How would you react?

[gwenmead]

Glad you're in therapy. That's a helpful thing. Vital, even.

No woman or man can be raped against her or his will. Any person could prevent rape if he or she really wanted to.

Huh. That first one seems like a no-brainer. I mean rape is something done to someone against their will by default. If your will isn't violated, it isn't rape.

The second bit I'm of two minds about. In the context of a personal attack, whether or not a rape can be stopped or prevented is a total crapshoot. Maybe it can, maybe it can't; there's no way of knowing, and trying might end up with the victim dead instead of assaulted. And while rape is atrocious, frankly - I'd rather be alive in the end. (Heh - rather be huntin' him than hauntin' him...)

On a more global scale, though, I think rape should be prevented as an issue. I think that people could stop rape, if we banded together and fought it at large.

 

[quatona]

Depends on how it is asked.....and I can say from personal experience that he meant it. I was smothered...he knew that....what kind of question is that? So, No...it wasn't something that was a right question. I walked out of his office to never return....

Interestingly when discussing this we find ourselves confrontated with the similar problems as people who have to judge in the case of rape.
We have a concrete question, and this question has many possible undertones.
We are discussing whether this question is ethically right or wrong to ask.
You tell me about this one case in which you have been asked this question, and you tell me how you understood it and how it hurted you.
A complicated situation, because these all are different issues.
Although I couldn´t be further from questioning your integrity and honesty, I do not trust your mind-reading skills. I don´t even trust mine. Unless the therapist clearly said you were guilty, I would have to rely on your mind-reading skills in order to judge the therapist incompetent. On the other hand, you and I are talking here, and for discussing your experience, the way you experienced it is more important than what the intentions of the therapist really were.

Generally (and without considering possible undertones, the circumstances and such - all of which I can´t tell) I think this question is spot on for a therapist to ask (provided the person has indeed told him that she had not clearly said "no").

FBI statistics are fairly reliable....although people aren't statitics and in most false reports the so-called victim is caught during interogations. 2 false reports out of 1000 seems not likely to be something that happens often. But I am concerned about the morals of sexuality.... Many victims become the abuser in court. Especially when the woman has a history of being 'easy' promiscuous....... Suddenly her 'lack of morals' start to count and she had it coming.

I think it is a good thing that we don´t sentence people based on statistics.
I do not know about your country, but here a lot of effort is taken to make sure the (supposed) victim is not becoming the abuser in court. Yet, the case has to be investigated and the other party has a justified interest in asking inconvenient (and to a factual victim potentially hurtful) questions. As I said, I do not like this at all, but I have no idea how to change that.
The history of the woman is regarded irrelevant. No matter their lifestyle, no matter whether they are, say, prostitutes or whatever.
Regardlessly of their clothing, of course. Even if a woman went bare naked, it wouldn´t be any justification for raping her.
There is no justification whatsoever for inflicting sexual actions on someone without her/his consent. And that´s all there is to say about it.

I agree with you. No means no, but movies and telly tells us differently......It really really makes me angry when I see such false view of the reality.

Yes, I find it disgusting. Yet, the line is hard to draw and these old role models are, in a more or less subtle way, still virulent in our societies and us.
In another thread you talked about the female charme that "we all" use at times. I see a connection.

 

[non-religious]

I think it's easy to say everything is terrible and people are mean. Things are changing, especially here in the UK and the way in which rape is both investigated and prosecuted has come a very long way indeed. I don't see or hear these people that talk about rape victims in a negative way. These kind of people obviously exist, but they are rarely taken seriously or given any form of credibility. The system will never be perfect, but it's getting better and that can only be a good thing for both victim and wider society...

 

[bammertheblue]

Never mind.

 

[flicka]

I'm going to be brutally honest with this question and this is exactly what I told my daughter when she became sexually active (and started running a bit wild...)

Rape is a violent crime. It's about power and control and it's an assault on your body, much like being beaten up. Short of being killed I don't think there is anything worse you can do to a person.

Date rape may/may not be the same beast. If a guy turns on a girl in a violent way and physically restrains her as she tries to leave then it is rape. However, if a girl puts herself in a position to be close to having sex with the guy, if they are engaging in other physical activities, if she purposely puts herself in risky situations by drinking to the point of loosing control or voluntarily putting herself in the middle of situations that are sexually charged, etc. then she shares the blame for whatever happens. I'm not blaming the victim here, but there are some cases where I don't consider them victims but unwilling participants. There is a difference.

I'm amazed by the stories I hear of girls who have been raped/near raped on several occasions. I would never think badly of them or treat them poorly because anyone who suffers should get the support they need. BUT it would be totally irresponsible not to look at the reasons it kept happened and, if necessary, change her behavior or whatever it took to keep her from being such a high risk.

I once had sex against my will after I became sexually active. I wasn't raped (I want in a position to fight and didn't even try) and I never considered myself a victim or suffered emotionally over it. I was young and foolish and learned a hard lesson about human behavior and personal responsibility.

I am not addressing the OP's situation in any way. I don't know what happened, I can't comment, and I didn't even read this entire thread. These are just my views the topic.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Hmm, I asked this question in another thread, but I think it would provide a good ethics and morality question. Of course I imagine the eyes of some of you rolling: "Here she goes again," but I do not care. It's an important issue to me. I hope that even one man or woman gets another look at this matter because like the Talmud says: "Save a life and you save the world"

A teengirl (17) is raped. She knows the guy, it was her date. You know the girl. She goes to the police but the perp. is set free because there is not enough evidence and the girl was already sexual active. How would you react to the girl?

Some examples of reactions that are real to me and some other survivors:

"Well, she was drinking..."

"I myself have had people throw rocks at me, call me prostitute, call me trash, refuse to wait on me... the list just goes on."

"I think that what I need to deal with now is the feelings of betrayal I have for women in general. Why didn't the girls in my class stand up for me when I was being tormented by my classmates? Why do women dismiss rape victims as "whiney" or tell their survivor friends to "get over it?"."

"Did you let him rape you so you could sue him?"

"You didnt fight back hard enough so you must have wanted it"

"So was this just something that started off as kissing and then got out of hand or was it that now you feel guilty because you slept with that man?"

It is always a good idea to remain friendly and try to cheerthe person up. In my self defense class, what is difficult is me as an instructor and being a male is to get rape victims to let me near them...so I use a technique called the "verbal slap" it has always worked.

I am always wondeing why the girl didnt just choose to remain chaste and why she puts her self in a situation that may be dangerous.....but thats just after seeing some "romances" get really ugly.

Rape is an act of power not sex. It deprives the woman of a feeling of power and that is not right, victims need support.

 

[belladonic-haze]

I'm going to be brutally honest with this question and this is exactly what I told my daughter when she became sexually active (and started running a bit wild...)

Rape is a violent crime. It's about power and control and it's an assault on your body, much like being beaten up. Short of being killed I don't think there is anything worse you can do to a person.

Date rape may/may not be the same beast. If a guy turns on a girl in a violent way and physically restrains her as she tries to leave then it is rape. However, if a girl puts herself in a position to be close to having sex with the guy, if they are engaging in other physical activities, if she purposely puts herself in risky situations by drinking to the point of loosing control or voluntarily putting herself in the middle of situations that are sexually charged, etc. then she shares the blame for whatever happens. I'm not blaming the victim here, but there are some cases where I don't consider them victims but unwilling participants. There is a difference.

I'm amazed by the stories I hear of girls who have been raped/near raped on several occasions. I would never think badly of them or treat them poorly because anyone who suffers should get the support they need. BUT it would be totally irresponsible not to look at the reasons it kept happened and, if necessary, change her behavior or whatever it took to keep her from being such a high risk.

I once had sex against my will after I became sexually active. I wasn't raped (I want in a position to fight and didn't even try) and I never considered myself a victim or suffered emotionally over it. I was young and foolish and learned a hard lesson about human behavior and personal responsibility.

I am not addressing the OP's situation in any way. I don't know what happened, I can't comment, and I didn't even read this entire thread. These are just my views the topic.

Two times date rape......

What you say is what made me feel guilty in the first place. I "put' myself at risk. At tleast that is what I thought. I liked the man (i was 17 and he 27...go figure) and he asked me to take a walk with him.... I should have know better.....I thought.

Turns out that the victim never places herself in a dangerous situation. It's a matter of trust and being trusted. He broke my trust to force me to do things I even never heard of (I was a virgin and very innocent at 17 being the nerd in school and so on....). You NEVER put yourself at risk. How strange it may sound. I kissed the guy, he turned worse. Truth is that rapists plan their rapes. They know they are going to 'get you'. Rape never occurs in the spur of the moment.

Myth: Most rapes occur as a "spur of the moment" act in a dark alley by a stranger.

Fact: Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.

Rapists always do it again and again and again........This guy probably raped women before and women after me....

The only guilt I have is that because I thought I was to blame, I never reported the .....well.....you know.

 

[hypnotism]

Hmm, I asked this question in another thread, but I think it would provide a good ethics and morality question. Of course I imagine the eyes of some of you rolling: "Here she goes again," but I do not care. It's an important issue to me. I hope that even one man or woman gets another look at this matter because like the Talmud says: "Save a life and you save the world"

A teengirl (17) is raped. She knows the guy, it was her date. You know the girl. She goes to the police but the perp. is set free because there is not enough evidence and the girl was already sexual active. How would you react to the girl?

Some examples of reactions that are real to me and some other survivors:

"Well, she was drinking..."

"I myself have had people throw rocks at me, call me prostitute, call me trash, refuse to wait on me... the list just goes on."

"I think that what I need to deal with now is the feelings of betrayal I have for women in general. Why didn't the girls in my class stand up for me when I was being tormented by my classmates? Why do women dismiss rape victims as "whiney" or tell their survivor friends to "get over it?"."

"Did you let him rape you so you could sue him?"

"You didnt fight back hard enough so you must have wanted it"

"So was this just something that started off as kissing and then got out of hand or was it that now you feel guilty because you slept with that man?"

Stone her to death at the city gate. That is the OT answer as only a prostitute would not scream and get help if she were being raped. Very moral the OT.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Stone her to death at the city gate. That is the OT answer as only a prostitute would not scream and get help if she were being raped. Very moral the OT.

THANK YOU!!!

That is exactly what I said in Christian ethics and morality forum and I got all kinds of replies (painful even from one guy)....

If I say that I am considered a feminist and I should lighten up because it is God word.....(written down by men!)

I mean these verses:

Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

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.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

THANK YOU!!!

That is exactly what I said in Christian ethics and morality forum and I got all kinds of replies (painful even from one guy)....

If I say that I am considered a feminist and I should lighten up because it is God word.....(written down by men!)

I mean these verses:

Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

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.

So?
Is it a matter of not understanding it?

Are you not grateful that there is grace as a substitution of the death punishment for the unrepentant allows for one to come to repentance in time?

If you are not aware, I infer that post as someone were claiming that the OT is made up stuff apart from God and ridiculing, even condemning the provisions there regarding justice.
Am I reading that correctly?

The only problem with that objection is that the same repentance is afforded to the rapist. The same grace that is afforded to the victim that doesn't fight with everything they've got (either out of fear, will or lack of will) and doesn't report the offender (for whatever reason) is the same grace that is afforded the one some might presume to demand a harsh punishment.

So... what of those verses?
What do they have to do with the opinions of how CF members might "react"?

 

[belladonic-haze]

So?
Is it a matter of not understanding it?

Are you not grateful that there is grace and the death punishment for the unrepentant allows for one to come to repentance in time?

If you are not aware, I infer that post as someone were claiming that the OT is made up stuff apart from God and ridiculing, even condemning the provisions there regarding justice.
Am I reading that correctly?

The only problem with that objection is that the same repentance is afforded to the rapist. The same grace that is afforded to the victim that doesn't fight with everything they've got (either out of fear, will or lack of will) and doesn't report the offender (for whatever reason) is the same grace that is afforded the one some might presume to demand a harsh punishment.

So... what of those verses?
What do they have to do with the opinions of how CF members might "react"?

Well, these verses are quite disturbing and the reaction of one person in particular was shocking.....he made me feel horrible and I cried....he is now in my ignore list.

And why should a victim repent?????

God to me is NOT the God that is portrayed in a lot of verses in the OT. The OT is filled with cruel violence and war and personally I have great trouble with that. The Bible was written by humans...who knows what they adapted to make it more to their liking and make them look "good"......

Just a thought I have when I read stuff like this in a Book that I find mostly comforting......Psalm 23 has helped me through some rough and sicking flash backs......I do not ridicule the whole Bible......just this makes me sick!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Well, these verses are quite disturbing and the reaction of one person in particular was shocking.....he made me feel horrible and I cried....he is now in my ignore list.

This is another reason I pointed to the specific forum for this topic. There are triggers and unresolved if not deep feelings involved in discussing it can be problematic - especially if the person that is getting their feelings hurt is the one that keeps bringing this up as the topic. Not everyone will walk on egg-shells or agree on a given topic. If a person is ending up getting hurt to the point of crying, they might wish to use some more discernment about discussing it in the open and harsher environments.
IMHO and for the benefit of the one getting hurt.

And why should a victim repent?????

Umm... because the victim didn't fight against it. Because fear or shame overcame faithfulness in the face of the cold, hard law.

I think you are forgetting that there was still a provision for repentance, forgiveness and redemption for all members involved.
Something that continues to be absent (at least from what I've been reading) in the responses.

God to me is NOT the God that is portrayed in a lot of verses in the OT. The OT is filled with cruel violence and war and personally I have great trouble with that. The Bible was written by humans...who knows what they adapted to make it more to their liking and make them look "good"......

The problem there is that Christendom is not dictated by what you do and don't have trouble with and God is God, not what limits we might place on Him.

In time, you might actually see those areas of the Bible differently. Until such time, voicing contrary opinions and proposing empty claims against given scripture about how it isn't Christian only places it into a context of you vs. scripture.

That's your choice, but honestly reflecting poorly when it is nothing but fabrication or opinion challenging and the ones leaping on that band-wagon are Atheists or other contradicting mindsets. (not that I see a clear agreement among groups in this instance)

Just a thought I have when I read stuff like this in a Book that I find mostly comforting......Psalm 23 has helped me through some rough and sicking flash backs......I do not ridicule the whole Bible......just this makes me sick!

Perhaps discussing it and evaluating it would be better done when less emotive response is involved.

I noticed that you never answered my earlier question though. What would you wish happen to any given rapist?

 

[quatona]

Umm... because the victim didn't fight against it. Because fear or shame overcame faithfulness in the face of the cold, hard law.

Could you please elaborate a bit on this. The way it reads it rubs me the wrong way, to say it mildly.
Didn´t fight against what?
How would fighting against it have manifested?
How do you tell that faithfulness was overcome by fear or shame, and how are shame and faithfulness antipodes, anyways?
How is fighting against something a manifestation of faithfulness?
And what precisely are you talking about when saying the "cold, hard law"?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Could you please elaborate a bit on this. The way it reads it rubs me the wrong way, to say it mildly.
Didn´t fight against what?

The passages were dealing with rape.
So rape would be the "it" there.

How would fighting against it have manifested?

Attempts to get help, running away, bringing or attempting to bring the violator to justice, etc.
The success of failure is really irrelevant. It is the struggle not to be part of a wicked act that would be relevant. I think it would be a good time to note that Christian teaching reflects that we are to give everything we are to God, not just parts or to do so part time.
Love God with all your... and die to self should ring a bell to many regarding this concept.

How do you tell that faithfulness was overcome by fear or shame, and how are shame and faithfulness antipodes, anyways?

Those were some of the reasons that came to mind in why someone would not do what one ought to do. Feel free to use one of the numerous reasons of your own if you wish.

How is fighting against something a manifestation of faithfulness?

Hmm...

At the moment, I seem to be hindered in that I can only break something down only so far. A limit in ability to articulate this, but I'll try.

Perhaps an illustration will help:

A married man (Ed) is approached with a sexual proposition from an attractive woman with no strings attached and confidentiality promised.

Ed can decline and even run away/avoid further contact with that woman.
That would be an observable fruit of faithfulness.

OR...

Ed can accept the offer and pretend that what is done in secret and with willing participants doesn't hurt anyone.
That would be an observable fruit of unfaithfulness.

One is an act honoring something, the other is an act honoring something completely different.
Does that help?

And what precisely are you talking about when saying the "cold, hard law"?

Well, besides the obvious that those previously selected passages don't state that rape is good...
The Law, while good in showing man right from wrong, does not save a man.

Romans 7:7-25
... 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Romans 8:1-17
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory

 

[quatona]

The passages were dealing with rape.
So rape would be the "it" there.

I see. I wasn´t aware that Christians are called to fight the actions of others, and that - beyond all those questionable responsibilities the burdons of which are put on their shoulders anyways - they are also held responsible for the actions of others.
Well, if that´s Christian doctrine, there is no point in discussing it, I guess.
But: How come this argument is suddenly pulled in the case of rape, while in the billions of others cases Christians do not actively fight "evil" actions, it remains mostly nicely wrapped in the drawer?

Attempts to get help, running away, bringing or attempting to bring the violator to justice, etc.

And you are the one to decide when their attempts qualify as sufficiently fighting?

The success of failure is really irrelevant. It is the struggle not to be part of a wicked act that would be relevant.

I tell you what: If looking at things that way (and it would not even be completely unreasonable), we all are part of all wicked acts that are comitted. So why do you single out rape victims?
Plus, since the success of fighting is not the criterium - people still take part in the wicked although fighting. So what is the point?

I think it would be a good time to note that Christian teaching reflects that we are to give everything we are to God, not just parts or to do so part time.

Since I am not a believer this interest me only marginally. But even if I try to think from the believer´s pov, I don´t see what that has to do with anything.

Love God with all your... and die to self should ring a bell to many regarding this concept.

It might be a good idea to explain it to those tom whom it doesn´t ring a bell in this context, like me for example.

Those were some of the reasons that came to mind in why someone would not do what one ought to do. Feel free to use one of the numerous reasons of your own if you wish.
Hmm...

Even if accepting for a moment the idea that the things you feel ought to be done really ought to be done, the point still stands: I guess that - by Christian doctrine - we all fail miserably and permanently to do what ought to be done, yet hardly anyone tries to push guilt feelings on them. Only in those cases of all where someone has been mistreated this card is pulled. This doesn´t look good to me.

At the moment, I seem to be hindered in that I can only break something down only so far. A limit in ability to articulate this, but I'll try.

Perhaps an illustration will help:

A married man (Ed) is approached with a sexual proposition from an attractive woman with no strings attached and confidentiality promised.

Ed can decline and even run away/avoid further contact with that woman.
That would be an observable fruit of faithfulness.

Well, faithfulness is not exactly the first thing that comes to mind. I think it´s a result of his considerations based on his desires and preferences.

OR...

Ed can accept the offer and pretend that what is done in secret and with willing participants doesn't hurt anyone.
That would be an observable fruit of unfaithfulness.

Just because you say so, or what? Is there a discernable argument hidden somewhere in this?

Plus, I can´t help finding it telling that in the case of a male you pick an example of an "offer", whilst in fact we are talking about forced upon sex.

One is an act honoring something, the other is an act honoring something completely different.
Does that help?

I really appreciate your attempt, but no, it makes no sense to me. There can be a broad varieties of reasons for someone to pick either of the options, and since I am not a member of the CF Mindreading Armada I have absolutely no idea how you can tell for what motives someone accepts or rejects a sexual offer.

Well, besides the obvious that those previously selected passages don't state that rape is good...
The Law, while good in showing man right from wrong, does not save a man.

In clear language: When saying "the cold hard law" you are talking about the cold hard law given to you by god - is that correct?]

 

[kopilo]

people can't physically fight against drug rape, let alone remeber details that well. Although I don't know how much fighting one would do if there was a gun pointed at their head either.

 

[flicka]

Turns out that the victim never places herself in a dangerous situation. It's a matter of trust and being trusted. He broke my trust to force me to do things I even never heard of (I was a virgin and very innocent at 17 being the nerd in school and so on....). You NEVER put yourself at risk. How strange it may sound. I kissed the guy, he turned worse. Truth is that rapists plan their rapes. They know they are going to 'get you'. Rape never occurs in the spur of the moment.

I have to disagree with this. People DO put themselves in dangerous situations..all the time! Crimes of opportunity are abundant. No preplanning necessary, just a set of circumstances that allows negative ideas to come to life.

I'm sorry the things I said caused you guilt, it wasn't intended to. I'm not suggesting you put yourself in a dangerous situation, I don't particularly want to know what happened to you and I refuse to address it or make this personal because that would be pointless. But I will say this: if you seriously think you can never put yourself at risk, and that it's all about TRUST, you are sentencing yourself to a lifetime of victimhood.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I see. I wasn´t aware that Christians are called to fight the actions of others, and that - beyond all those questionable responsibilities the burdons of which are put on their shoulders anyways - they are also held responsible for the actions of others.
Well, if that´s Christian doctrine, there is no point in discussing it, I guess.
But: How come this argument is suddenly pulled in the case of rape, while in the billions of others cases Christians do not actively fight "evil" actions, it remains mostly nicely wrapped in the drawer?

One: there would be two or more people involved with rape, this isn't a discussion of masturbation.

Two: this isn't an issue where that over-simplification will fly. Since there is more than one person involved, it leaves room for more than one part being guilty and/or innocent of any given thing.

I assume that you are aware that an issue can become complicated or a situation having compounding circumstances.

The part I would agree on your above posting would be that a Christian does have a burden of justice and his/her ability to take a part in bringing that about is a valid burden. One isn't to stand by idle while the widow is cheated, while the child is abused, etc. Where you attempt to go beyond that into something else is where I'll leave it as your assertions.

And you are the one to decide when their attempts qualify as sufficiently fighting?

Can you quote me in saying this?
No.

And in the issue that keeps being brought up, it would be only a speculation of anyone else anyway. The accused isn't here to defend and only one version of accounts are being given.
As cold as that seems, those are the facts and any attempt to force a judgment based on limited versions and steeped in emotive response would risk an elevated hazard of injustice.

I tell you what: If looking at things that way (and it would not even be completely unreasonable), we all are part of all wicked acts that are comitted. So why do you single out rape victims?
Plus, since the success of fighting is not the criterium - people still take part in the wicked although fighting. So what is the point?
Since I am not a believer this interest me only marginally. But even if I try to think from the believer´s pov, I don´t see what that has to do with anything.
It might be a good idea to explain it to those tom whom it doesn´t ring a bell in this context, like me for example.

So you have two assertions there.
One, that "I" am singling out rape.
Two, that we all are part of all wicked acts that are committed.

Since I didn't assert those, you are free to attempt proving out YOUR claims.

The closest I will agree, would be:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Even if accepting for a moment the idea that the things you feel ought to be done really ought to be done, the point still stands: I guess that - by Christian doctrine - we all fail miserably and permanently to do what ought to be done, yet hardly anyone tries to push guilt feelings on them. Only in those cases of all where someone has been mistreated this card is pulled. This doesn´t look good to me.

Probably because the insertion of it being a card pulled and pushing guilt was yours, not mine.

The selected scripture is presumed to be known before the act is committed, not sprung up as hind-sight finger pointing.
So in that, the alleged victim would know what the scriptures state should be their motive and obligation.
True?

Well, faithfulness is not exactly the first thing that comes to mind. I think it´s a result of his considerations based on his desires and preferences.

And for the Christian, there is to be one item at the head of those desires and preferences.
That would be God, not "other".

Just because you say so, or what? Is there a discernable argument hidden somewhere in this?

Plus, I can´t help finding it telling that in the case of a male you pick an example of an "offer", whilst in fact we are talking about forced upon sex.

I really appreciate your attempt, but no, it makes no sense to me. There can be a broad varieties of reasons for someone to pick either of the options, and since I am not a member of the CF Mindreading Armada I have absolutely no idea how you can tell for what motives someone accepts or rejects a sexual offer.

Yes, I was hoping that I wouldn't have to give a long, drawn-out explanation. I was guilty of assuming that you might be familiar with even the simplest or common things of how adultery and fidelity is viewed in a Christian perspective.
Perhaps another member can pick up or give what is necessary to explain it more in-depth.

I apologize, but I am limited in time and effort today.


But since you bring it up, what part do you find "telling" about my choosing an illustration that keeps it simple for ILLUSTRATION of a concept?

Yes, they are different.
I chose to go that route since the given discussion didn't present a clear agreement. Now that I have explained the "why", do you still find it so "telling"?

In clear language: When saying "the cold hard law" you are talking about the cold hard law given to you by god - is that correct?]

That would be correct with the following explanation:
It is my choice to call it cold and hard because:

It is hard to know the right thing, to do the right thing, and to do the right thing all the time. I'll state here that it can't be done apart from God and that it is not an issue of it being given by God to "only" me, but all of mankind.

It's cold in that by the demands in relation to the law being broke, I pretty much would be dead long ago if payment were demanded of me. In the grace that I find myself, the grace has much more warmth.

 

[Misty Minister]

So?
Is it a matter of not understanding it?

Are you not grateful that there is grace as a substitution of the death punishment for the unrepentant allows for one to come to repentance in time?

If you are not aware, I infer that post as someone were claiming that the OT is made up stuff apart from God and ridiculing, even condemning the provisions there regarding justice.
Am I reading that correctly?

The only problem with that objection is that the same repentance is afforded to the rapist. The same grace that is afforded to the victim that doesn't fight with everything they've got (either out of fear, will or lack of will) and doesn't report the offender (for whatever reason) is the same grace that is afforded the one some might presume to demand a harsh punishment.

So... what of those verses?
What do they have to do with the opinions of how CF members might "react"?

So? God may forgive them, but the people still get executed or married .
The horror of living under that system will give me night mares tonight just thinking about the poor women who had to live under that system.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I would introduce the rapist to the pavement.

(*Is still working on the gentleness and self-control bit*)