[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[tackattack]

A specific function in a family organization, whether patriarchal or matriarchal, does not make women lesser, IMO. Even the strictest baptist around here won’t say that the Bible states women are propert . and I’m pretty sure some of them grew up with slaves. A woman having a role and a woman is property are leagues away from each other.

The reason “ their idea of religion is (for reasons that are honestly batshit) inextricably tied” to them is simple. We, as people are not one thing. We are a complex narrative of what we’ve been through, what we see ourselves as, what others see us as and our beliefs and desires.

The fact the any one could see women as property ( which has yet to be shown) is one of many beliefs that we all agree is fundamentally wrong. It is not tied to their religion, however their religion is tied to their identity. What I hear from the other side is religious people endorse rape and treating women as property, specifically because of their religion. I see it at the same ridiculousness as assuming my insistence that the grass is green and sky is blue because the Preacher told me so.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Rubbish 

[vulcanlogician]

A specific function in a family organization, whether patriarchal or matriarchal, does not make women lesser, IMO. Even the strictest baptist around here won’t say that the Bible states women are propert . and I’m pretty sure some of them grew up with slaves. A woman having a role and a woman is property are leagues away from each other.

The reason “ their idea of religion is (for reasons that are honestly batshit) inextricably tied” to them is simple. We, as people are not one thing. We are a complex narrative of what we’ve been through, what we see ourselves as, what others see us as and our beliefs and desires.

The fact the any one could see women as property ( which has yet to be shown) is one of many beliefs that we all agree is fundamentally wrong. It is not tied to their religion, however their religion is tied to their identity. What I hear from the other side is religious people endorse rape and treating women as property, specifically because of their religion. I see it at the same ridiculousness as assuming my insistence that the grass is green and sky is blue because the Preacher told me so.

Not to be a contrarian, but slaves don't need to remain silent in the church, do they? Who needs to remain silent in the church?

That's the problem. Not necessarily that scripture states that women are property. But rather, if someone wanted to justify treating a woman as property, scripture would be a great resource for them.

I personally think the whole of the ancient world (even my beloved Greeks) treated women as property. (Separate from slaves, but slaves in their own right nonetheless). So I'm not pinning this all on Christianity. But I'm not letting Christianity off the hook either. The Old Testament sucks on the issue once again. New Testament doesn't fix it.

[tackattack]

Then let’s use modern day examples. Movies and commercials and add imply that women are x or should be y. None of those x or y variables are property. I assume, women may feel like property if they believe they need to be x or y but it simply isn’t true. Property is something I can purchase and own and have full control and rights over. No commercial, religious book, ancient text or movie has ever made me feel that way about women. Why? Because I don’t believe other people should ever be owned. I don’t think I could ever own anything with a will of it’s own. Whether we r talking pets, women, children or advanced AI cyborgs. Now if I did want to own any of those things I could point to a myriad of sources that make that seem like the right thing, but that’s all it is, a justification. It could be a right or a wrong justification, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the source of the belief that it’s ok. I simply don’t believe anything with a will of it’s own CAN be property by my definition.

Edit: if you’d like an exegesis on Christian views of a woman’s role that would be another thread.

[vulcanlogician]

Then let’s use modern day examples. Movies and commercials and add imply that women are x or should be y. None of those x or y variables are property. I assume, women may feel like property if they believe they need to be x or y but it simply isn’t true. Property is something I can purchase and own and have full control and rights over. No commercial, religious book, ancient text or movie has ever made me feel that way about women. Why? Because I don’t believe other people should ever be owned. I don’t think I could ever own anything with a will of it’s own. Whether we r talking pets, women, children or advanced AI cyborgs. Now if I did want to own any of those things I could point to a myriad of sources that make that seem like the right thing, but that’s all it is, a justification. It could be a right or a wrong justification, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the source of the belief that it’s ok. I simply don’t believe anything with a will of it’s own CAN be property by my definition.

Edit: if you’d like an exegesis on Christian views of a woman’s role that would be another thread.

I think the exegesis thread sounds super interesting. I fully agree with you about modern commercials implying women are x or should be y. But I also think (along with most people) that commercials are just selling bad ideas. I think the same thing about your scriptures. And here we are.

 Property is something I can purchase and own and have full control and rights over. No commercial, religious book, ancient text or movie has ever made me feel that way about women. Why? Because I don’t believe other people should ever be owned.

And... THAT'S where you and the Bible part ways on agreement on things. Bible says: people can be owned. AND, furthermore - "owned people ought to obey." I think they are bad ideas. Hell, even most Christians think these are bad ideas (and try to ignore them). But there they are. Written in the special book. I guess that means those ideas are "good" or at least "special."

I actually think it's possible for a Christian to dismiss these ideas. (And many do.) But it seems to me, if your going to dismiss any idea within the special book. You must first dispense with the "special book" idea. Maybe there are a great many good ideas in the book. But that don't mean the book is all good ideas.

[Angrboda]

That was rather incoherent. It doesn't mean that it's the source of the belief, but that also doesn't mean that it isn't. Your post is nothing but a ramble of nonsequiturs.

[vulcanlogician]

Non-sequiturs of certain conclusions, maybe. I don't think it was a ramble of nonsequiturs.

[Angrboda]

Non-sequiturs of certain conclusions, maybe. I don't think it was a ramble of nonsequiturs.

I was replying to tack. Sorry for the confusion. You slid in under me.

[tackattack]

That was rather incoherent. It doesn't mean that it's the source of the belief, but that also doesn't mean that it isn't. Your post is nothing but a ramble of nonsequiturs.

I apologize it was incoherent this’ll be my last attempt to clarify before some sleep.

I don’t believe that people CAN be property due to my definition of property. This isn’t about whether biblical exegesis promotes slavery or misogyny, which I’m certain many people here believe.

Let’s say I do believe in slavery for the sake of argument. I don’t believe slaves could be considered property. Less than, second class, a whipping post, bad people sure… but not property because they have their own will.

Back to the post, under this scenario, if I were an advocate for slavery I could use many Historical references and even a scripture to justify that belief. That justification isn’t the source of my belief, but it does bolster the belief from my perspective. The source of the belief isn’t the same as the justification and the justification has little to do with the source. I hope that makes more sense.night

[gd3001]

It was mostly downplaying the severity of what he did, conflating partying and playing the field with drugging and raping women. In fairness, I’m not convinced that he knows the difference. You’d think someone sane would have some ide of what the difference is, but given that many evangelicals see the world like this:

I can’t truly shake the possibility that his view of the world is just that stunted.

I read some of his rantings and I loved how he use the whole rape in Hollywood is "business as usual" as a jumping point to spew his rape apologist nonesense. He doesn't get that, no matter what gender you are, you'd be rape in show business and that shouldn't be "business as usual" yet it is and it's wrong.

Hell I'm into consensual non consent gay porn and even I don't like actual rape becuase it hurts someone and becuase of the millions of male rape victims that are, for the most part, not taken seriously. I have this thing called empathy, which is something he clearly lacks.

---

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.