.
I did not put my own words, or thoughts in your mouth.
I don't think that I lost the case.
I did not commit perjury.
I wouldn't be thrown out by "any proper judge".
And I don't believe that a woman who does not put up a fight under no threat of harm, is necessarily raped without consent.
I didn't claim to "know so much" on this specific Bible verse.
I never claimed or implied that rape does need to involve beating, and vicious manhandling. So I wasn't proven wrong here, I think.
Thomas
EDITED
Are you innocent of not putting words and thoughts in my mouth? Question : (and mind you, the judge will have you sworn in. Then he or she will say to you, "Just answer Yes or No. Do not volunteer any information except specifically asked for such. Do you understand?" Hopefully, you will answer, "Yes, Your Honor." ) Did you hear nPeace say 'no scream no rape' Or did you hear nPeace's fellow believer say 'no scream no rape'?