Slavery

[Deeje]

I'm just saying that basing whether a person was raped on whether they screamed or fought back is pretty stupid and backwards.

Put yourself back in those times....what else could they have used as evidence of a crime as opposed to a consensual act? What has changed since then is technological, not human nature. That doesn’t change.

Men were still prone to rape as an act of domination, and victims had to have some way to show that they were not consenting.

Women may have wanted to bring a charge of rape to a man as some kind of revenge. So the human element hasn’t changed in these aspects, but the determination of guilt or innocence back in those times was extremely limited. The law did the best it could under the circumstances.

Today is a vastly different story.....thankfully.

 

[Deeje]

this passage is about having sex with an engaged woman in town - engaged with someone else.
It says that if the woman does not scream, she must be killed.
If I understand your posts #131 and #155 right, you seem to infer that rape implies screaming or, to put it differently, no screaming no rape.

However, Bible proves you wrong. See 2 Samuel 13:12-14. It was clearly rape (verse 14), however she did not scream. Yet she had had plenty of time to do so in verse 12.
I hope this helps.

EDITED, left out something..

If you read on, after the rape, it says....
“With that he called his young attendant and said: “Get this person out of my presence, please, and lock the door behind her.” 18 (Now she was wearing a special robe, for those were the garments that the virgin daughters of the king wore.) So his attendant led her outside, and he locked the door behind her. 19 Then Taʹmar put ashes on her head, and she ripped apart the fine robe she was wearing; and she kept her hands on her head and walked off, crying out as she walked.” (2 Samuel 13:17-19)

She made it very clear to all who saw and heard her that she had been violated. Her sibling Absolom determined to make his half brother pay for his crime and ordered his attendant to put him to death.

 

[thomas t]

. 19 Then Taʹmar

you're quoting verse 19.
Bible said: rape... back in verse 14.
So we see here: first the rape and later, after many other things had happened, the crying also occured in verse 19.
Many things happened in between. So it would be mere presumption to assume that these things that happened in verses 15 till 18 did not play a role for the crying.

Deeje I'm concerned about the good reputation of Christians. I just had a discussion with an atheist about Christians purportedly being dangerous and she linked back to the topic of rape.
If you write these things and clearly add that you are Jehova Witness - "JW" might be something the average Joe does not understand - then it's just sad. But in this case, your writings are on you.

But if you write this and people might take you as a non-Jehova Witness Christian... then it's Jesus who will have to pay a price, I'm afraid.

In my opinion, you just formulated an expectation that all sexual assault victims are to meet, if I got you right. They should cry or scream.
This is the first step to victim blaming... because, in case of no screaming during or before the assault, you might shift part of the blame to the victim, it seems.
And this is the very point where it get's really dangerous for the reputation of Christians.
We even had a poster in this very thread claiming to have been subjected to rape without screaming being involved. We should take these rape stories seriously, I think, as opposed to brushing them off.

Thomas

 

[Deeje]

you're quoting verse 19.
Bible said: rape... back in verse 14.
So we see here: first the rape and later, after many other things had happened, the crying also occured in verse 19.
Many things happened in between. So it would be mere presumption to assume that these things that happened in verses 15 till 18 did not play a role for the crying.

Can you read? The account is all there in 2 Samuel ch 13. Amnon set his sister up so that he could take advantage of her. She pleaded with him not to do anything like that because of the shame he would bring on her as well as himself, but he refused to listen....he overpowered her and raped her. He sent her away and locked her out of his house and she went away crying out in humiliation and shame. She was not a willing party to the attack.

Deeje I'm concerned about the good reputation of Christians. I just had a discussion with an atheist about Christians purportedly being dangerous and she linked back to the topic of rape.
If you write these things and clearly add that you are Jehova Witness - "JW" might be something the average Joe does not understand - then it's just sad. But in this case, your writings are on you.

I'm sorry....what???? What has your discussion with an atheist got to do with Amnon raping his sister?
What I find sad is the fact that you were shown that Tamar did in fact cry out over the rape, and you make some lame excuse about the reputation of Christians.....

But if you write this and people might take you as a non-Jehova Witness Christian... then it's Jesus who will have to pay a price, I'm afraid.

Again...what???? You are not making any sense.

In my opinion, you just formulated an expectation that all sexual assault victims are to meet, if I got you right. They should cry or scream.

The difference between a rape and a seduction is consent....if there is no consent, there is rape.
In Israel, it was God's law that if the woman did not scream, or at least try to resist, then it was taken that she consented.

We today are not living under Israelite law, but in principle, it remains the same....consensual sex is not rape.
If the woman has not given consent, then rape can be proven in ways not available to judges back then.

This is the first step to victim blaming... because, in case of no screaming during or before the assault, you might shift part of the blame to the victim, it seems.

Well then let's examine that point. When a woman dresses in skimpy, sexually provocative clothing and actually looks and behaves like a prostitute, what kind of signals is she giving to a young man who might be tempted by her flirting?
I heard an Islamic man once say that it was pointless punishing a dog for eating meat that was left uncovered and unprotected. I got the point.

In today's world, where sex is basically a free for all, how on earth do you prove rape? If a woman gets what she asks for, how is she not as guilty as the man who read her signals but could not stop what she had started? If you don't want to get burned, then don't play with matches....

And this is the very point where it get's really dangerous for the reputation of Christians.
We even had a poster in this very thread claiming to have been subjected to rape without screaming being involved. We should take these rape stories seriously, I think, as opposed to brushing them off.

Good grief man...what a load of cods wallop. Rape is for the law to determine.....I don't think they need a scream to determine guilt these days...though I'm sure it would help.

Christians would not put themselves in that position in the first place. If a Christian woman is raped and she basically did everything she could to tempt the man, but reneged at the last moment......then she is as guilty before God as he is. For Christians, its hands off until you're married. Why do you think that God had such strict laws concerning sex?

If she was a genuine victim, then that is a whole other story. The law is there to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

 

[thomas t]

I'm sorry....what???? What has your discussion with an atheist got to do with Amnon raping his sister?

What this discussion has to do tith atheists blaming Christians to be dangerous?
If you, as a professing "JW Christian" shift 50% of the blame away from the perpetrator... you're playing rape down effectively, in my opinion.
Atheists see this. And then they might think Christians are dangerous, since they saw professing Christians playing down rape. Rape never is a matter of clothing and/or flirting - not even at 50%.

What I find sad is the fact that you were shown that Tamar did in fact cry out over the rape

It's your presumption that Tamar cried out over the rape. She cried out. But other things happened between the rape and the cry...

I heard an Islamic man once say that it was pointless punishing a dog for eating meat that was left uncovered and unprotected. I got the point.

this - as a comparison for having sex with women and girls thought "unprotected" - is Islam logic, as I understand it. And one that Jehova Witnesses buy apparently.
Moreover, comparing women to meat is biased against women, I think.
This has nothing to do with the Bible.

and behaves like a prostitute,

this, however, is bias against prostitutes, I think. You say that girls who dress up like prostitutes should get half of the blame for a rape? Using this logic one could infer that prostitutes themselves are 50% guilty if they get raped... which is false. Bible never teaches this stuff. It is Jehova Witnesses logic.
Also prostitutes have a right to not get raped. And to get paid for their services. All else is close to slavery - or even slavery itself. Sex slavery.

When a woman dresses in skimpy, sexually provocative clothing and actually looks and behaves like a prostitute, what kind of signals is she giving to a young man who might be tempted by her flirting?

whatever. Maybe "I like fun". One thing is sure... it does not mean rape me.

In today's world, where sex is basically a free for all, how on earth do you prove rape?

that's a whole different question. I think it's not within the scope of this thread ("slavery").

If a Christian woman is raped and she basically did everything she could to tempt the man, but reneged at the last moment. [...]

that's not the story in the text.

Anyway, rape is rape, in my opinion. As you say, it's up to the law to determine what constitutes rape.
Tempting a man via clothing and flirting should never be seen as equally abusive as the rape itself. This would be blame shifting, too.

Whenever you say these things, please always specify that you're a Jehova Witness, so there be no misunderstandings as to where this doctrine comes from...

Can you read?

this is unpolite, I think. "Are you dumb?" is unpolite, too, if you mean this...
I didn't write any cods wallop.
I think I'm making sense. Also in my previous post.

edited (added one line and corrected grammar)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Put yourself back in those times....what else could they have used as evidence of a crime as opposed to a consensual act? What has changed since then is technological, not human nature. That doesn’t change.

Men were still prone to rape as an act of domination, and victims had to have some way to show that they were not consenting.

Women may have wanted to bring a charge of rape to a man as some kind of revenge. So the human element hasn’t changed in these aspects, but the determination of guilt or innocence back in those times was extremely limited. The law did the best it could under the circumstances.

Today is a vastly different story.....thankfully.

They weren't some primitive form of human. They were the same as us. Men still use rape as a form of domination. Maybe Yahweh could've helped them out with better information on how to deal with those things. Regardless, it does sound like you're excusing it to an extent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Putting yesterday’s cultural differences into today’s world...I guess you would consider it appalling.....but it’s the 21st century and I guess today’s moral standards...or lack of them makes for a better world then....?

In general, we have a more moral society today than the model suggested by the rules given in the Bible, yes.

 

[wellwisher]

The main problem with discussing slavery is short term empathy and revisionist history, The times of ancient slavery were not the same as today, but with different clothes. Life was much harder and there was no welfare state or bill of rights. Slavery provided a way to live in a more advanced dominate culture, thereby assuring survival and progression for future generations.

Fo example, the Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians. Egypt was more advanced than early Israel and the Israelites learned from this advanced culture by being their captures. Moses learned from the Egyptians at the highest levels. He was chosen by God to lead the Israelites because of this advanced multi-cultural training. This would help them in the Exodus. Moses would not have been in the right place without slavery.

Even in the USA, very few blacks ,who descended from slaves, would trade places with the descendants of blacks, still in African third world countries, who were never slaves. Over time that path did not add up as well. One needs to look at the big picture and not the tiny picture of revisionist history in the moment.

Slavery was a more merciful alternative than murdering an entire defeated culture, so they would not become a perpetual thorn in your side. The idea behind slavery via war, was mercy and assimilation. Human need to be fed. The process began similar to boot camp in military training. They first needed to be broken down, before being built up.

Israel under Rome was allowed to be autonomous once they assimilated. As long as they were allies and not enemies they were advanced above mere slavery. The alternative could have been slaughter. But in the short term, reconditioning was not easy. But in the end, Jesus benefited by the slavery of his ancestors. He and his culture of his time, gained the multicultural things needed to save the world, and not just his own clique.

If you look at the family, children are like slaves. You give them room and board and they have to do chores. It is done this way, so they will learn from the higher culture of the adults. Once they learn, they are allowed more liberties and some are even free to make their own choices. Slavery has is a connection to the extended family. If a child visits a relative, they are under stricter rules, than at home, until they assimilate. Once they do the relative takes off the shackles.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If y’all think slavery wasn’t evil, I want to see you apply

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The main problem with discussing slavery is short term empathy and revisionist history, The times of ancient slavery were not the same as today, but with different clothes. Life was much harder and there was no welfare state or bill of rights. Slavery provided a way to live in a more advanced dominate culture, thereby assuring survival and progression for future generations.

Fo example, the Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians. Egypt was more advanced than early Israel and the Israelites learned from this advanced culture by being their captures. Moses learned from the Egyptians at the highest levels. He was chosen by God to lead the Israelites because of this advanced multi-cultural training. This would help them in the Exodus. Moses would not have been in the right place without slavery.

Even in the USA, very few blacks ,who descended from slaves, would trade places with the descendants of blacks, still in African third world countries, who were never slaves. Over time that path did not add up as well. One needs to look at the big picture and not the tiny picture of revisionist history in the moment.

Slavery was a more merciful alternative than murdering an entire defeated culture, so they would not become a perpetual thorn in your side. The idea behind slavery via war, was mercy and assimilation. Human need to be fed. The process began similar to boot camp in military training. They first needed to be broken down, before being built up.

Israel under Rome was allowed to be autonomous once they assimilated. As long as they were allies and not enemies they were advanced above mere slavery. The alternative could have been slaughter. But in the short term, reconditioning was not easy. But in the end, Jesus benefited by the slavery of his ancestors. He and his culture of his time, gained the multicultural things needed to save the world, and not just his own clique.

If you look at the family, children are like slaves. You give them room and board and they have to do chores. It is done this way, so they will learn from the higher culture of the adults. Once they learn, they are allowed more liberties and some are even free to make their own choices. Slavery has is a connection to the extended family. If a child visits a relative, they are under stricter rules, than at home, until they assimilate. Once they do the relative takes off the shackles.

If all that were true, why would God have made the Egyptians release the Israelites from bondage?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you read? The account is all there in 2 Samuel ch 13. Amnon set his sister up so that he could take advantage of her. She pleaded with him not to do anything like that because of the shame he would bring on her as well as himself, but he refused to listen....he overpowered her and raped her. He sent her away and locked her out of his house and she went away crying out in humiliation and shame. She was not a willing party to the attack.



I'm sorry....what???? What has your discussion with an atheist got to do with Amnon raping his sister?
What I find sad is the fact that you were shown that Tamar did in fact cry out over the rape, and you make some lame excuse about the reputation of Christians.....



Again...what???? You are not making any sense.



The difference between a rape and a seduction is consent....if there is no consent, there is rape.
In Israel, it was God's law that if the woman did not scream, or at least try to resist, then it was taken that she consented.

We today are not living under Israelite law, but in principle, it remains the same....consensual sex is not rape.
If the woman has not given consent, then rape can be proven in ways not available to judges back then.



Well then let's examine that point. When a woman dresses in skimpy, sexually provocative clothing and actually looks and behaves like a prostitute, what kind of signals is she giving to a young man who might be tempted by her flirting?
I heard an Islamic man once say that it was pointless punishing a dog for eating meat that was left uncovered and unprotected. I got the point.

In today's world, where sex is basically a free for all, how on earth do you prove rape? If a woman gets what she asks for, how is she not as guilty as the man who read her signals but could not stop what she had started? If you don't want to get burned, then don't play with matches....



Good grief man...what a load of cods wallop. Rape is for the law to determine.....I don't think they need a scream to determine guilt these days...though I'm sure it would help.

Christians would not put themselves in that position in the first place. If a Christian woman is raped and she basically did everything she could to tempt the man, but reneged at the last moment......then she is as guilty before God as he is. For Christians, its hands off until you're married. Why do you think that God had such strict laws concerning sex?

If she was a genuine victim, then that is a whole other story. The law is there to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

Yep, that's victim blaming, alright.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well then let's examine that point. When a woman dresses in skimpy, sexually provocative clothing and actually looks and behaves like a prostitute, what kind of signals is she giving to a young man who might be tempted by her flirting?
I heard an Islamic man once say that it was pointless punishing a dog for eating meat that was left uncovered and unprotected. I got the point.

In today's world, where sex is basically a free for all, how on earth do you prove rape? If a woman gets what she asks for, how is she not as guilty as the man who read her signals but could not stop what she had started? If you don't want to get burned, then don't play with matches....

Christians would not put themselves in that position in the first place. If a Christian woman is raped and she basically did everything she could to tempt the man, but reneged at the last moment......then she is as guilty before God as he is.

Omg, yikes...

 

[Deeje]

What this discussion has to do tith atheists blaming Christians to be dangerous?
If you, as a professing "JW Christian" shift 50% of the blame away from the perpetrator... you're playing rape down effectively, in my opinion.
Atheists see this. And then they might think Christians are dangerous, since they saw professing Christians playing down rape. Rape never is a matter of clothing and/or flirting - not even at 50%.

I am merely giving you the Bible's perspective. I'm sorry you find it unfair to blame someone who courts immorality and then cries rape. I am speaking in generalities now....there are legitimate rapes and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law......but....in today's world, the sex is consensual until its not. In God's view, you don't put yourself in harm's way in the first place.
You don't frequent the places where people hook up for sex and then change your mind once things get hot and sweaty....and then cry rape. Women need to accept their own responsibility in this.

It's your presumption that Tamar cried out over the rape. She cried out. But other things happened between the rape and the cry...

Please tell us what "other things" took place.....she tried her best to dissuade him...he ignored her pleas. He overpowered her and took her by force. He then locked her out of the house and she cried out and gave the public appearance of a woman who had been raped. The only reason Amnon was not punished was because he was the King's son. His half brother Absolom took the matter into his own hands and avenged his sister's violation.

this - as a comparison for having sex with women and girls thought "unprotected" - is Islam logic, as I understand it. And one that Jehova Witnesses buy apparently.
Moreover, comparing women to meat is biased against women, I think.
This has nothing to do with the Bible.

Good grief....it is merely portraying what God sees, as opposed to what man sees. Christians are supposed to be moral in their behavior and to dress modestly....if a woman who identifies as Christian, but who is immodest in her dress and immoral in her behavior, who then encounters unwanted attention from someone who sees all the signals of a willingness to engage in immorality.....so tell me who is equally responsible in God's eyes, if a man gets the wrong signals and rape results? Alcohol often plays a role in this....God's word says that drunkenness is to be avoided. Do you not see the steps taken where ignoring God's counsel leads to trouble? God teaches us to avoid the danger in the first place.

this, however, is bias against prostitutes, I think. You say that girls who dress up like prostitutes should get half of the blame for a rape? Using this logic one could infer that prostitutes themselves are 50% guilty if they get raped... which is false. Bible never teaches this stuff. It is Jehova Witnesses logic.

It is Bible logic......sorry you can't see it. What are prostitutes asking for? What does the way they dress signal for men? How does God feel about immorality in any form?

Also prostitutes have a right to not get raped. And to get paid for their services. All else is close to slavery - or even slavery itself. Sex slavery.

Are you serious? How does God view them? Is prostitution an approved occupation from his perspective?

whatever. Maybe "I like fun". One thing is sure... it does not mean rape me.

So its all good fun until its not fun anymore...I see.

Anyway, rape is rape, in my opinion. As you say, it's up to the law to determine what constitutes rape.
Tempting a man via clothing and flirting should never be seen as equally abusive as the rape itself. This would be blame shifting, too.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"....how many clichés would you like?
Rape is rape...it is unwanted....non consensual....but it has to be so from the beginning IMO. If you invite the attention and give the wrong signals, then rape could well be the result.....in today's moral climate, what really constitutes a rape....and what is a woman just changing her mind once the process is well and truly started? Some men have no control....is it all their fault?

Whenever you say these things, please always specify that you're a Jehova Witness, so there be no misunderstandings as to where this doctrine comes from...

It comes from the Bible....you know, that book that should guide us in all our thoughts and actions if we claim to be "Christians". Perhaps you might like to its recommendations into consideration.....?

I didn't write any cods wallop.
I think I'm making sense. Also in my previous post.

edited (added one line and corrected grammar)

I haven't found anything you have posted to reflect anything that the Bible teaches. Have you abandoned it? Are you feeling that its laws and principles are meaningless in today's world? You seem to care more about what unbelievers think, more than what God thinks. He does not change.....so it is we who need to change our attitudes to fit in with his morality....not the other way around.

 

[Deeje]

They weren't some primitive form of human. They were the same as us. Men still use rape as a form of domination. Maybe Yahweh could've helped them out with better information on how to deal with those things. Regardless, it does sound like you're excusing it to an extent.

There is no way that I am excusing rape. It is a crime in God's eyes as it should be.

I am merely stating that God has his laws and principles in the Bible to guide us in this very immoral world. He did provide many rules regarding how to deal with the opposite sex, so that immorality was not a result.

If men or women ignored God's laws in these matters, then they were guilty in God's eyes. It mean not placing yourself in a position to have things get out of control. The sex drive in males is very strong in most species.....given the right signals, the Bible's recommendations are sound.....perhaps a little outdated in today's world, but for Christians they are as important now as they were then. God hates immorality....period.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They weren't some primitive form of human. They were the same as us. Men still use rape as a form of domination. Maybe Yahweh could've helped them out with better information on how to deal with those things. Regardless, it does sound like you're excusing it to an extent.

Regarding rape...rape / defiled was the translated term the Bible uses to describe what Shechem did to Dinah, in Genesis 34 2. But verse 3 tells us that afterward Shechem “spoke tenderly” or “— persuasively” to her. What happened was, is that he had seduced her. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have stayed to listen to his ‘persuasive’ words. But the account says “rape.”

The point is, seduction (of a virgin) in the Hebrew Scriptures is classified as rape. She was no longer ‘undefiled.’

 

[thomas t]

In the Bible, women are never compared to meat, and having sex with a woman is never compared to eating meat. This is all Jehova Witnesses teaching.

So its all good fun until its not fun anymore...I see.

this isn't what I said, please don't put words in my mouth!

Are you serious?

I stay with my opinion: prostitutes have a right to not get raped, of course. Every woman has a right to not get raped and prostitutes are not exempted from that right. They are women.

If you invite the attention and give the wrong signals, then rape could well be the result

victim blaming. Don't blame rape victims for getting raped. Even if a woman first says "yes" with regard to sex... and later "no", it's no of course. She is entitled to change her mind during the date, of course.

Your notion that clothing issues and flirting might be equally bad as rape... cannot be proven by Bible truth. You made this up. You weren't able to provide a verse backing this up.
You wrote:

If a [...] woman is raped and she basically did everything she could to tempt the man, but reneged at the last moment......then she is as guilty before God as he is.

This is your "truth" - not Bible, I just pointed that out.
And this is exactly where you're playing down rape, in my opinion. If the rape itself isn't any more harmful than clothing issues or flirting... it's not a crime according to that logic. Since dressing up in a certain way or flirting isn't a crime either!

This is the very point where you're playing down rape.

Similarly, when you blame the victim, you're essentially excusing the rape in part. You're telling the victim "but you dressed up like this... and you flirted"... and whatever you might see as guilty. So of course you're excusing part of the rape.
The whole comparison of a nicely dressed woman to a piece of meat lying there is excusing the rape, in my opinion. In your analogy, the dog is also excused for eating the meat... because it simply lied there.

Please tell us what "other things" took place.....she tried her best to dissuade him...he ignored her pleas. He overpowered her and took her by force. He then locked her out of the house and she cried out

see bolded passage. Please note that she couldn't go on negotiating after having been locked out of the house.


Ironically... your brother in Jehova Witness faith, @Hockeycowboy just laid out in #175 that rape does not require screaming, he even said seduction was rape according to him, I disagree with him.
So here, you're contradicting yourself within your Jehova Witness group when you claim that rape requires screaming or resisting, see

In Israel, it was God's law that if the woman did not scream, or at least try to resist, then it was taken that she consented.

--------------

Have you abandoned [the Bible]?

I didn't abandon Bible. I'm a Christian, as I told you before. I don't want to go round in circles with you about my status as a Christian. We had this debate, already, see The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?
This is also getting personal, stop this, please.
I sticked to my interpretation of 2 Samuel 13 and I keep sticking to it.
I care about the Christian's reputation in society.

Alcohol is not within the scope of this thread "slavery", as I see it.

Edited (grammar mistake)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Regarding rape...rape / defiled was the translated term the Bible uses to describe what Shechem did to Dinah, in Genesis 34 2. But verse 3 tells us that afterward Shechem “spoke tenderly” or “— persuasively” to her. What happened was, is that he had seduced her. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have stayed to listen to his ‘persuasive’ words. But the account says “rape.”

The point is, seduction (of a virgin) in the Hebrew Scriptures is classified as rape. She was no longer ‘undefiled.’

Sounds like rape in Greek myth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am merely giving you the Bible's perspective. I'm sorry you find it unfair to blame someone who courts immorality and then cries rape. I am speaking in generalities now....there are legitimate rapes and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law......but....in today's world, the sex is consensual until its not. In God's view, you don't put yourself in harm's way in the first place.
You don't frequent the places where people hook up for sex and then change your mind once things get hot and sweaty....and then cry rape. Women need to accept their own responsibility in this.



Please tell us what "other things" took place.....she tried her best to dissuade him...he ignored her pleas. He overpowered her and took her by force. He then locked her out of the house and she cried out and gave the public appearance of a woman who had been raped. The only reason Amnon was not punished was because he was the King's son. His half brother Absolom took the matter into his own hands and avenged his sister's violation.



Good grief....it is merely portraying what God sees, as opposed to what man sees. Christians are supposed to be moral in their behavior and to dress modestly....if a woman who identifies as Christian, but who is immodest in her dress and immoral in her behavior, who then encounters unwanted attention from someone who sees all the signals of a willingness to engage in immorality.....so tell me who is equally responsible in God's eyes, if a man gets the wrong signals and rape results? Alcohol often plays a role in this....God's word says that drunkenness is to be avoided. Do you not see the steps taken where ignoring God's counsel leads to trouble? God teaches us to avoid the danger in the first place.



It is Bible logic......sorry you can't see it. What are prostitutes asking for? What does the way they dress signal for men? How does God feel about immorality in any form?


Are you serious? How does God view them? Is prostitution an approved occupation from his perspective?



So its all good fun until its not fun anymore...I see.



"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"....how many clichés would you like?
Rape is rape...it is unwanted....non consensual....but it has to be so from the beginning IMO. If you invite the attention and give the wrong signals, then rape could well be the result.....in today's moral climate, what really constitutes a rape....and what is a woman just changing her mind once the process is well and truly started? Some men have no control....is it all their fault?



It comes from the Bible....you know, that book that should guide us in all our thoughts and actions if we claim to be "Christians". Perhaps you might like to its recommendations into consideration.....?



I haven't found anything you have posted to reflect anything that the Bible teaches. Have you abandoned it? Are you feeling that its laws and principles are meaningless in today's world? You seem to care more about what unbelievers think, more than what God thinks. He does not change.....so it is we who need to change our attitudes to fit in with his morality....not the other way around.

I find your view of rape (and slavery) as per your interpretation of the Bible to be morally reprehensible.
Just one more reason why secular morality is superior to Biblical morality. Ugh.

 

[MNoBody]

oddly there is no archaeological corroboration in that egyptian ruins and records detail no slave markets persay as are commonly found in other cultures who are certainly known to have practiced such a barbaric custom as enslavement of your own species.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I find your view of rape (and slavery) as per your interpretation of the Bible to be morally reprehensible.
Just one more reason why secular morality is superior to Biblical morality. Ugh.

I was honestly shocked by some of those posts.