[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[Peebothuhlu]

Or... she could have been made in exactly the same way AS Adam (Made from the same 'Dust' and/or 'Clay'. Same breath of life being blown in etc) hence the pair being, y'know, "Equal"?

Jus' sayin'.

Weird old book is still weird.

Not at work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Old Testament sucks on the issue once again. New Testament doesn't fix it.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on this article.

Here's a quote from the early days of my denomination back in the 1800's; I believe it echoes a similar passage from biblical commentator Matthew Henry in the late 1600's: "Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him."

I’m perfectly willing to concede that Jesus’ views regarding women may have been more enlightened than those of his contemporaries, but I’m not sure it matters all that much. Christianity is more about what Paul said than what Jesus did, and Paul’s attitude towards women is pretty harsh.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Or... she could have been made in exactly the same way AS Adam (Made from the same 'Dust' and/or 'Clay'. Same breath of life being blown in etc) hence the pair being, y'know, "Equal"?

I think the story offers a much more profound reality—that the sexes can be different and nevertheless equal. Those who need equality to be predicated on being made the same, as you have argued, have historically used our differences to justify inequality between sexes and races.

[tackattack]

Hence that I didn’t want this thread to trail down to an exegesis of Christian doctrine. I’m not saying the Bible can’t be interpreted as misogynistic or endorsing of slavery. My point was exactly this, it doesn’t matter. If slavery or misogyny happened before the Bible, and it did, it is not the source. If their only source of input was Biblical doctrine then it might be the foundation of their belief, but usually it’s a justification of poor beliefs.

My definition of property I already stated in my incoherent post as “ Property is something I can purchase and own and have full control and rights over. ” nothing in ten’s example or anyone else is aligned with my definition of slavery.

Religion and advertisements may very well be a justification for bad behavior, which strengthens the belief. But not the source. If u grew up and only knew the following statement about women “women are property” and you believed it that is a reason. It can be justified by many different places which bolster that belief. But the source of that belief is because said person believes x statement, not because religion/tv/papa justified my belief in x. As long as they want to believe x the only thing that can be done is to dismantle their justifications. Therefore, culpability is reduced to the individual and their desire to keep beliefs if their justifications can be shown flawed.

I think this thread is splintering. This is about rape apologetics, not misogyny, gender equality, marriage roles, scripture, etc. to bring it back to point, I believe drich demonstrated Hollywood was a culture that was toxic enough to allow and encourage rape. That may or may not be true. He went a step beyond and said it was deserving as were the victims then doubled down and that’s a good reason for a ban. And the discussion here has shown that discussion on the topic can be had without going into ban territory, so kudos to the admins and participants.

[Mermaid]

I did not claim that women are property in the literal sense, so your "interpretation" of property in this thread is not germane to the point.

[tackattack]

This thread is odd. Atheists are condemning rape in all forms, but the god botherers are falling over themselves to defend it because why? What is up with that? Why are the religious in favour of rape?

Women are a man's property.

I suspected u were being facetious but the conversation since has had several backers for the belief that, due to their religion some believers consider women property, which is the only reason I popped back in. Notice I neither added or deleted from your quote.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Moderator Notice
No one’s in trouble, but I created a new thread for the way this discussion seems to be heading. THIS thread is in danger of derailing, which is specifically forbidden in [Serious] threads. Much thanks and a tip of the hat to tack for pointing this out.

Boru

[AkiraTheViking]

You're into consensual non consent gay porn. How can something be non consensual and consensual at the same time? If a work of fiction glorifys rape, it encourages rape.

(Boldline) Typical evangelical as well as woke nonesense. I'm tired of this strawman. By your logic desater movies, such as Independence Day, encourages Destruction and that people are too dumb to discern between fiction and reality. It's literally the "Video Games cause violence/school shootings" strawman, but for adults and also it doesn't. You know why? Becuase normal people know the difference between real and fake. Something you clearly don't have a grasp on.

[Peebothuhlu]

Or... she could have been made in exactly the same way AS Adam (Made from the same 'Dust' and/or 'Clay'. Same breath of life being blown in etc) hence the pair being, y'know, "Equal"?

I think the story offers a much more profound reality—that the sexes can be different and nevertheless equal. Those who need equality to be predicated on being made the same, as you have argued, have historically used our differences to justify inequality between sexes and races.

What utter bull dust.

I am not 'Arguing' anything.

I'm glad you think the story is wonderful.

That the power in question did the things it did so as to portray a narrative is, to me, neither here nor there.

The question was about 'Equality'. That the narrative of the story did not, in fact, have the two characters created equally is the telling part in my mind.

Double speak your intentions into my words again, I dare you.

Not at work.

[Rev. Rye]

Moderator Notice
No one’s in trouble, but I created a new thread for the way this discussion seems to be heading. THIS thread is in danger of derailing, which is specifically forbidden in [Serious] threads. Much thanks and a tip of the hat to tack for pointing this out.

Boru

You think we can split the women’s rights/complementarian/coverture/patriarchy stuff into its own thread? A bit of forum mitosis might help keep the main thread on track.

Edit: oh, I see you made it your own thread. Would it be overstepping my bounce to tell anyone interested in keeping up that discussion to go there?