I am about to ask a serious but utterly reprehensible question

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Christian apologists would answer thus: no one deserves to be raped because no one has the moral right to rape since rape is a sin.

Ironically, Hell is considered far worse than rape and yet one can deserve it in Christian thinking; why? Because God's punishments are JUST and DESERVED. Not comforting at all is it?

Rape isn't a sin in the Old Testament in some cases.  It's not even mentioned in the New Testament.

[robvalue]

Saying they deserve to be raped is less harsh, in fact. It's an extremely unpleasant experience, but it will end. Unlike the torment of the god they worship.

[Thal]

Didn't the admin just put a ban on clickbait topics titles?

How is this clickbait?  

The title doesn't say anything about what the topic is for this thread, but is rather a fluff piece with a flair of sensationalism ("you won't believe what happens next!").

[RoadRunner79]

---

In all genuine honesty...and I just came up with this today, and someone making a threat about hell in one of the threads convinced me it has to be asked. Please, don't hate me, this is not done out of malice or perversion, and is simply a ghastly version of a reductio ad absurdum.

To any person who will tell a child that they are a miserable sinner and deserving of an eternity of fiery torment - regardless of how easy they claim it will be to avoid this (and remember, you still deserve it, you've just been given undeserved mercy via salvation, right? You're still scum but they let you into the country club) - what is stopping you from saying that child deserves to be, say, raped? Surely flesh-searing torment without end is a worse fate, and surely some lava-skinned demon down there is going to get their hands on you at some point, right? So why would you say one and not the other, if one is far, far worse and yet can't be experienced on earth?

I expect the answers will disregard the fact that we are disregarding salvation, and be flimsy excuses at best rather than actual answers. If this does not prove once and for all anyone who ever introduces the concept of hell to a child is no different from a predator, nothing will.

If this was a step too far, just delete it. I'm so disgusted with religious people right now, I can't even separate them from their faith.

---

For those who argue against objective morality, there isn’t really a problem (how is rape wrong under a subjective morality) However; that is a different subject; and I’ll assume objective morality in the answer.

I think that there are a couple of aspects to your question. The first has to do with why something is wrong. In the case of rape, I think that this has more to do with the why; rather than the what is occurring. C.S. Lewis made the distinction of intentions when discussing morality, rather than the outcome. He stated, that we are angry with the person, who attempts to trip us up, yet fails. But not angry with the person who trips us by accident; even when the result is injury. There may initially be some emotion from the injury or embarrassment, but I think that for a rational person, this should subside. Now from the principle in your example, the second case is “far worse” in result, so shouldn’t we be able to compare them? I think that the answer is no, because the intentions do make a difference. In the case of rape, the motivations are selfish, and set themselves on something that God has set apart to be Holy.

The second aspect, is that I think you are working from a pop culture caricature of hell. A Greek Orthodox would describe hell and the torment therein; as a result of separation from God. I do agree with this view, but also think that some can take it too far (making it purely emotional and self-inflicted), and I believe ignoring some parts of scripture. While I believe that most of the descriptions of hell in the Bible are symbolic; they still represent that which they are symbolizing. What the Bible describes is the consequences of sin, and the result of separation from God.

So the answer is no; I wouldn’t agree with what you proposed, or do anything like that. I don’t think that it is an equivalent comparison, nor accurate of the Biblical description. I also assume that you are speaking of a fairly young child; in which case, I’m not going to have a discussion the way you represented it; in the first place.

[Cecelia]

Just look at God versus Hitler.

God kills presumably millions of people. He drowns them, and drowns most of the animals too. He also drowns the babies, the children. Everybody except for his 8 chosen people, and two of each animal. He's considered a good guy.

Hitler kills 6 million people, and is considered a bad guy.

[Drich]

In all genuine honesty...and I just came up with this today, and someone making a threat about hell in one of the threads convinced me it has to be asked. Please, don't hate me, this is not done out of malice or perversion, and is simply a ghastly version of a reductio ad absurdum.

What a self righteous douche.

One the wage of sin is death. Not forever torment. You have confused bible lore with what the bible actually says.. This would give most intellectually honest people a moment to pause and take inventory of what it is they do know about the bible... but not you. You seem to fancy yourself on at least the bible basics so you plow ahead introduce a Base rate fallacy and make a judgement that because what YOU say "A" is True then "B" must also be true, that religious people are evil. Here's the thing moron.. A is not true and B is not true..

On a side note, how did you like the election results?

The one thing the election results said loud and clear is that America is tired and will be shaking off the hippy douche bag red tinted glasses we have been looking through for the last 8 years, and will start looking at things honestly and openly again. Hopfully you will lemming along with the rest of the crowd and learn to be an honest judge of character and learn a little tolerance.

for instance lets shine some honesty on your dishonest assessment of Christianity:

To any person who will tell a child that they are a miserable sinner and deserving of an eternity of fiery torment - regardless of how easy they claim it will be to avoid this (and remember, you still deserve it, you've just been given undeserved mercy via salvation, right? You're still scum but they let you into the country club)

One, once a child can honestly see and identify sin then at that point he is responsible for his actions. and like anyone else must seek atonement for those sins. This is true in or out of religion. Most people simply use different terms, unless you are one of those horrible free range parents who let their kid shit on the floor at grocery store, and breasts feeds them till they want to stop (15/18 whatever) Why because a child's will is not that of a greater social order it is that of selfishness, and at some point even the most vial free ranger must put some sort of restriction or balance on the child even if it just to turn the child into a hippy douche like the parent. Other wise the child will simply grow up selfish and antisocial.

Christian's simply put God's rules in place or society's rule set.

- what is stopping you from saying that child deserves to be, say, raped?Surely flesh-searing torment without end is a worse fate, and surely some lava-skinned demon down there is going to get their hands on you at some point, right? So why would you say one and not the other, if one is far, far worse and yet can't be experienced on earth?

Because as it is, The wage of sin is death. a Death Jesus Himself paid. That is what attonement is all about. Jesus dies we live. We commit the sin and it get absolved, no punishment.

So if under God's plan/UNDER CHRISTIANITY There is no punishment, then why would rape then be ok?

I expect the answers will disregard the fact that we are disregarding salvation, and be flimsy excuses at best rather than actual answers.

Hey, Moron.. Disregarding salvation makes this whole thing a logical fallacy, and you intellectually dishonest because you know you are leaving out key aspects to the religion and yet levy judgement.

If this does not prove once and for all anyone who ever introduces the concept of hell to a child is no different from a predator, nothing will.

If this was a step too far, just delete it. I'm so disgusted with religious people right now, I can't even separate them from their faith.

Self righteous

[phoenix31]

Rape isn't a sin in the Old Testament in some cases. 

Where?

[drfuzzy]

I think it's a valid question.
I was raised Protestant Fundamentalist.  My parents believed in beating the devil out of the child.  This was literal and biblical.  My body is covered with the scars my Mother gave me.
There are many, many examples of criminals trying to use the Bible in court to excuse rape and pedophilia.  Here is just one recent example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...0b1e793c38
I also happen to be a lesbian.  When trying to explain my orientation to my Mother (before I was disowned) - She said, "You need to come back in the church, find a boy that you can stand to be around, and become a normal Christian woman."  I replied, "And that would mean a life of nightly rape."  Her response:  "You get used to it, you stupid girl!".
They don't care what happens to anyone, as long as they toe the party line in public. They don't care about anyone who isn't in their church. They are evil sinners who are going to burn forever.

[The Grand Nudger]

For those who argue against objective morality, there isn’t really a problem (how is rape wrong under a subjective morality)

About a million ways, it's wrong in as many ways as there are subjective moralities that say so.  Silly question.

However; that is a different subject; and I’ll assume objective morality in the answer.  

You failed at that, right at the beginning.

I think that there are a couple of aspects to your question.  The first has to do with why something is wrong.   In the case of rape, I think that this has more to do with the why; rather than the what is occurring. 

If there's a "why" component it's no longer objectively wrong.  It's subjectively wrong, pursuant to the "why".  What a flexible moral system for rape.

C.S. Lewis made the distinction of intentions when discussing morality, rather than the outcome.  He stated, that we are angry with the person, who attempts to trip us up, yet fails.  But not angry with the person who trips us by accident; even when the result is injury. There may initially be some emotion from the injury or embarrassment, but I think that for a rational person, this should subside.    Now from the principle in your example, the second case is “far worse” in result, so shouldn’t we be able to compare them?  I think that the answer is no, because the intentions do make a difference.   In the case of rape, the motivations are selfish, and set themselves on something that God has set apart to be Holy.  

So, good rape/bad rape...good hell/bad hell? It's all about intentions. Really?  

The second aspect, is that I think you are working from a pop culture caricature of hell.  A Greek Orthodox would describe hell and the torment therein; as a result of separation from God.    I do agree with this view, but also think that some can take it too far (making it purely emotional and  self-inflicted), and I believe ignoring some parts of scripture.  While I believe that most of the descriptions of hell in the Bible are symbolic; they still represent that which they are symbolizing.  What the Bible describes is the consequences of sin, and the result of separation from God.  

Good thing you have a biblical decoder ring. Locking me in a dark room, knowing that I'll go nuts, is still locking me in a dark room. My own little ticks drive me nuts...but it wouldn't be thus without your participation. What was that about intentions again? What's wrong with simply expiring, ceasing to be...why is that not an option in your gods little scheme?

So the answer is no; I wouldn’t agree with what you proposed, or do anything like that.  I don’t think that it is an equivalent comparison, nor accurate of the Biblical description.  I also assume that you are speaking of a fairly young child; in which case, I’m not going to have a discussion the way you represented it; in the first place.

Why not?  If their soul is in such peril perhaps they should know that..bluntly, it's not exactly like we're talking about a scraped knee here, or stitches?

[SteveII]

In all genuine honesty...and I just came up with this today, and someone making a threat about hell in one of the threads convinced me it has to be asked. Please, don't hate me, this is not done out of malice or perversion, and is simply a ghastly version of a reductio ad absurdum.

To any person who will tell a child that they are a miserable sinner and deserving of an eternity of fiery torment - regardless of how easy they claim it will be to avoid this (and remember, you still deserve it, you've just been given undeserved mercy via salvation, right? You're still scum but they let you into the country club) - what is stopping you from saying that child deserves to be, say, raped? Surely flesh-searing torment without end is a worse fate, and surely some lava-skinned demon down there is going to get their hands on you at some point, right? So why would you say one and not the other, if one is far, far worse and yet can't be experienced on earth?

I expect the answers will disregard the fact that we are disregarding salvation, and be flimsy excuses at best rather than actual answers. If this does not prove once and for all anyone who ever introduces the concept of hell to a child is no different from a predator, nothing will.

If this was a step too far, just delete it. I'm so disgusted with religious people right now, I can't even separate them from their faith.

This is a non-starter. 

Why would any Christian tell a child he/she is a terrible sinner and deserving of an eternity of fiery torment? No Christian denomination that I know of believes that that child is accountable for their sins until some "age of accountability" where they can understand such things. Only God could know when a person is to be culpable for their sins. In some cases, a person's mental disabilities might prevent that from happening their whole life. 

The rest of your reasoning is nonsense and your conclusions faulty.