Tara Reade who accuses Biden of sexual assault now fears for her life.

[F1fan]

Jesus was a Jew. He knew the law. He knows what rape is, and how it was determined.
Moreover, Jesus was there when God stipulated his law concerning rape.

If you are not sure as to what those laws were, I can suggest you read the Torah... seriously. Or, I can show you.
Don't allow the superficial to mislead you into believing that God stipulated that a virgin marry her rapist. Perhaps read the text again, and talk to Bible students about it.
Neither, God nor Jesus "greenlights" rape... nor fornication - that is consenting to sex with someone you aren't married to.

How did your question come up though? Not that it's not a good question.
I was referring to your disregard what the Bible says for Christians... here.
1 Corinthians 7:4 "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."

What were your words... "What a disgustingly abusive and toxic notion."
Is that how you really feel about what an apostle of Jesus said?
I don't think you would have said it, if you didn't mean it.


I'm not surprised you feel that way, considering what you have shown... but...
Did you know...?
The "concept of profanity", isn't considered "arbitrary nonsense", by Jesus followers - true Christians.

Profanity is actually condemned as worldly behavior that the Christian must strip off, if he or she is to have a relationship with God, and gain his approval. Colossians 3:7-10

That says, in part...
Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.
because of which things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience,
in which you also once walked when you were living in them.
But now you also put off all these things: anger, rage, malice, slander, foul language out of your mouth.

You can read it in the link below, along with the corresponding Greek words. It's very direct.

Colossians 3 Interlinear Bible

biblehub.com

The Greek word is αἰσχρολογία, - aischrologia, and means abusive language.
Translators used such terms as, filthy language from your lips; dirty language; obscene talk from your mouth; filthy communication out of your mouth;...
The Amplified Bible says...
But now rid yourselves [completely] of all these things: anger, rage, malice, slander, and obscene (abusive, filthy, vulgar) language from your mouth.

Yes, we aren't the first to cuss. The Greeks, and Romans did too. No doubt, the Canaanites, as well.
Regardless of what background we came, the Bible says it's important, we strip off that old person.
Which leads me to wondering, what guides your thinking?
In other words, what do you use as a guide to what is right or wrong... The world? If not the Bible, what?


I am interested in you answer, so don't mind that I want to get back to the rape topic.
Concerning what certain laws stipulate, which I quoted earlier...
... if at the moment of penetration the victim has not consented, no amount of consent given thereafter will prevent the act from being a rape.

Do you believe that if someone forces themselves on another, and the victim after insertion, enjoys the experience, and says yes, yes, yes - consents, that cancels the rape. It's no longer rape?

Your version of God isn't known to exist, and the Bible (both parts) have no authority over anyone who doesn't allow it. Your interpretation certainly has no authority beyond yourself.

This is why humanists and atheists can use their minds and understand that mutual respect for others is a good thing, and something to encourage in others versus them following old religious ideas that are deemed immoral today, like spousal rape.

 

[nPeace]

Your version of God isn't known to exist, and the Bible (both parts) have no authority over anyone who doesn't allow it. Your interpretation certainly has no authority beyond yourself.

This is why humanists and atheists can use their minds and understand that mutual respect for others is a good thing, and something to encourage in others versus them following old religious ideas that are deemed immoral today, like spousal rape.

It is evident to most people today, that man does not even know "his left hand from his right".
Many people don't trust humans. So much so, that the world is becoming more divided, as man tries to make his own rules.
Around the world, they call it political unrest.

 

[nPeace]

This is why humanists and atheists can use their minds and understand that mutual respect for others is a good thing, and something to encourage in others versus them following old religious ideas that are deemed immoral today, like spousal rape.

Quote one verse in the Bible that encourages "spousal rape".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's consistent with witch trials and then the inevitable execution of being burned to death. Because Jesus loves us. No wonder I find little of value in the Abrahamic religions.

Obviously, I find value in it personally. What I don't value are some, what I see as rather skewed, interpretations of the Bible that are contrived to control people and make them behave how some people want them to. The emphasis appears to me to be more about the control and manipulation of people and less about the theology.

 

[F1fan]

Quote one verse in the Bible that encourages "spousal rape".

There isn't one? Then why did you write this in In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.osts 292;

In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.​

I thought you followed the Bible, where does it say what you wrote? If a person doesn't have authority over their own body in a marriage, then who does?

 

[F1fan]

Obviously, I find value in it personally. What I don't value are some, what I see as rather skewed, interpretations of the Bible that are contrived to control people and make them behave how some people want them to. The emphasis appears to me to be more about the control and manipulation of people and less about the theology.

It's the interpretations of the Bible that are the biggest threat. The Bible does nothing itself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How does a person who is having consensual sex, know that a person "retracts consent", or "no longer consents to it"?

I provided an example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? You don't seriously believe that. Do you?
You mean like this. STOP! STOP!

Yes, seriously. The fact that you find it funny is disturbing to me.

During sex, the guy says, "Stop."
The girl continues. Is she guilty of rape?

Yes. Why don't you understand about this and why do you find it funny?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.
You disagree with this?

I absolutely disagree with that. Every single person has authority over their own body.
If you don't have that, you have basically nothing.

I didn't refer to human decency as baloney.
I know you can read. Right?


There you go judging again.
With such a mentality, and you as magistrate, I can see prisons full of men who had casual sex with someone who agreed.

Of course, I don't support sexual immorality, but there are men and women out there, who get involved in casual sex... Not rape, in all cases.
Then the cry of rape is used as a trump card to get at an individual... for one reason, or other.
It happens, doesn't it?

I am absolutely going to judge a person who continues to have sex with a person who has asked them to stop. Ab-so-lute-ly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought so.
Your user name doesn't suggest believer, and follower of Christ.
I'm not surprised you disregard what the Bible says for Christians.


Quote me on that.
I'm sure any gambler could bet his house you can't.
I refered to a foul cry of rape as baloney.


Using language like the 'F bomb', and other behaviors isn't considered moral, even by many non-believers.


I'm on topic. You haven't actually described an actual occurrence of rape. You gave your opinion, on what you consider rape.
Others have also.


Sure. Just say no... and if the person tries to put it in, scream rape, or just scream your lungs out.
Doing nothing, especially after saying yes, isn't much evidence for the justice system.... Unless you hope they believe whatever people say.
Then that's two people they have to believe. Both would be guilty then.

That question - why didn't you scream? It's a common question, that question and some variation on it, having to do with what the victim did to resist, either physically or verbally, the assault.
The notion that a victim must resist to the utmost or to show earnest resistance or, at the very least, reasonable resistance, all of this was baked into rape law from its origins, frankly. And still today, we see vestiges of that. While most states have moved away from this formal resistance requirement, there are aspects of rape law that continue to put a burden on victims to do something, whether it's physical or verbal, to show their unwillingness.

Respond physically.
Even clear communication is not always effective. Some people simply don't listen or don't care. If either person is intoxicated of high, it may also complicate the situation. However, it is not an excuse for someone to commit sexual assault. If someone is assaulting you and not responding to your objections, you have the right to respond physically or to physically defend yourself if you feel you can do so. If possible, push the person away, scream "No!", and say that you consider what the person is doing to be rape.

I guess you aren't aware that many peoples' fight-or-flight response is to freeze up, to become paralyzed and immobilized. That's not their choice, it's just what their body does. It's what happens to me every time I have a panic attack. Your views on this are uninformed and overly simplistic. Perhaps because they are based upon Biblical "values."

Spousal rape? What's that?

It's when one spouse has sex with the other against his/her will. Your flippant response is abhorrent to me.

We all have to evaluate and choose things for ourselves. That's life.
The thing is, we have to live with what comes with our choices.

If ever you are interested in discussing, rape, abuse, etc, aside from personal feelings, I'd be more than happy to get into it with you.

I also find your view of morality quite disturbing, especially coming from someone perched atop some sort of moral high horse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, seriously. The fact that you find it funny is disturbing to me.

Yes. Why don't you understand about this and why do you find it funny?

I don't know if he simply lacks the moral ability to understand. Or the intelligence to understand. Or due to some other flaw.

Perhaps if you use some sort of analogy he can understand. The best one I can think of is having someone over for a cup of tea.

In this case if a friend was over drinking tea with you, you would not force them to continue to drink tea if they said that they have had enough.

And yes, for the slow learners out there forcing someone to have tea that they do not want to drink is analogous to rape in this example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know if he simply lacks the moral ability to understand. Or the intelligence to understand. Or due to some other flaw.

Perhaps if you use some sort of analogy he can understand. The best one I can think of is having someone over for a cup of tea.

In this case if a friend was over drinking tea with you, you would not force them to continue to drink tea if they said that they have had enough.

And yes, for the slow learners out there forcing someone to have tea that they do not want to drink is analogous to rape in this example.

That is a great analogy I think I've seen you use before.
I gave a very specific example that was never really addressed directly. Well, I think I got a laugh emoji or something.

This is not the first religious person I've encountered here that didn't seem able to grasp the concept of rape and consent, which I find alarming. It might have something to do with the resistance to, and/or the inability to think through this stuff. Just another shortcoming of religious belief, imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a great analogy I think I've seen you use before.
I gave a very specific example that was never really addressed directly. Well, I think I got a laugh emoji or something.

This is not the first religious person I've encountered here that didn't seem able to grasp the concept of rape and consent, which I find alarming. It might have something to do with the resistance to, and/or the inability to think through this stuff. Just another shortcoming of religious belief, imo.

I was not the one that came up with the analogy, but I find that it makes a lot of the answers easier to understand.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was not the one that came up with the analogy, but I find that it makes a lot of the answers easier to understand.

I'll give it a whirl. Thanks!

 

[fantome profane]

I was not the one that came up with the analogy, but I find that it makes a lot of the answers easier to understand.

I'll give it a whirl. Thanks!

I think someone in this thread already posted this video. I don't know who and I can't find it. But here it is again.

Now I suppose we have to add that you shouldn't force someone to drink tea even if you are married to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think someone in this thread already posted this video. I don't know who and I can't find it. But here it is again.

Now I suppose we have to add that you shouldn't force someone to drink tea even if you are married to them.

I saw that video a long time ago. That was the source for my argument. I am not the one that posted it in this thread. I wish that I could take the credit.

 

[Father Heathen]

How did your question come up though? Not that it's not a good question.
I was referring to your disregard what the Bible says for Christians... here.
1 Corinthians 7:4 "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."

Do you really take this to mean that spouses are expected to silently accept and endure abuse and mistreatment, no matter how severe?

What were your words... "What a disgustingly abusive and toxic notion."
Is that how you really feel about what an apostle of Jesus said?
I don't think you would have said it, if you didn't mean it.

Of course I meant it. It takes a cold and cruel person to inflict something so heinous and damaging upon another human (or to enable and abide it).

Regardless, The tenets and edicts of Christianity mean nothing to non christians, just as the tenets and edicts of non christian religions mean nothing to you.

I'm not surprised you feel that way, considering what you have shown... but...
Did you know...?
The "concept of profanity", isn't considered "arbitrary nonsense", by Jesus followers - true Christians.

What makes a word profanity? Why is "****" the naughty word, yet its synonyms such as "poop" are not considered as such, despite meaning precisely the exact same thing? What's the criteria? What about words that were once considered profanity, but over time became silly and innocuous? Also, some words are considered bad but not as bad as others. So how is it gauged? What if I invented a new swear word, "scraznox"? Would god acknowledge its status as profanity, making the utterance of it a newly minted sin?
Considering that english and other languages appeared after the bible was written, at what point does god decide "Okay, that word I'll consider profanity and thus sinful."?
Or is the whole idea just a cultural construct?

Which leads me to wondering, what guides your thinking?
In other words, what do you use as a guide to what is right or wrong... The world? If not the Bible, what?

Reason and compassion.

I am interested in you answer, so don't mind that I want to get back to the rape topic.
Concerning what certain laws stipulate, which I quoted earlier...
... if at the moment of penetration the victim has not consented, no amount of consent given thereafter will prevent the act from being a rape.

Do you believe that if someone forces themselves on another, and the victim after insertion, enjoys the experience, and says yes, yes, yes - consents, that cancels the rape. It's no longer rape?

Things can't be retroactively changed to/from rape. Nonconsensual penetration still occurred, which is still a disrespectful disregard and degrading violation of their bodily autonomy. The intentions and conscious decision remains the same, regardless.

 

[nPeace]

There isn't one? Then why did you write this in In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.osts 292;

In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.​

I thought you followed the Bible, where does it say what you wrote? If a person doesn't have authority over their own body in a marriage, then who does?

Since when does having authority mean abuse?
Is everyone in authority abusive?
Did you read abuse in that scripture?
What does the two becomes one flesh mean to you?

 

[nPeace]

Do you really take this to mean that spouses are expected to silently accept and endure abuse and mistreatment, no matter how severe?

Did I say that?
Does the verse say that?
Then why do you ask?

Of course I meant it. It takes a cold and cruel person to inflict something so heinous and damaging upon another human (or to enable and abide it).

What are you saying? You don't think authority mean abuse do you?

Regardless, The tenets and edicts of Christianity mean nothing to non christians, just as the tenets and edicts of non christian religions mean nothing to you.

Just checking. Wasn't sure if you had identified as Catholic.

What makes a word profanity? Why is "****" the naughty word, yet its synonyms such as "poop" are not considered as such, despite meaning precisely the exact same thing? What's the criteria? What about words that were once considered profanity, but over time became silly and innocuous? Also, some words are considered bad but not as bad as others. So how is it gauged? What if I invented a new swear word, "scraznox"? Would god acknowledge its status as profanity, making the utterance of it a newly minted sin?
Considering that english and other languages appeared after the bible was written, at what point does god decide "Okay, that word I'll consider profanity and thus sinful."?
Or is the whole idea just a cultural construct?

Persons who are not Christian... well don't call themselves that, consider all those words you mentioned, obscene. Even some dictionaries, and thesaurus.
However, whether you think something in moral or not, doesn't make it so, because it's what you think.

Reason and compassion.

So many, have their ideas of what those words involve.

Things can't be retroactively changed to/from rape. Nonconsensual penetration still occurred, which is still a disrespectful disregard and degrading violation of their bodily autonomy. The intentions and conscious decision remains the same, regardless.

Things can't be retroactively changed to/from rape, but consent can retroactively change to rape.
I think there is a reason why there is a split on that.

Spoiler

After reviewing these cases and finding no discussion of withdrawal of consent in midact, the court concluded: "Given the fact that consent must precede penetration, it follows in our view that although a woman may have consented to a sexual encounter, even to intercourse, if that consent is withdrawn prior to the act of penetration, then it cannot be said that she has consented to sexual intercourse. [172 Cal. App. 3d 242] On the other hand, ordinarily if she consents prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape." (Id, at p. 1270.)

The same conclusion was reached in a North Carolina case. In State v. Way (1979) 297 N.C. 293 [254 S.E.2d 760], the jury also asked during deliberations if consent could be withdrawn and a rape conviction found. The trial and appellate courts said yes, but the Supreme Court said no. This court noted that the normal situation in which consent was withdrawn was that in which more than one act of intercourse occurred. In such case, consent to one act did not mean all acts of intercourse were consented to by the victim. The court then noted, without citing authority, that when only one act of intercourse is accomplished, if the victim consents initially and withdraws that consent in midact no rape occurred. The court stated, "If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman's consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions." (Id, at p. 762.)

Wha do you think is the reason? Lack of understanding, ignorance, or something else?

 

[Father Heathen]

Did I say that?
Does the verse say that?
Then why do you ask?

You cited it to excuse spousal rape.

What are you saying? You don't think authority mean abuse do you?

No, but authority can be abused, and often is.

Persons who are not Christian... well don't call themselves that, consider all those words you mentioned, obscene. Even some dictionaries, and thesaurus.

Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't irrational and arbitrary.

However, whether you think something in moral or not, doesn't make it so, because it's what you think.

This can be said about anyone, regarding anything.

So many, have their ideas of what those words involve.

How many different denominations does your religion have? So many different people with their own ideas about god, his word, his will, etc. And those who author your holy books, as well as those of all the other religions, mere mortals with their own ideas.

Things can't be retroactively changed to/from rape, but consent can retroactively change to rape.

The latter contradicts the former, aside from being wrong. No, you can't retroactively withdraw consent. And you can cite rulings and such, but judges and juries aren't infallible, and legality and morality don't always coincide.