Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 15:12:06 GMT
Better. But still immoral to kill the rape victim in the circumstance in verse 23-24 I was brought up to believe that verse 23-24 is that they are both willing participants. Verse 25 is about rape. They are both about rape - one is in the city (where presumably if she had cried out people would have heard - so she didn't cry out - so she gets her head cracked w/stones) and one is in the fields - where no one could hear her.
|
|
GiantsFan
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,300
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 14:44:56 GMT
|
Post by GiantsFan on Jul 29, 2017 15:17:46 GMT
I guess we disagree on our interpretations.
Back to your original post. I think your quote and article is disgusting that that happens in today's society no matter where it is.
|
|
|
Post by kamper on Jul 29, 2017 15:51:27 GMT
Umm. No. I'm saying your 'offense' is kind of ridiculous when the Bible also condones barbaric treatment of women. I asked for clarification because your response was "I think she just stated a fact." I was offended by the (original) false & sensationalized claim that Christians were legalizing rape in the US; IMHO everyone should have been appauled by such a divisive & unsubstantiated statement (that also shifted the focus from Pakistan & plays into the stereotype that Americans make everything about them)! Zingermack's post that you replied to didn't say anything about Christians legalizing rape. She was just stated a very real fear that if the Evangelicals have their way biblical law will be instituted and women who have been raped will be stoned. Quote: Or just stay here and wait to see if evangelicals finally institute their wet dream of biblical America w/its male "headship" over women and other super-duper ideas of rape and restitution: "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB End Quote: I'm a Christian but, I'm also concerned that Evangelical Christian's are trying to make their view of what is right and their interpretation of the Bible the law of the land. She stated a fact in that the Bible states that a woman who has been raped should be stoned. In my experience Evangelical Christians are all about taking the Bible literally. Given the current scene in DC (Pence, Cruz, and now Brownback) I don't think her statement was sensationalized. Perhaps you should think about how sad it is that US women fear that they could have lives like those of Pakistani women if Evangelical Christians are allowed to impose their beliefs on them. This isn't some irrational fear. Laws have already been passed that control what a woman does with her body even if she has been raped. (I'm looking at you Arkansas.) We had a chance to elect someone who might have held the Pakistani government's feet to the fire on the issue of women's rights. Instead with the help of Evangelical Christians we elected a man who views women as objects.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 18:44:36 GMT
Thank you for making my point. No Christian politician has proposed legalizing rape. It's just a biased prediction, & certainly not a fact, by non-Christians (apparently with a crystal ball). No, it seems you've missed the point entirely. Failing to adequately prosecute rape is tantamount to legalizing it - and we have a growing number of Republican politicians who have supported a failure to adequately prosecute. Republican politicians who say that it's "God's will" that a rape victim should have to carry her rapist's baby are punishing a woman for a man's crime, further denying her autonomy and treating her as nothing more than an incubator because she was raped. The exact semantics of the argument (whether or not politicians are actively promoting legalizing rape) are not as important as the fact that these pro-rape/anti-woman beliefs are alive and well in the Republican party. Equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 29, 2017 18:46:45 GMT
No, it seems you've missed the point entirely. Failing to adequately prosecute rape is tantamount to legalizing it - and we have a growing number of Republican politicians who have supported a failure to adequately prosecute. Republican politicians who say that it's "God's will" that a rape victim should have to carry her rapist's baby are punishing a woman for a man's crime, further denying her autonomy and treating her as nothing more than an incubator because she was raped. The exact semantics of the argument (whether or not politicians are actively promoting legalizing rape) are not as important as the fact that these pro-rape/anti-woman beliefs are alive and well in the Republican party. Equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility. A pre-viable fetus does not equal a baby. The woman's life, health and autonomy over her body take precedence. This has been settled law since 1973. Except, of course, to the far right. ETA: What's twisted is passing laws that require a woman to get a man's permission - even her rapist's permission - before she makes the choice to have an abortion (see: Arkansas, Texas and several others) in the name of "saving the life of a baby." What's twisted is valuing pre-born, pre-viable life to a much higher degree than the lives of those actually born, including a pregnant woman and/or a sick person who also happens to be poor. That's some twisted shit right here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 19:05:22 GMT
Equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility. A pre-viable fetus does not equal a baby. The woman's life, health and autonomy over her body take precedence. This has been settled law since 1973. Except, of course, to the far right. ETA: What's twisted is passing laws that require a woman to get a man's permission - even her rapist's permission - before she makes the choice to have an abortion (see: Arkansas, Texas and several others) in the name of "saving the life of a baby." What's twisted is valuing pre-born, pre-viable life to a much higher degree than the lives of those actually born, including a pregnant woman and/or a sick person who also happens to be poor. That's some twisted shit right here. I'm not agreeing, disagreeing or debating in any way whether they're right or wrong in thinking they're saving a life. I'm only addressing your equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape. That is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 29, 2017 19:07:33 GMT
A pre-viable fetus does not equal a baby. The woman's life, health and autonomy over her body take precedence. This has been settled law since 1973. Except, of course, to the far right. ETA: What's twisted is passing laws that require a woman to get a man's permission - even her rapist's permission - before she makes the choice to have an abortion (see: Arkansas, Texas and several others) in the name of "saving the life of a baby." What's twisted is valuing pre-born, pre-viable life to a much higher degree than the lives of those actually born, including a pregnant woman and/or a sick person who also happens to be poor. That's some twisted shit right here. I'm not agreeing, disagreeing or debating in any way whether they're right or wrong in thinking they're saving a life. I'm only addressing your equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape. That is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility. Except I didn't equate those things; you did. Try again. ETA: I don't believe that most who call themselves pro-life really are interested in saving babies. If they were, they would support measures that would actually reduce the number of abortions. My impression is that most are really interested in controlling the lives of women to keep them subordinate. Yes, that includes many women who call themselves pro-life. And yeah, I do equate that with promoting rape culture.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 19:38:34 GMT
I'm not agreeing, disagreeing or debating in any way whether they're right or wrong in thinking they're saving a life. I'm only addressing your equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape. That is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility. Except I didn't equate those things; you did. Try again. ETA: I don't believe that most who call themselves pro-life really are interested in saving babies. If they were, they would support measures that would actually reduce the number of abortions. My impression is that most are really interested in controlling the lives of women to keep them subordinate. Yes, that includes many women who call themselves pro-life. And yeah, I do equate that with promoting rape culture. You are speaking of people that believe that in preventing abortion they are saving a baby's life (you attributed different motives to them, but that's who you're speaking of) and then you say they're pro-rape because of it. That looks like equating those to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 19:39:49 GMT
No, it seems you've missed the point entirely. Failing to adequately prosecute rape is tantamount to legalizing it - and we have a growing number of Republican politicians who have supported a failure to adequately prosecute. Republican politicians who say that it's "God's will" that a rape victim should have to carry her rapist's baby are punishing a woman for a man's crime, further denying her autonomy and treating her as nothing more than an incubator because she was raped. The exact semantics of the argument (whether or not politicians are actively promoting legalizing rape) are not as important as the fact that these pro-rape/anti-woman beliefs are alive and well in the Republican party. Equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility. In the US we don't save the lives of any person by forcing a different person to lose control of their own organs. Don't believe me? Should I come and harvest your bone marrow w/o your permission to keep another person alive?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 19:42:06 GMT
Equating the idea of saving the life of a baby with being pro-rape is twisted thinking beyond all logic and credibility. In the US we don't save the lives of any person by forcing a different person to lose control of their own organs. Don't believe me? Should I come and harvest your bone marrow w/o your permission to keep another person alive? Apples and oranges.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 20:58:47 GMT
In the US we don't save the lives of any person by forcing a different person to lose control of their own organs. Don't believe me? Should I come and harvest your bone marrow w/o your permission to keep another person alive? Apples and oranges. You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better
|
|
PaperAngel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,436
Jun 27, 2014 23:04:06 GMT
|
Post by PaperAngel on Jul 30, 2017 0:02:53 GMT
I asked for clarification because your response was "I think she just stated a fact." I was offended by the (original) false & sensationalized claim that Christians were legalizing rape in the US; IMHO everyone should have been appauled by such a divisive & unsubstantiated statement (that also shifted the focus from Pakistan & plays into the stereotype that Americans make everything about them)! Zingermack's post that you replied to didn't say anything about Christians legalizing rape. She was just stated a very real fear that if the Evangelicals have their way biblical law will be instituted and women who have been raped will be stoned. Quote: Or just stay here and wait to see if evangelicals finally institute their wet dream of biblical America w/its male "headship" over women and other super-duper ideas of rape and restitution:"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB End Quote:... As you quoted (bold is mine), the original statement claims Christians ("evangelicals") want ("wet dream") to legalize ("institute") male dominance ("headship"), including rape ("& other super-duper ideas"). It was prejudiced, blatantly false, & partisan rhetoric. The poster apologized (on p.3) & amended the statement.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 0:09:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 1:48:08 GMT
Zingermack's post that you replied to didn't say anything about Christians legalizing rape. She was just stated a very real fear that if the Evangelicals have their way biblical law will be instituted and women who have been raped will be stoned. Quote: Or just stay here and wait to see if evangelicals finally institute their wet dream of biblical America w/its male "headship" over women and other super-duper ideas of rape and restitution:"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB End Quote:... As you quoted (bold is mine), the original statement claims Christians ("evangelicals") want ("wet dream") to legalize ("institute") male dominance ("headship"), including rape ("& other super-duper ideas"). It was prejudiced, blatantly false, & partisan rhetoric. The poster apologized (on p.3) & amended the statement. You have read into my statement ideas which are not there. Their "super-super" ideas are about killing the rape victim, not legalizing the rape. Both are shitty morality, but different.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 30, 2017 1:51:42 GMT
Zingermack's post that you replied to didn't say anything about Christians legalizing rape. She was just stated a very real fear that if the Evangelicals have their way biblical law will be instituted and women who have been raped will be stoned. Quote: Or just stay here and wait to see if evangelicals finally institute their wet dream of biblical America w/its male "headship" over women and other super-duper ideas of rape and restitution:"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB End Quote:... As you quoted (bold is mine), the original statement claims Christians ("evangelicals") want ("wet dream") to legalize ("institute") male dominance ("headship"), including rape ("& other super-duper ideas"). It was prejudiced, blatantly false, & partisan rhetoric. The poster apologized (on p.3) & amended the statement. Christians =/= Evangelicals
|
|