Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

Status
Not open for further replies.

bybee

New member
Ah, so you don't claim to know what I think and believe as I'm "bloviating", and you don't label me stupid and a fundy....with "bile" and "insipid crap"?



Ah, there's nothing like the smell of hypocrites in the morning. :thumb:

Perhaps it would be wise if you moved your nose out of the dung piles?:confused:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I'm wondering if you are even human? :confused:
She doesn't appear to know much about humanism. It's just a label she can slap on like an insult and uses to distinguish her superiority, hence the error followed by the distinction that she isn't one of those and the question/inference. Humanism doesn't reject morality, it rejects the assertion of theists regarding the root of that morality. So we can differ with humanists all day long, especially Sunday, but we should understand what we're objecting to and we don't have to misrepresent it to do that.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
artie's retarded OP:
Not very subtle and another "rape" thread but hopefully this one might just lay to rest the insidious theme that's been going about and end the crap once and for all.

Does anyone agree with the following from the TOL "stalwart" of good taste, scholarly debate and outright bollards on this for example:

"likewise, I would say that certain circumstances exist in which a woman deserves to be raped, in that she had earned it by her actions"

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4528653&postcount=106

I submit that if you do agree with the above then you're either a psychopath, a sociopath, or a complete troll who needs something to keep his bridge warm at night.

Does anyone deserve to be raped, at all?

musty's brilliant answer which should have ended all of artie's drama once and for all:
Speaking of "deserve."


artie said:
"likewise, I would say that certain circumstances exist in which a woman deserves to be raped, in that she had earned it by her actions"





Notice the qualifier he provided, which I highlighted? It makes a totally different point than you want him to have made.

I grant that "deserve" seems to be more of a moral judgment which others may be making, or which some (like you) want to dishonestly make on behalf of others who are NOT making it. Either way, I and others am not and have not made any such judgment. I'm simply appealing to the universal law of natural consequences: choose to put yourself in a situation with an increased likelihood of avoidable danger and you must bear some responsibility if that danger results. Condense it down to "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" and the principle is the same. There's nothing remotely sociopathic in pointing that out; it's what good parents teach their children because it's a fact of life.

It's also God's viewpoint on the matter.

So it's YOU, with your typically shallow, emotion-driven thinking, who are wicked and evil for denying that fact.



musty's was post #7
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
She doesn't appear to know much about humanism.

apologyc20120731pw.jpg

vr1ch.jpg
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Yes, they prospered from the life they had come from too.

well, i have made that point before, that their descendants enjoy a standard of living envied by those who still live in the countries they came from

still, there's no doubt that slavery is an evil, regardless of the way it turned out

but i guarantee you that you will never convince town of this, wrt joseph, because of his investment in his poor argument

:think:

:mock:town and his poor argument
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Genesis 47:7 KJV
(7) And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.

Hey, Tex. :)

Yeah, I thought I might be mistaken about that part after I went to bed last night.

My point, however, stands. It was God using someone's evil deeds for a purpose...which is why I gave this example. Town was claiming God never does that and, in fact, wouldn't countenance any such thing.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Hey, Tex. :)

Yeah, I thought I might be mistaken about that part after I went to bed last night.

My point, however, stands. It was God using someone's evil deeds for a purpose...which is why I gave this example. Town was claiming God never does that and, in fact, wouldn't countenance any such thing.
She likes to move goalposts, LS. A while ago what she just did was something she'd have called "gutless". But then she did it and changed the rule, twice.

Anyway, what I said and have continued to say is that God doesn't use rape, that rape isn't His punishment for how we live and that rape isn't, as she misapprehends it, "just deserts" for immoral actions. That's been the contention. That God can turn the worst of circumstances to the good is another point entirely.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
You know who can do that with ease? Relativists.

I guess that means everybody, because every Christian is at heart a 'relativist'.

'Absolute morals' have become something of a bad joke in this era. There's not a single damn thing you can find among general society that ultimately isn't relativistic.
 

Quetzal

New member
I guess that means everybody, because every Christian is at heart a 'relativist'.

'Absolute morals' have become something of a bad joke in this era. There's not a single damn thing you can find among general society that ultimately isn't relativistic.
From my perspective, GD's argument is rooted in the idea that morality is absolute and unchanging. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but when someone subscribes to the Bible for their sense of morality, it is unchanging. (You know, since the thing was compiled 1600ish years ago and hasn't changed much. :eek:)
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I guess that means everybody, because every Christian is at heart a 'relativist'.

'Absolute morals' have become a parody in this era. There's not a single damn thing you can find among general society that ultimately isn't relativistic.
I dropped the line because I thought it might invite this...I don't agree, Cruc. The absolute is real for adherents. I don't expect to find it in the secular world. No one should.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
They meant to do evil, but no evil came of it.

I thought about this statement a lot last night, and how you could say such a thing...especially in light of the lecturing you've been doing about my lack of empathy. :think:

Yeah, I guess it's not evil to be told your son was eaten by lions, and you had to live your life without him. You wouldn't think that was evil at all, would you? You have a son, as I recall. "No evil came of it", Really?

Me, I'd rather be raped....thank you very much. Living my life without one of my children would truly be suffering for me...but, that's just me. I happen to love my children more than I love myself, as I'm sure Jacob did.

Gen. 37:31-33
And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; And they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be thy son's coat or no. And he knew it, and said, It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.

Gen. 37:34-35
And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.​
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
From my perspective, GD's argument is rooted in the idea that morality is absolute and unchanging. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but when someone subscribes to the Bible for their sense of morality, it is unchanging. (You know, since the thing was compiled 1600ish years ago and hasn't changed much. :eek:)

God knew man might say that. But you can't deny that man was created with a conscience built right in him. It's why man is without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​
Even the stripper knows in her heart she is doing wrong. It's why she would be quicker than the pc police to admit she deserved whatever she got.
 

Quetzal

New member
God knew man might say that. But you can't deny that man was created with a conscience built right in him. It's why man is without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​
Even the stripper knows in her heart she is doing wrong. It's why she would be quicker than the pc police to admit she deserved whatever she got.
This was so close to being a good post and then it turned into your broken record all over again. You are frustrating sometimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top