Why would any woman want to be Christian?

[Neo-Scholastic]

So Sorry. Didn't know how to properly insert a link.
Slate Article by Rebecca Watson (SkepChick)Rebecca Watson is a well-known skeptic but in this article she comments on the rampant mysogeny within skeptic and atheist circles.

Certainly some Christian groups have backwards attitudes to the roles of women in society. Certain strains of atheism are also prone to institutionalized depravity and sexism. Peter Singer's defense of pedophilia and bestiality comes to mind, Richard Dawkins' attitude towards rape, and the disproportional number of men to women in skeptic and atheist communities. also Anti-religious bigotry is every bit as offensive as other forms.

Hey, Jstrodel and Equilax,...even though I myself have been known to create some 'word walls', both of you are taking it to the extreme. Brevity is, after all, the soul of wit.

[Faith No More]

Link still doesn't work, Chad.

[jstrodel]

So Sorry. Didn't know how to properly insert a link.
Slate Article by Rebecca Watson (SkepChick)Rebecca Watson is a well-known skeptic but in this article she comments on the rampant mysogeny within skeptic and atheist circles.

Certainly some Christian groups have backwards attitudes to the roles of women in society. Certain strains of atheism are also prone to institutionalized depravity and sexism. Peter Singer's defense of pedophilia and bestiality comes to mind, Richard Dawkins' attitude towards rape, and the disproportional number of men to women in skeptic and atheist communities. also Anti-religious bigotry is every bit as offensive as other forms.

Good point. I think you see in atheist communities widespread acceptance of pornography. If you support pornography, you support women being pimped out. Period. The women who make pornography almost all use drugs and rely on selling their bodies to whoever will pay for their drug habit. They are enslaved to the sex trade, most of them want to get out of it.

Atheists are typically about the cause of feminism only in the context of criticizing religion, typically so they can partake in activities such as promiscuity that severely harm women, leaving them with unwed children and a choice to either kill their children or be slaves to an economic system.

[John V]

Since nobody seems to really understand the verse, I thought I'd clarify it.

While I did say that it was a bad translation, I did not say that there was no rape. And for those who have studied such texts in the past, not only the language, but the style is also important.

OK, rape is at best a questionable translation. The passage says that he takes her, lies with her, and they are found out. Focusing on the taking leads some to see rape, focusing on they being found out leads some to see consensual sex.

Next, the man is not known to her. He happens to see her, he finds her for himself.

Yes, I was incorrect to characterize it as an affair. The situation is rather a first-time seduction.

The girl can never get divorced from him. Ever. He is a creep and she is his.

Yes, that was the case in all marriages. Women could not initiate or protest divorce.

He can marry another and cast her aside to live alone if he chooses,

Can you support this? The passage specifically says he could never divorce her, and a wife had rights to support and a sexual relationship from the husband, even if he took a second wife.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Atheists are typically about the cause of feminism only in the context of criticizing religion, typically so they can partake in activities such as promiscuity that severely harm women, leaving them with unwed children and a choice to either kill their children or be slaves to an economic system.

[Shell B]

Good point. I think you see in atheist communities widespread acceptance of pornography. If you support pornography, you support women being pimped out.

Yep. Lube it up, whores, we're coming in. *rolls eyes*

As for the rest of your gibberish about drug use, a lot of gas station attendants are pot heads. Close down gas stations!!!

[Esquilax]

Good point. I think you see in atheist communities widespread acceptance of pornography. If you support pornography, you support women being pimped out. Period. The women who make pornography almost all use drugs and rely on selling their bodies to whoever will pay for their drug habit. They are enslaved to the sex trade, most of them want to get out of it.

Atheists are typically about the cause of feminism only in the context of criticizing religion, typically so they can partake in activities such as promiscuity that severely harm women, leaving them with unwed children and a choice to either kill their children or be slaves to an economic system.

If you'll excuse me, I'm not about to take advice on either sex or feminism from a guy who distinguishes rape into categories. Guys like that tend to, like, not know a damn thing about the issue, or any issue, pertaining to women.

[jstrodel]

Good point. I think you see in atheist communities widespread acceptance of pornography. If you support pornography, you support women being pimped out. Period. The women who make pornography almost all use drugs and rely on selling their bodies to whoever will pay for their drug habit. They are enslaved to the sex trade, most of them want to get out of it.

Atheists are typically about the cause of feminism only in the context of criticizing religion, typically so they can partake in activities such as promiscuity that severely harm women, leaving them with unwed children and a choice to either kill their children or be slaves to an economic system.

If you'll excuse me, I'm not about to take advice on either sex or feminism from a guy who distinguishes rape into categories. Guys like that tend to, like, not know a damn thing about the issue, or any issue, pertaining to women.

You are like most liberals, brainwashed by political correctness, unable to see that even the legal system that you so delicately revere does not support your absurd views. Of course there are difference between different kinds of sexual activity. If you were charged with a crime because you went to a bar and had sex with a drunk women who wanted to leave, and you tried to get her to stay, and she later said that you raped her, would you distinguish between non-consensual and semi-consensual activity? Would a judge? Of course they would.

You like in a world that is based on pretty words and emotional responses. You don't know anything about the issue.

You think that political platitudes are the same as philosophy. You call it logic when you apply categories used in political propaganda to complex issues and match the words to see if they fit. You think that Christians are immoral when they reason from general principles and rely more on church authority, saying that they lack nuance and critical thinking. When Christians have a more nuanced perspective, then you say "YOU EVIL PERSON, THIS ISN'T A TIME TO REASON, RAPE IS JUST EVIL, PURE EVIL, YOU HATE WOMEN". Then you proceed to tell Christians that they are driven by emotionalism and that they lack a deeper sense of nuance to the issues that Christians feel the same way about.

I think there is something to the sort of general rejection of a category such as rape, that involves severe disgust and hatred for the category. It is good that you care about women. Why not be a little more charitable to Christians who do the same thing? But actually, if you look carefully, the way that atheists think and the way Christians think is not really that different. It is a dialectic between general concepts and specific concepts, between emotional responses to highly charged words and more intellectual responses to less emotionally charged words.

You are doing the exact same thing that Christians do. Of course, the answer is not whether one sound of word or one approach is correct, what matters is that in the end you have understood the issue. You don't understand anything about the issue of rape. You are probably one of those people who would self righteously say "It is not for men to decide anything about this, women always know best" and then turn around and criticize the Christian understanding, which is nuance, as it should be, as being immoral and lacking compassion for women.

Why not follow this up calling for Christians to be more nuanced about their application of sexual ethics? That would seal the deal and make you a true psuedo-philosopher and apostle of liberalism, par exellence.

[Darkstar]

Of course there are difference between different kinds of sexual activity. If you were charged with a crime because you went to a bar and had sex with a drunk women who wanted to leave, and you tried to get her to stay, and she later said that you raped her, would you distinguish between non-consensual and semi-consensual activity? Would a judge? Of course they would.

Um, what? You took advantage of a drunk person for sex who was clearly trying to get away from you and that's "semi-consensual rape"? Or is it only "legitimate" rape if it's "forcible" rape? And yet strangely, you never mentioned Statutory rape, which could be consensual (though go too far below the legal limit, and they won't understand the consequences of what they're agreeing to until it's too late).

[jstrodel]

No, I don't think it clearly semi-consensual rape at all. What if both of you are drunk and neither one completely remembers what happened? This sort of stuff happens all the time. Statutory rape is another example of a difficult case.

I don't know if you guys are aware, but stuff like this happens all the time. Life is complicated. I am not saying that people should take the mans side more than the womens, but life is complicated. That is just the way it is.

The Bible accepts this and does not side with either man or women. Any woman who is pissed off at her boyfriend can say that she was raped or try and fit certain circumstances together to show something.

I'm sorry that everything can't fit into your irrationalist PC world, but that is just the way it is.

You should be aware that there is no reason to think that women, on average, are more honest than men are. The Bible realizes the nature of promiscuous relationships and simply calls it marriage. But in clear cases of completely non-consensual rape, as in the women in Deut 28 who is not punished but the man who is put to death.

You atheist think that you are the merciful ones, but actually, the Bible is what is merciful. These texts show a compassionate God who is not biased against men and does not have naive views about women, the way that many modern liberals do. I am not saying that men are the oppressed group, typically women are. But life is complicated, you cannot generalize about people. The Bible is merciful because it doesn't see human behavior in black and white, it treats a complex situation like a promiscuous relationship with complexity, not with political platitudes.