Do not resist an evil person


So I am told here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46042&page=2):


There is no support for self defence in the NT. in fact we are told not to resist an evil person. We can flee or hide if those options are open to us, But if we face being killed then we demonstrate our faith by accepting death in peace knowing that we have eternal life.

Matthew 5:39
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

To defend or avenge ourselves may be our human notion of what is good or just but once the Messiah was raised from the dead The Ancient Of Days provided a route to eternity for sinners that did away with justice and replaced it with the justice of mercy. If The Ancient Of Days used justice to determine who would enter the Kingdom Of Heaven would we have any chance of entering it? I can be assured in myself that without the grace of the Messiah I would burn.

So if we are followers of The Messiah we shall attempt to overcome evil with good and not allow ourselves to be overcome by evil by joining in their game. The Love of The Truth is the only weapon Our Messiah has given us to use.


Now, let's cut the theoretical BS, talking about religious principles is talking about YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.


So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself?

And, as it is in the nature of violent men, if they could get something once, they will come back for more.

According to you, Christians, I should let this man go on raping me whenever he pleases -- for I am not to resist an evil person?


YOU, Christians, ADSTAR, OKINRUS, JENYAR, LORI 7, CYPERIUM, BEYONDTIMEANDSPACE, MARC AC AND OTHERS, I don't know you all by name -- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?

I believe you would be able to run. But I'm not sure....

you are a weirdo.

stop thinking about rape.

and little children naked

if someone tried to rape me, i'd shoot him in the face. several times over.

if someone tried to rape me, i'd shoot him in the face. several times over.

with what? sperm?

i think he ment like with a gun, he must be american....

i think he ment like with a gun, he must be american....

this is my rifle, this is my gun.

this is for fighting, this is for fun.

Chairman_meow and Jolly Rodger,

Stop with your inanities. This is a serious topic on Christianity put to practice.
I will ask the moderator to delete your posts.

Sorry I thought this was a thread about Jacko, what’s with that, Jacko is innocent

Chairman_meow and Jolly Rodger,

Stop with your inanities. This is a serious topic on Christianity put to practice.
I will ask the moderator to delete your posts.

Suck my balls you freaky deaky athiest cunt.

come on buddy that was a bit harsh, just because he thiks jacko is guilty

yes jolly, i am an american. but, i dont like it. i consider myself slavic and scottish, as those are what im decended from.
back to the point...
so what if i think jacko is guilty? thats not the point of THIS thread.
and why wouldn't you shoot a guy who is trying to rape you? its self-defense. perfectly legal.
and what's wrong with atheism? Fredrick the Great, king of prussia, was an athiest. im an athiest. thats severe discrimination.

So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself?

And, as it is in the nature of violent men, if they could get something once, they will come back for more.

According to you, Christians, I should let this man go on raping me whenever he pleases -- for I am not to resist an evil person?


YOU, Christians, ADSTAR, OKINRUS, JENYAR, LORI 7, CYPERIUM, BEYONDTIMEANDSPACE, MARC AC AND OTHERS, I don't know you all by name -- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?
The words you refer to are those of Jesus, not of "Christians". They form part of a methodological sermon on the application of God's laws. Every refutation starts with a reference to some commonly acepted interpretation or application: "You have heard that it was said...".

I do not agree that there is "no support for self defence in the NT". Justice is a form of "self-defense" against injustice, and God certainly encourages it in this form. What Jesus is concerned with here is attitude. I'll quote the full pericope for easy reference:
Matt. 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
The starting point for his argument is the principle of justice "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth", i.e. giving somebody his due. This works fine in courts, who are there to administer justice, but how does it apply to "YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW"? Or in other words: what does it mean for an individual to serve justice, as God wills it?

In the case of rape, whether you resist or not isn't actually in question. Of course you'll resist, in the same way you that might try to jump out of the way of a charging elephant, or try to swim when you are in danger of drowning. But this isn't the kind of attack Jeus is talking about. How serious is a slap on the face?
"He that strikes his neighbour (which Maimonides explains, he that strikes his neighbour with his hand shut, about the neck) he shall give him a "sela", or "shekel": R. Judah says... one pound: if he smite him (i.e. as Maimonides says, if he smite him with his double fist upon the face; or, as Bartenora, with the palm of his hand, ... "on the cheek", which is a greater reproach) he shall give him two hundred "zuzim"; and if he does it with the back of his hand, four hundred "zuzim".''
But instead of haggling over the price of the penance, Jesus advocates non-violence. If you wonder what your life is worth, or how you (not the courts) should react to an "evil person" - it is worth more that he could ever take away, but it is God who will avenge. As far as it is up to you, as far as possible, you should react with love and non-violence. This is what Ghandi did. And this is a greater requirement than making sure you got an eye for an eye. We should rather be willing to suffer a double injury, than repay evil with evil.

Dear water,

Your apparent outrage stems from your belief that in any similar situation where there might be a (seemingly) preferable avenue, you indeed do deserve that avenue and thus must have it. But I say if Jesus was able to receive scourgings for your sake, pierced and bruised for your sins as the sacrificial lamb, then you might be pretty damn haughty to think you deserve better.

WWJD?

with what? sperm?
I figured he meant assgasm.
It's this wierd foam that squirts out of a satisfied ass.

Jesus knew his body and his life was in God's hands - even thought they might kill it in the most cruel and humiliating way possible, they could not touch this security. And it is this security that He wants us to put into practice as well.

Dear water,

Your apparent outrage stems from your belief that in any similar situation where there might be a (seemingly) preferable avenue, you indeed do deserve that avenue and thus must have it. But I say if Jesus was able to receive scourgings for your sake, pierced and bruised for your sins as the sacrificial lamb, then you might be pretty damn haughty to think you deserve better.

IF Jesus this and Jesus that.



WWJD?

Write that out in full.

I'm a bit lost here - water is an atheist and SouthStar is a believer again?

Is "Write that out in full" a pedantic request to avoid use of acronyms or are you really unaware of its meaning?

My answer to the conundrum is that Jesus was specifically referring to someone striking you because you are a Christian. He was talking about someone who would strike you out of a position of authority. Then there is a general philosophy underlying that of non-violence, a philosophy espoused my many thinkers right up to Mahatma Gandhi. I think SouthStar's question of "What Would Jesus Do?" is a good one. If you asked Jesus that specific question, I've no doubt that Jesus would say, "Of course, daughter, you must resist a rapist. You must act in defence of your life, or the lives of your family and children. You must act in defence of anybody who is being hurt."

This is what Ghandi did.
Gandhi also said a woman should fight with her teeth and nails to the end if her modesty is in danger. :m:

Jesus' 'other cheek' example might be for one's personal sake - don't get equally low with your offender but be generous. In case of rape, defending herself is the right of a woman, not becoming willing/unwiiling partner of her offender's violent adultry.

I'm a bit lost here - water is an atheist and SouthStar is a believer again?

I am not a Christian; technically, I am a non-religious theist.
SouthStar -- I really wouldn't know.


Is "Write that out in full" a pedantic request to avoid use of acronyms or are you really unaware of its meaning?

I really don't know what that means. It's the first time I see it, and I'm not sure what he means by it. Acronyms tend to have a lot of explanations, so I rather ask.
(Like -- what is DOA? Dead On Arrival? Deposit Only Account? Defective On Arrival?)


My answer to the conundrum is that Jesus was specifically referring to someone striking you because you are a Christian.

Interesting point. The Christians should elaborate on this.


I think SouthStar's question of "What Would Jesus Do?" is a good one. If you asked Jesus that specific question, I've no doubt that Jesus would say, "Of course, daughter, you must resist a rapist. You must act in defence of your life, or the lives of your family and children. You must act in defence of anybody who is being hurt."

Are you really sure about this? Defence can be quite bloody, and violent.

Gandhi also said a woman should fight with her teeth and nails to the end if her modesty is in danger.
Then he probably understood Jesus' teaching better than many seem to.

To quote from Matthew Henry's commentary:
The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort.

To quote from Matthew Henry's commentary:
The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort.

This is just another way of saying "Let yourself be raped for the sake of peace".

This is just another way of saying "Let yourself be raped for the sake of peace".
How does letting yourself be raped promote peace, or show love or compassion? What Jesus proposed does all these things. How does letting yourself be raped adhere to Jesus' teaching?

How does letting yourself be raped promote peace, or show love or compassion?

By me not hurting the attacker.
Duh.


What Jesus proposed does all these things. How does letting yourself be raped adhere to Jesus' teaching?

Do not resist ...

Damn, we need us some ultra-Christians, they'll tell you something about non-resistence.

I quote http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=794671:



If it so be that I find myself assaulted, I should not fight back -- if I am to be a Christian?

No. you should not fight back.


If two men set out to rape, I should just let them? According to Christianity?


If you cannot flee then yes you should just let them rape you.

By me not hurting the attacker.
Duh.
Oh, so at that moment you are the one who actually holds the power of who to hurt and who not. You might let them rape you, or you could really show them...

Do not resist ...

Damn, we need us some ultra-Christians, they'll tell you something about non-resistence.
What about Paul? I think he qualifies as an ultra-Christian.
Acts 23
1Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” 2At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”
He does not appeal to his own power or authority, but to God's. In that way, he can continue to be a living testimony, even while being carried away in captivity and enduring many beating and public humiliations, without resisting God's work.

By me not hurting the attacker.
Duh.

Oh, so at that moment you are the one who actually holds the power of who to hurt and who not. You might let them rape you, or you could really show them...

You misunderstand.
In my self-defense, I could inflict some harm on the attacker -- and one should by no means inflict harm ...


He does not appeal to his own power or authority, but to God's. In that way, he can continue to be a living testimony, even while being carried away in captivity and enduring many beating and public humiliations, without resisting God's work.

Honey, you try appealing to God for power or authority when you've got one holding you down, and the other taking off your pants.
And after the act, think how very attractive and lovable you are after you have been raped.

water, i apoligise. let me speak.

You misunderstand.
In my self-defense, I could inflict some harm on the attacker -- and one should by no means inflict harm ...
How much harm could you inflict? If it is in reaction, God is just.. He will know whether you acted with murderous intent or out of fear. The law would condemn you, but God can forgive you.

Honey, you try appealing to God for power or authority when you've got one holding you down, and the other taking off your pants.
And after the act, think how very attractive and lovable you are after you have been raped.
Appealing to God does not replace your own actions. You may kick and scream all you want, but you won't put them in jail by it, or declare them guilty if nobody catches them. It means you know they won't get away, but it also means you know you might not get away either.

How much harm could you inflict? If it is in reaction, God is just.. He will know whether you acted with murderous intent or out of fear. The law would condemn you, but God can forgive you.

When pushing him away, I could spill his eye. Kick him in the knee and break it, leaving him crippled for good. If I'd get a good kick, cause internal bleedings. Depending on the footwear and my martial practice, breaking his bladder -- which can be lethal.


Appealing to God does not replace your own actions. You may kick and scream all you want, but you won't put them in jail by it, or declare them guilty if nobody catches them. It means you know they won't get away, but it also means you know you might not get away either.

I know that I might not get away with it. But I also know that they most likely will get away with it.

Re: WWJD? I really don't know what that means. It's the first time I see it, and I'm not sure what he means by it. Acronyms tend to have a lot of explanations, so I rather ask.It just seemed unlikely that you would not have encountered this particular phrase, particularly as you contribute so often to Religion. I suppose your English is so good I assumed that you were American or at least lived in America, where (as I understand it) you cannot go a day without seeing a WWJD bumper sticker, t-shirt or bracelet.

"Of course, daughter, you must resist a rapist. You must act in defence of your life, or the lives of your family and children. You must act in defence of anybody who is being hurt."Are you really sure about this? Defence can be quite bloody, and violent. My point was that it's easy to take the nonviolence ideal out of context and claim that Jesus's instruction was absolute and for all times and all conditions, and that if Jesus had immediately been asked "what about a woman who is being raped", he would have said "Obviously that's a different matter."

Another rather more obvious answer is that someone who strikes you is committing a sin. If you strike her back, you are committing the same sin, so it's bad. Fighting back against a rapist, however, is working to stop a far worse sin from occurring. You're hardly "stooping to his level" when defending yourself against intimate violation.

The problem with asking such a question on an Internet forum like this is that you are going to get answers like that of Adstar, that are not backed by any knowledge of how questions just like this have been examined throughout at least two and a half millennia of theology (to include the oldest Rabbinical thought). I feel that if Adstar had asked his priest instead of simply stating an absolute position based solely on Christ's precise words, he might have got a bit of a shock!

Just on a purely sensible, rational, pragmatic level, I cannot imagine that any raped woman who happened to be a Catholic went to her Father Confessor because she thought she had acted contrary to Jesus's teaching. Though I can imagine that in times past there were those priests who were willing to tell her that she did. Most would be horrified at the thought of leaving someone with the idea that somehow it's better for a mortal sin to be committed rather than strive with all one's might to prevent it.

Re: WWJD? It just seemed unlikely that you would not have encountered this particular phrase, particularly as you contribute so often to Religion. I suppose your English is so good I assumed that you were American or at least lived in America, where (as I understand it) you cannot go a day without seeing a WWJD bumper sticker, t-shirt or bracelet.

Really? I wouldn't know. I live in Europe, and English is my third language ...


The problem with asking such a question on an Internet forum like this is that you are going to get answers like that of Adstar, that are not backed by any knowledge of how questions just like this have been examined throughout at least two and a half millennia of theology (to include the oldest Rabbinical thought). I feel that if Adstar had asked his priest instead of simply stating an absolute position based solely on Christ's precise words, he might have got a bit of a shock!

It should not matter where the question is asked!
A Christian is to strive to be a Christian at all times and places, right?

Yes, but even a Christian is not forced to have considered each and every question that might arise through the incompatibilities with various parts of scripture. I cite Adstar as a perfect example. If you genuinely wanted to know the Christian viewpoint on protecting yourself against rape for a deep reason - for example you were thinking of taking up Christianity - you wouldn't ask a deep question like this of any ordinary Christian you were acquainted with, you'd go to a priest. But as you want to just have an argument for arguing's sake (I am not being at all derogatory, I enjoy it, that's why I'm here as an atheist defending a Christian viewpoint), you are not unlikely to get underinformed views.

If it's your third language, your written English is remarkably high quality, but I've encountered that from Eastern Europeans before. Ah, for a decent Communist education! :P

This passage in Deuteronomy might be relevant, at least to indicate how rape was viewed:
Deut.22:25-27 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

This is paralleled in the Middle Assyrian Law: “If a wife of a man should walk along the main thoroughfare and should a man seize her and say to her, ‘I want to have sex with you!’—she shall not consent but she shall protect herself; should he seize her by force and fornicate with her—whether they discover him upon the woman or witnesses later prove the charges against him that he fornicated with the woman—they shall kill the man; there is no punishment for the woman.” (Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Martha T. Roth, Scholars Press:1995.)

Oh, I just love the carefully considered reflection of ancient languages: "I want to have sex with you!" :rolleyes:

You forgot to mention where in the Bible, the next verse (or is it the previous one?) condemns the woman if she were raped in the city on the basis that if it were raped she would have been able to scream, and that if she screamed, she would have been helped. There's an almost implicit assumption that such help would automatically occur before any rape took place, with no consideration whatsoever of the individual circumstances, like for example if she were attacked from behind and instantly gagged. The whole emphasis is on judging the woman entirely on the basis of where she was raped. The Assyrian laws seem far more considered and considerate.

A Christian is to strive to be a Christian at all times and places, right?
When religion puts the principles above their intention, it becomes an empty set of rules - completely missing the point and its reasoning for being there in the first place. Jesus payed with his life under such a religion, and Christians would be undoing his work if they reverted to the same mindless religiosity.

Jesus aimed to change hearts and attitudes, and restore a relationship with God, so that when important matters have to be considered we could have more than just words to draw from, but a living faith.

A mindless application of principles leads to legalism and inappropriate (read: unjust and unjustified) conclusions. They're worth nothing but to keep people in guilt and fear of punishment. They cannot show mercy, they cannot love, and they cannot forgive. That is what being a Christian is supposed to be, without neglecting the law.

The law that condemns the rapist is the same one that will watch the victim's actions. Forgiveness is only possible if you leave "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" up to God. And without forgiveness, all sinners would be equally lost.

Oh, I just love the carefully considered reflection of ancient languages: "I want to have sex with you!" :rolleyes:

You forgot to mention where in the Bible, the next verse (or is it the previous one?) condemns the woman if she were raped in the city on the basis that if it were raped she would have been able to scream, and that if she screamed, she would have been helped. There's an almost implicit assumption that such help would automatically occur before any rape took place, with no consideration whatsoever of the individual circumstances, like for example if she were attacked from behind and instantly gagged. The whole emphasis is on judging the woman entirely on the basis of where she was raped. The Assyrian laws seem far more considered and considerate.
You are referring to this:
Deut. 22:23-24 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife.
You don't seem to follow your own advice, and simply extrude from the literal reading that it is the same as a clause from any modern legal statute, which tries its best to accomodate every possible eventuality (judges aren't trusted to think for themselves anymore). What happened to rabbinical application? Did you consult the Talmud or the Oral Law on this?

The difference is that in the country, the girl is assumed innocent because it cannot be proven otherwise - she is given the benefit of the doubt. But in the city, where there may be witnesses, she is not automatically pardoned. That she did not "scream for help" means there is no evidence that she was not consenting. For instance, in 2 Samuel 13, where Amnon raped Tamar in the city, the law that "the girl must die" was obviously not enforced. Instead, she went to live with her brother Absolom.

Quite right, Jenyar, but give me some credit for knowing the verse! I didn't look it up or anything! :) Can I ask, as a Christian are you in the habit of consulting the Talmud or Mishnah?

Nevertheless, I was just showing off, I think your original point is a good one. Clearly there is scriptural backing for showing some kind of resistance although it has to be said that turning the other cheek is one doctrine which is distinctly different in Christianity from Judaism.

Heck yes, defend yourself if someone is trying to rape you. Do whatever it takes to defend your virtue, because virtue is more precious than life itself. If you have to break the "turn the other cheek" rule, that's a minor infraction, IMHO, if someone is trying to rob you of precious virtue.

Yes, but even a Christian is not forced to have considered each and every question that might arise through the incompatibilities with various parts of scripture.

I'm afraid the example opening this thread is all too much a matter of everyday life.
There is no excuse to be ignorant on this.


If you genuinely wanted to know the Christian viewpoint on protecting yourself against rape for a deep reason - for example you were thinking of taking up Christianity - you wouldn't ask a deep question like this of any ordinary Christian you were acquainted with, you'd go to a priest.

A Catholic priest?
I have a deep distrust for them.


But as you want to just have an argument for arguing's sake

NOT AT ALL.
So much on this forum is about arguments for or against accepting Christianity. The matter ought to be taken seriously, and I am taking it seriously.
If I merely wanted to argue, I'd go to the politics forum. You never see me there.


you are not unlikely to get underinformed views.

In which case, Christians reading this should get themselves informed.



If it's your third language, your written English is remarkably high quality, but I've encountered that from Eastern Europeans before. Ah, for a decent Communist education! :P

*tsk tsk*
Out on a witch hunt?


* * *



Deut.22:25-27 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

And if the girl is not pledged to be married?


Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death.

But she has to live with the shame, and a possible bastard child.
*She* is *in effect* the bad one.

38. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.As opposed to striking him back?40. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.As opposed to suing him back and taking his tunic?41. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.As opposed to forcing him to go back a mile with you?42. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.As opposed to saying; "Only if you give me this in return"?-- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?No. Just don't repay evil with evil. Like - if you had the strength - preventing him from raping you and then (if he becomes helpless) poking his butt with a lamp post.19. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20. you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.Which includes preventing others from defiling it in any way. I think it all depends on who dominates the situation as implied earlier by Jenyar. Defend yourself. Anything else I would state has already been stated in one paraphrase or the other. I think the Christian position has been defended.

IF Jesus this and Jesus that.

I'm not one to speculate, my dear cynic.

If being a Christian means emulating Christ, then you have no right to be outraged at what is a comparably enviable state of affairs. Scourged for your iniquities he was, and yet you wag your fist at divine admonition! Please do answer:

WWJD?

Write that out in full.

See Silas' post.

***

Silas,

water is secretly a militant atheist hellbent on disproving God. Haven't you noticed the insidious trend?

god doesnt exist.
if god existed, he would not have allowed hitler and the holocaust to happen.

Hapsburg: god doesnt exist. if god existed, he would not have allowed hitler and the holocaust to happen.
*************
M*W: Oh, but he would have allowed it to happen, because if he existed, he would be the evil creator who created humanity as a sick joke.

fyi WWJD=what would Jebus drive www.highrock.com/personal/WWJD :D

yeah, MW. that's exactly my point.
wouldn't god be kinda evil if he actually allowed hitler to do what he did, and whatnot. And not just hitler, but other mass-murderers, too?

Hapsburg: yeah, MW. that's exactly my point.
wouldn't god be kinda evil if he actually allowed hitler to do what he did, and whatnot. And not just hitler, but other mass-murderers, too?
*************
M*W: You know, Hapsburg, I was raised in an agnostic home then later became a devout Catholic. I went as far as I could go as a Christian, but my questions just weren't being answered. In fact, they were being avoided by the clergy to the point they told me that as a woman, I shouldn't be asking questions, so I went searching on my own. Then I realized that Jesus wasn't crucified and that he was married to Mary Magdalen and they had children who married into French royalty. I came to sciforums in 2001 still, however, believing in God, although I had a different perception of God that humanity is God. Actually, all creation is "god." But after getting bashed time and again by the xians on this forum, I realized that there couldn't possibly be a creator of the universe, and that humanity was the true creator. I also learned that there were no original gods but the sun and moon, planets, etc. I went on to research that aspect, and sure enough, the god perceived by the ancients was the sun. The sun created warmth on the Earth and melted the icecaps, warmed the oceans, and the sea creatures walked upon land, etc. Early humans needed an explanation for things they didn't understand, and the elements were feared and awed as gods. I then became an atheist right here on this forum, but I continued to research for answers. However, the xians are now convincing me that Jesus never existed as he was just another dying demigod savior invented by Paul. There may have been an historical Jesus, but he was not God nor did he die for anyone's sins. The more I read xian posts, the more convinced I become that they are all delusional and loving it. What are your opinions about Jesus's existence?

M*W: You know, Hapsburg, I was raised in an agnostic home then later became a devout Catholic. I went as far as I could go as a Christian, but my questions just weren't being answered. In fact, they were being avoided by the clergy to the point they told me that as a woman, I shouldn't be asking questions, so I went searching on my own. Then I realized that Jesus wasn't crucified and that he was married to Mary Magdalen and they had children who married into French royalty. I came to sciforums in 2001 still, however, believing in God, although I had a different perception of God that humanity is God. Actually, all creation is "god." But after getting bashed time and again by the xians on this forum, I realized that there couldn't possibly be a creator of the universe, and that humanity was the true creator. I also learned that there were no original gods but the sun and moon, planets, etc. I went on to research that aspect, and sure enough, the god perceived by the ancients was the sun. The sun created warmth on the Earth and melted the icecaps, warmed the oceans, and the sea creatures walked upon land, etc. Early humans needed an explanation for things they didn't understand, and the elements were feared and awed as gods. I then became an atheist right here on this forum, but I continued to research for answers. However, the xians are now convincing me that Jesus never existed as he was just another dying demigod savior invented by Paul. There may have been an historical Jesus, but he was not God nor did he die for anyone's sins. The more I read xian posts, the more convinced I become that they are all delusional and loving it. What are your opinions about Jesus's existence?
you know, ithink you've made the most sense on this board so far.
Jesus? Huh, well i think that he did exist, and did preach peace and whatnot. After he was punished by the Romans for his beliefs, the 'new cult on the block' used hi mas a martyr, and the rest is history.
I also think that he and mary magdalyn had children, and they tried to set up thier own churches. but they were probably suppressed by the catholic church of the day, who proabably feared losing power.

Then I realized that Jesus wasn't crucified and that he was married to Mary Magdalen and they had children who married into French royalty.

French royalty? In the first century AD?

Thank you, this is the best laugh I had in long.

Yes, but even a Christian is not forced to have considered each and every question that might arise through the incompatibilities with various parts of scripture.I'm afraid the example opening this thread is all too much a matter of everyday life.
There is no excuse to be ignorant on this.Rapes happen every day, but not to everybody every day. And my point later on was that I don't believe most victims worry about their immortal soul. If you genuinely wanted to know the Christian viewpoint on protecting yourself against rape for a deep reason - for example you were thinking of taking up Christianity - you wouldn't ask a deep question like this of any ordinary Christian you were acquainted with, you'd go to a priest. A Catholic priest?
I have a deep distrust for them.What is the relevance of that? I didn't say Catholic priest, and I didn't say Catholic Christianity. I used the example of a Catholic priest elsewhere because it involves a process of Confession of sins. But if you want to become a Catholic, you'd go to a catholic priest. If you wanted to become a Protestant you'd go to a Lutheran priest and if you wanted to become a Jew you'd go to a rabbi.

But as you want to just have an argument for arguing's sakeNOT AT ALL.
So much on this forum is about arguments for or against accepting Christianity. The matter ought to be taken seriously, and I am taking it seriously.
If I merely wanted to argue, I'd go to the politics forum. You never see me there.We're talking back and forth on a forum. I admit I'm here not just to argue but hopefully to enlighten and inform. But at the end of the day, water, you are not making a serious enquiry for your own benefit and I am not trying to help you become a Christian (God forbid!). You've raised an issue to provoke debate rather than get an informed answer, and what's wrong with that, say I.you are not unlikely to get underinformed views.In which case, Christians reading this should get themselves informed.Well, I agree of course. And so should atheists like myself.If it's your third language, your written English is remarkably high quality, but I've encountered that from Eastern Europeans before. Ah, for a decent Communist education! :P*tsk tsk*
Out on a witch hunt?I thought I was praising you! I was not having a go at you for having grown up (I assume, unless you're very young) under Communism. Thus the tongue in the cheek.

French royalty? In the first century AD?

Thank you, this is the best laugh I had in long.

you do know, she meant french royalty much later on, married into the decendants of mary mag's kids. like, in the 600s, 700s, 800s, or 900s to the Merovingians or the Carloingians or the Capetians.

water: French royalty? In the first century AD? Thank you, this is the best laugh I had in long.
*************
M*W: Obviously, you are not well-read in the ancient history of Gaul. France as a sovereign country didn't exist then, but the Frankish Empire did. The children of Jesus and MM married into
the royal houses of Gaul. Get a life.

which is what i just explained to him.
the merovingians, carolingians, capetians, etc.
them peoples.

Hapsburg: you do know, she meant french royalty much later on, married into the decendants of mary mag's kids. like, in the 600s, 700s, 800s, or 900s to the Merovingians or the Carloingians or the Capetians.
*************
M*W: Thanks, Hapsburg. Melted ice is borderline illiterate. She has no point of her own but argues everyone else's points. She's just a lonely old broad who doesn't have anything better to do. Melted ice will evaporate soon enough.

And you're right. I was specifically talking about the Merovingians who arose in the 300s AD, the Fisher Kings who were believed to have been sired by a "sea creature" with the wife of Clodio. However, it wasn't actually a "sea creature" that brought about the Merovingians (the "vine of Mary Magdalen"), it was about their progenitor who "came over the sea" to Gaul.

And my point later on was that I don't believe most victims worry about their immortal soul.

They may not worry about their immortal soul, but they surely worry about this life, and the consequences being raped brings along.


What is the relevance of that? I didn't say Catholic priest, and I didn't say Catholic Christianity. I used the example of a Catholic priest elsewhere because it involves a process of Confession of sins. But if you want to become a Catholic, you'd go to a catholic priest. If you wanted to become a Protestant you'd go to a Lutheran priest and if you wanted to become a Jew you'd go to a rabbi.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. But my country (Slovenia) is officially 95% Catholic, the Catholic Church says 99%, the statistics vary. It is very hard to find a non-Catholic priest.


But at the end of the day, water, you are not making a serious enquiry for your own benefit

Then you don't know me well enough.


and I am not trying to help you become a Christian

I have no intention to become a Christian.
This doesn't mean that I have something against them, or that I secretly sympathize with them, or whatever else might be inferred from my words.


(God forbid!).

Oh, that you should say this.


You've raised an issue to provoke debate rather than get an informed answer

That's not true. In case you haven't noticed, I have been quite outraged. And to see whether rightfully, I asked.

And one can get an informed answer here; the medium is perfect for this -- written communication with immediate access to resources. And some people here *are* knowledgeable.

It seems you are assuming that only a priest can give an informed answer. In which case, religion is in effect no different than science where only someone with a PhD is entitled to answer questions. Is religion really such? Something that only the few "elect" know? Or is religion something that is lived, on a daily basis, and thus any adult believer should be able to answer my questions, or direct me to another source?



I thought I was praising you! I was not having a go at you for having grown up (I assume, unless you're very young) under Communism. Thus the tongue in the cheek.

Some things aren't funny, or to be made fun of.


* * *


you do know, she meant french royalty much later on, married into the decendants of mary mag's kids. like, in the 600s, 700s, 800s, or 900s to the Merovingians or the Carloingians or the Capetians.

Yes, and we can all be traced back to Adam, right?

M*W: Obviously, you are not well-read in the ancient history of Gaul. France as a sovereign country didn't exist then, but the Frankish Empire did. The children of Jesus and MM married into
the royal houses of Gaul. Get a life. No, M*W, seriously. You get a life. I'm fully on board with the idea that Jesus and Magdalen were married. But the idea that the bloodline of this peasant couple from Judaea was somehow maintained in secret even as long as Constantine's recognition of Christianity (which was when Christianity first achieved any kind of genuine authority) 250 years after the death of Jesus, let alone the two hundred more years before the Frankish Empire and the Merovingians were established in Gaul, is evident nonsense. In the 1st Century, Gaul was a semi-barbarian land entirely a fiefdom of the pagan Roman Empire. And Judaea had its own problems, what with the revolt in 66 and the destruction of the Temple in 70. The Franks were Germanic tribes who invaded in the 5th Century.

In addition to the inconceivably low probability of the bloodline of the most famous person in the world to have been maintained without break for 2,000 years in secret, that whole Priory of Sion thing was just a hoax (http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html) anyway! The Priory of Sion was established in 1956 by some anti-semitic extreme right wingers who happened to take the name of a monastic order which never had any influence and ceased to exist in 1617. All the supposed documentation making Leonardo and Isaac Newton members, was forged by them.

They may not worry about their immortal soul, but they surely worry about this life, and the consequences being raped brings along.Same thing. Has any raped woman Christian wondered about whether Jesus would have disapproved of her fighting back? Maybe. Is it really likely to be the kind of question the majority of Christians would have considered? I don't think so.I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. But my country (Slovenia) is officially 95% Catholic, the Catholic Church says 99%, the statistics vary. It is very hard to find a non-Catholic priest.Again, the religion is not relevant to my point.But at the end of the day, water, you are not making a serious enquiry for your own benefit Then you don't know me well enough.I don't know you at all, water, but what I meant was you are not a Christian woman who has been raped, fought back against her attacker, and is now concerned as to whether she was supposed to fight back or not. Neither are you a Christian woman who is wondering how she is supposed to respond to a future rapist in light of Jesus's "turn the other cheek". That is what I meant by a "serious enquiry for your own benefit."and I am not trying to help you become a ChristianI have no intention to become a Christian.
This doesn't mean that I have something against them, or that I secretly sympathize with them, or whatever else might be inferred from my words.No, no..... read what I wrote in context - I said that you weren't doing something, and that I wasn't doing something. The thing that I wasn't doing, really didn't have anything to do with you. I'm not trying to make you a Christian, because I'm an atheist, trying to give a better Christian answer to your original question than other Chrstians may have. Whether you want to become Christian or not is irrelevant.God forbid!Oh, that you should say this.Was that offensive to you? I say, "I'm an atheist, thank God". It's a little atheist joke. Sorry if I offended.That's not true. In case you haven't noticed, I have been quite outraged. And to see whether rightfully, I asked.You've been "outraged" in the rape sense, or you've heard something about Christianity that has outraged you? If the former, then I can do nothing but offer you my sympathy and sorrow.And one can get an informed answer here; the medium is perfect for this -- written communication with immediate access to resources. And some people here *are* knowledgeable.

It seems you are assuming that only a priest can give an informed answer. In which case, religion is in effect no different than science where only someone with a PhD is entitled to answer questions. Is religion really such? Something that only the few "elect" know? Or is religion something that is lived, on a daily basis, and thus any adult believer should be able to answer my questions, or direct me to another source?I was trying to contrast the answer of a typical Christian contributor on this site with what you might get from someone who was well versed in theology, of which of course a priest would only be one example.Some things aren't funny, or to be made fun of.I apologise with all my heart if I offended you, particularly if you just don't find Communism a laughable subject.

Hapsburg: you do know, she meant french royalty much later on, married into the decendants of mary mag's kids. like, in the 600s, 700s, 800s, or 900s to the Merovingians or the Carloingians or the Capetians.
*************
M*W: Thanks, Hapsburg. Melted ice is borderline illiterate. She has no point of her own but argues everyone else's points. She's just a lonely old broad who doesn't have anything better to do. Melted ice will evaporate soon enough.

And you're right. I was specifically talking about the Merovingians who arose in the 300s AD, the Fisher Kings who were believed to have been sired by a "sea creature" with the wife of Clodio. However, it wasn't actually a "sea creature" that brought about the Merovingians (the "vine of Mary Magdalen"), it was about their progenitor who "came over the sea" to Gaul.
Actually, the word "merovinger" and "merovingians" came from thier progenator, the gallic warrior Merovech, who supposedly fought at Chalons against Attila, and subsequntly laid the foundations for the Merovingian Dynasty.

Do not resist an evil person


So I am told here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46042&page=2):





Now, let's cut the theoretical BS, talking about religious principles is talking about YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.


So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself?

And, as it is in the nature of violent men, if they could get something once, they will come back for more.

According to you, Christians, I should let this man go on raping me whenever he pleases -- for I am not to resist an evil person?


YOU, Christians, ADSTAR, OKINRUS, JENYAR, LORI 7, CYPERIUM, BEYONDTIMEANDSPACE, MARC AC AND OTHERS, I don't know you all by name -- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?You should try to run for it, but hitting him might just make it worse. Sadistical rapers might actually WANT you to resist! This is also, I believe, a characteristic of evil.

The first chance you see, then flee, but don't tire yourself fighting with one that has advantage - the strength is needed for fleeing.

Fire gets stronger with fire, this is not theoretical, If someone try to rob you, then it's in your best interest to give the money, even if it is unjust. If someone hits you, then you could be in more trouble if you hit back.

I've been in threatning situations, though I can't talk for everyone, I can say that it's safer not to fight against it! If someone hit you, run! Or if there isn't any way out, then TURN THE OTHER CHEEK! Be weak, don't let your pride ruin it! If you hit him (and are weaker than him) then it will only get worse!

Jenyar, you said this awhile back, but I'm surprised no one contradicted it:
The law that condemns the rapist is the same one that will watch the victim's actions. Forgiveness is only possible if you leave "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" up to God. And without forgiveness, all sinners would be equally lost.

WRONG!

Forgiveness is ALWAYS possible, no matter how heinous the offense, as long as the sinner REPENTS. I thought this was basic Christian knowledge.

Anyhow, in light of that fact, I'd do my best to kill the sick fuck who was raping me and then say, "Sorry God, shouldn'ta killed that fucker." Except I'd be sincere, of course, 'cause that way God would forgive me. (heh heh)

(If you didn't notice, I'm not a Christian.)

Anyways, I think a far more interesting direction for this thread is to explore the apparent futility of leading a barren, difficult, pious life (e.g. not fighting back at the rapist) when God's forgiveness is always close at hand?
(Ever seen Boondock Saints?)

And you don't have to tell me that the devout life isn't barren, because that's just my opinion.

That's the problem with ideology, it's not flexible enough to be realistically effective. Not resisting is a good strategy that Buddhists have known forever, even the ones that practice martial arts.

Not resisting is a good strategy that Buddhists have known forever, even the ones that practice martial arts.

Nonsense. Do you even know what "martial" means? Here's a hint: It means just about the opposite of "not resisting".


Edit: OK, that may have come a bit harsh. It's just that you can resist a sideways glance, but not an lethal threat. Martial arts were developed just in order to resist and neutralize threats. Now that's a good strategy. As in "don't just stand there and let them beat you to death" good.

Did that still sound harsh? Oh well, I'm sorry (and slightlly drunk,truth be told)

That's what I'm talking about. Not resisting can be a subtle strategy, such as avoiding blows until the attacker gets tired, then attacking with one blow in the right spot. That's non-resistance in action. My friend is an expert in Hapkido, and he describes the technique with the analogy of water. It doesn't resist directly, but uses the attacker's own force, and redirects the energy against them. In the same way, sometimes it is best to not actively resist evil people. It lets them know you are their enemy, whereas if you let them think you are no threat at all, you can retain your strategic advantage, and perhaps attack when it's absolutely necessary. So, if you can be flexible in your interpretation, it can work well, but if you are too literal about it, it sometimes works, sometimes not.

So, jesus said "turn the other cheek", I think that implies more than not resisting evil. It eludes to a lack of ego, or rather, self-identification with the whole human race instead of just this particular body. There might just be a part of the evil person that is not evil, but if you resist, and treat them as totally evil, they might never redeem themselves.

It's like if I said, you drunk asshole, you don't know shit, then a verbal fight ensues. We might never realize that there are similarities in our position. Instead, I redirect your comment towards what I'm trying to get across, and in doing so, find common ground.

It's like if I said, you drunk asshole, you don't know shit, then a verbal fight ensues. We might never realize that there are similarities in our position. Instead, I redirect your comment towards what I'm trying to get across, and in doing so, find common ground.

Heh. The fact is, I'm a drunk asshole, and I don't know shit. You have me pegged.

Obviously, we just have very different concepts of what "not resisting" is.
I mean, avoiding blows blows until the attacker gets tired? then attacking with one blow in the right spot?
That, for me, is the definition of "resisting". You know, as an opposite of "taking blows blows until the attacker gets tired" and "never once attacking".

Oh, and we don't have to find common ground. We can just disagree, man. No big deal. I still love you.

Yes, that's why a fixed, rigid ideology will always have occaisions where it is the wrong thing to do, but if one is flexible, and smart enough to apply a principle where it is appropriate, you can always find the right thing to do.

Silas: No, M*W, seriously. You get a life. I'm fully on board with the idea that Jesus and Magdalen were married. But the idea that the bloodline of this peasant couple from Judaea was somehow maintained in secret even as long as Constantine's recognition of Christianity (which was when Christianity first achieved any kind of genuine authority) 250 years after the death of Jesus, let alone the two hundred more years before the Frankish Empire and the Merovingians were established in Gaul, is evident nonsense.
*************
M*W: From all the reading I've done, I just don't find anything alluding to Jesus and MM being a "peasant couple." Quite the contrary. MM was from the royal house of Benjamin, a woman of great wealth, probably in the shipping business, who funded Jesus's mission.
*************
Silas: In the 1st Century, Gaul was a semi-barbarian land entirely a fiefdom of the pagan Roman Empire. And Judaea had its own problems, what with the revolt in 66 and the destruction of the Temple in 70. The Franks were Germanic tribes who invaded in the 5th Century.
*************
M*W: I will agree with your history; however, there was commercial shipping trade going on between Jerusalem and parts beyond to the East to Gaul in years BC. Southern Gaul, Spain, Italy (whatever it was called, I forgot), was populated with Jews from Jerusalem as well as the Moors who didn't get pushed back by Charles Martel. Even Pontius Pilate and the Herodian family retired to Southern Gaul (France). I maintain that Jesus was not crucified due to MM's family connections with Herod's family. Even Jesus's mother was related to the Herodian Family, so there were many opportunities for Jesus to be let go.
*************
Silas: In addition to the inconceivably low probability of the bloodline of the most famous person in the world to have been maintained without break for 2,000 years in secret, that whole Priory of Sion thing was just a hoax (http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html) anyway!
*************
M*W: Please provide other references to the hoax theory. Here's the genealogy of Jesus, taken from Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Secret Genealogy of Jesus, by Laurence Gardner, starting with the first century AD, even though Gardner has traced backward into BC dates, I'll start with Jesus's and MM's lineage:

Jesus & MM - (1) Daughter named Tamar born 33AD in Jerusalem
b.7BC & 3AD (2) Son named Jesus II Justus born 37AD in Bethany?
married 30AD (3) Son named Josephes born 44AD in Gaul

Tamar & Clodomir (1) Son named Antenor
(1) Grandson named Ratherius
(1) GGSon named Richemer
(1) GGGSson named Odomar
(1) GGGGS named Marcomer
Marcomer & Athildis (1) GGGGGS named Clodomir
Clodomir & Basilda (1) GGGGGGS named Farabert
(1) GGGGGGGS named Sunno
(1) GGGGGGGGS named Hilderic
(1) GGGGGGGGGS named Bartherius
(1) GGGGGGGGGGS named Clodius
(1) GGGGGGGGGGS named Walter
(1) GGGGGGGGGGGS DagobertI
(1) G12S Dagobert II
(1) G13S Frotmund
(1) G14S Faramund
Faramund & Argotta (1) G15S Clodion
Clodion & Basina I (1) G16S Meroveus
Meroveus & Menira (1) G17S Childeric
Childeric & Basina II (1) G18S Clovis
Clovis & Clothilde (1) G19S & beyond Merovingian Dyn.

I hope this is somewhat accurate. The Merovingian Dynasty can easily be found online. So, considering a generation to be about 20 years, these folks were about 20 generations removed from Jesus and MM. Also, the children of Joseph of Arimathea also married into the royal houses of Europe. JofA was an uncle to Jesus and MM, from the royal Benjamins of Jerusalem. I believe he was a brother to Jesus's mother. The sons of Jesus & MM may have assumed other names as did many dynastic peoples.
*************
Silas: The Priory of Sion was established in 1956 by some anti-semitic extreme right wingers who happened to take the name of a monastic order which never had any influence and ceased to exist in 1617. All the supposed documentation making Leonardo and Isaac Newton members, was forged by them.
*************
M*W: But Leonardo's art holds secret clues about the genealogy of Jesus and MM, and he was able to slither them by the RCC who had commissioned most of them without penalty. I do believe the Priory of Sion was named by the Knights Templar, although I shall stand corrected on this. There are just too many clues not to lead anywhere significant, and I believe when they finally put them all together, it will destroy Christianity because they will either find Jesus's bones or the fact that he didn't die on the cross.

If you have any further information on this subject, I'd be interested in hearing it.

So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself?

Although Jesus did say to turn the other cheek, he didn't say to bow in submission. Each situation demands a different response. It's usually best to turn the cheek when only material is at stake, but sometimes it's not just material. Also, self-defence is really the protection of non-violence. You're stopping someone from committing violence against you.

I mean, avoiding blows blows until the attacker gets tired? then attacking with one blow in the right spot?

Simple. Don't resist while being raped. A meditation might help during the period. When the attacker gets tired, rape him back. :p

*She* is *in effect* the bad one.
Morally bad? Many raped women actually come to the same conclusion as you. They blame themselves because they feel they somehow deserved it, or that they have been irreparably defiled by this evil. It's called "survivor's guilt", and it's usually the second thing cousellors have to address. The psychological effects of rape, or even of attempted rape, is the actual harm inflicted. That goes on long after any physical wounds have healed. (The first thing is the victim's fear of not being believed, that their experience was "not important").
"Some women say that they feel as though there is something wrong with them, something bad about them, which caused the rape to happen to them.

Almost all women who have been raped feel some guilt about it. They think of things they 'should' have done to stop the attack, such as 'if only I had screamed', 'if only I had locked the door', 'if only I hadn't accepted a lift from him'." (Myths about rape (http://www.fijiwomen.com/faqs/rape.htm))

"While you would expect guilt and shame from women who were raped, it is amazing to discover even more guilt and shame in women who avoided being raped."
Only the rapist causes the rape. The woman is innocent because she is innocent.

Back on topic, I think it might help for everyone interested to read this website: Escape from rape (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/escape.html).
To hit or not to hit
Hitting someone is not in and of itself bad.

However, the problem is that you should never hit someone with any other purpose than to knock him out.

In other words: If you aren't striking to "deck him," don't hit him.

...

If you ask most police officers who they would rather face a criminal attempting to climb over them to escape or a drunk who wants to fight them, they will almost all say "the fighter." That's because someone who is attempting to fight you is going to do far less damage to you than someone who is dedicated to climbing over your face in order to escape. Also someone who is trying to fight you is predictable and easily overwhelmed.

Absolutely defend yourself. There is most definitely precedence to defend oneself if attacked. There is certainly precendence to accept suffering as it comes, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with defending oneself when attacked. I am Christian, and I have been asked to speak about this. This is what I believe, and this is what my religion also believes.

Should Jesus have defended Himself when the priests and the guards pounced on Him in the garden, or when they crucified Him at Golgotha?

WWJD?

That's what we should do too.

Well, we have what Jesus said. We all say things, don't we.

Then we have what Jesus does. Jesus was angry with the Moneychangers for not packing up their tables simply because he made the request, and so he waded into them with a whip and smashed their tabltes.

Nice guy, huh?

Then we have the story about how the Pharisees had whipped this one small town into a hate-Jesus frenzy and they grabbed him and the mob was going to toss him over the side of a cliff. But Jesus, somehow, got away.

Okay.... how? How, if he did not in someways 'resist'.

Then we have Jesus on the way to being Crucified, and he lays a curse of destruction upon Jerusalem. Jesus was not beyond being a bit vindictive.

And then we have the Parables, and even the Sermon of the Mount which speak of Judgment. We need to remember that the Christian Notion of Universal Forgiveness began with Paul, and for probably no better reason then such an easy doctrine was easy to sell to the Greeks -- Paul did not care so much about Spiritual and Religious Truths as he was concerned about successful membership drives. More than one Parable speaks of Holy Retribution.

And regarding what Christ did have to say... turning the other cheak and all of that. Well, we must be careful about applying momentary tactics universally. When one's group is entirely outnumbered, then of course the order of the day is to bow down and show submission and to sneak quietly away, when to put up a fight would be to invite an inevitable slaughter. But what happens when the table turns, and the Christians suddenly outnumber the lions? Do you suppose that once a Community is primarily Christian that it still must put up with Secular and Atheisitic abuses? Certainly not! What does it mean for Christ to be King of Kings if Christ is not permitted to give the Orders?

Well if you die from an attack you didn't resist, you get to meet jesus sooner right?

Well if you die from an attack you didn't resist, you get to meet jesus sooner right?

Correct.

We cannot lose. :)


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

if someone tried to rape me, i'd shoot him in the face. several times over.Aim lower. Much lower.

Do not resist an evil person


So I am told here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46042&page=2):





Now, let's cut the theoretical BS, talking about religious principles is talking about YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.


So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself?

And, as it is in the nature of violent men, if they could get something once, they will come back for more.

According to you, Christians, I should let this man go on raping me whenever he pleases -- for I am not to resist an evil person?


YOU, Christians, ADSTAR, OKINRUS, JENYAR, LORI 7, CYPERIUM, BEYONDTIMEANDSPACE, MARC AC AND OTHERS, I don't know you all by name -- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?

Melted Ice,

It should be quite evident to you by now. 'God' doesn't exist.

God's existence as an idea(l) is more than sufficient for many of our fellow humans to... do what they do with the notion.

Same with Capitalism and the pursuit of happiness. People will do what they do, nobody argues that.

As you once said... meme supreme.

I still wonder which meme allows people to recognize other memes with such confident objectivity, and how it was acquired!

Do not resist an evil person


So I am told here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46042&page=2):





Now, let's cut the theoretical BS, talking about religious principles is talking about YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.


So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself?

And, as it is in the nature of violent men, if they could get something once, they will come back for more.

According to you, Christians, I should let this man go on raping me whenever he pleases -- for I am not to resist an evil person?


YOU, Christians, ADSTAR, OKINRUS, JENYAR, LORI 7, CYPERIUM, BEYONDTIMEANDSPACE, MARC AC AND OTHERS, I don't know you all by name -- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?

Kick him in the nuts, and ask for forgiveness later -- just kidding. ;)

Just use common sense.

I can only imagine what would have happened in Sodom, if one of those "overly friendly street people" got a hold of one of the "men" angels at Lot's house -- like having sex with a wall socket. :eek:

I still wonder which meme allows people to recognize other memes with such confident objectivity, and how it was acquired!

That's not a meme, it's reality.

That's not a meme, it's reality.
I'm sorry, but how is this different from the claim made by the God-meme?

Kick him in the nuts, and ask for forgiveness later -- just kidding. ;)

Just use common sense.
I agree, but someone's common sense depends a lot on the person they are, and the result will depend on what the circumstances dictate.

In Matt. 5:39, "do not resist an evil person" refers to someone who has already asserted power over you - when the eye or the tooth has already been taken, or the cheek has already been slapped, not to repay his evil with more evil, and reproducing the problem. Before you can do that, you will have to be governed by a commitment to non-violence and peaceful resolution, and any initial resistance should be towards that goal, not away from it. Someone who retaliates rather than defends seems more committed to violence than averting it. But defense or avoidance is not necessarily the same as retaliation or even conflict-causing resistance. After all, isn't turning the other cheek just a form of resistance designed to absorb violence instead of escalating it?

Studies in rape show that a "shared commitment to violence and a shared concept of aggressive masculinity" (Deming & Eppy, "The Sociology of Rape" Sociology and Social Research, 65(4) 1981:364) is characteristic of a culture of violence where rape is prevalent. Not to further such a culture means not to share its commitment to violent means and aggressive assertions of power. Especially since in rape the outcome of violent resistance is far from certain.
It emerges from this study that active resistance is unlikely to be effective in rape locations which are private, or with rapists who are extremely violent from the start of the rape. In these situations, psychological tactics may be more successful. However, in more public locations, active resistance may scare the rapist, who wishes to avoid detection. - Study by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (http://www.wits.ac.za/csvr/papers/paprapel.htm)
But during rape, the victim is not in control of the situation anymore, and their personal preferences, about everything from sexual purity to non-violence, cease to have bearing (for the worse). "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Rom. 12:18). But when the outcome ceases to depend on someone, whether they resist violently or are frozen in fear makes little difference to the rapist - as Deut. 22:26 says: it's like murder, and people should attempt to escape that. There is no other cheek to turn, and there's no point in arguing about what someone does or doesn't do under such circumstances, unless it means committing an equal or worse crime. Focusing on the victim's "will" in circumstances where that will was suppressed is a red herring, because it puts the emphasis on the victim's subjective state rather than on the criminal actions of the perpetrator.

Either way, I think it's safe to say that there's no danger of the victim raping the rapist in resistance. We do have courts to recognize any injustice done by either party.

Jenyar said:

But during rape, the victim is not in control of the situation anymore, and their personal preferences, about everything from sexual purity to non-violence, cease to have bearing (for the worse). "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Rom. 12:18). But when the outcome ceases to depend on someone, whether they resist violently or are frozen in fear makes little difference to the rapist - as Deut. 22:26 says: it's like murder, and people should attempt to escape that. There is no other cheek to turn, and there's no point in arguing about what someone does or doesn't do under such circumstances, unless it means committing an equal or worse crime. Focusing on the victim's "will" in circumstances where that will was suppressed is a red herring, because it puts the emphasis on the victim's subjective state rather than on the criminal actions of the perpetrator. .

If some guy tries to put his willie up my rear end, we're fighting to the death, because I'm putting my faith on the line. I'm a guy by the way. My famous last words, "Just treat me like you would treat Jesus." OK so he kills me with a bullet. Then I become a martyr like Rachel Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Scott) in the Columbine High School Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre). Rachel was asked at gunpoint if she believed in God. She said "yes", then she was killed.

You're right -- I'm not in control anymore, but God is. But if I let God be in control, the rape probably wouldn't happen to start with. I've never heard of a ministry for recovering christian rape victims that were letting God be in control when they were victimized. If God can protect Daniel in a den of lions, or Schadrech, Meshech, and Abidnigo in a fiery furnace, or Lot from a street full of sodomites, then he can protect me or anyone else as well that has faith in him. If he decides my time is up, like with Rachel Scott, then let it be.

Keep in mind that for every Daniel there were hundreds of Christians who were killed by wild animals in the collosseums because of their belief in God. God never promised to take us out of suffering, just to take the suffering out of us. While we're in the world, we will face the same storms that everybody else suffer from, and this "calls for patient endurance and faithfulness" (Rev. 13:10). Sin affects everyone equally.
John 16:33
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

I still wonder which meme allows people to recognize other memes with such confident objectivity, and how it was acquired!


That's not a meme, it's reality.


I'm sorry, but how is this different from the claim made by the God-meme?



Reality isn't a cultural unit of information that propogates through people like a virus; thus, it's not a meme. Reality-based claims differ from 'God' based claims in one key element. Evidence.

You mean reproduceable evidence, observed from one particular perspective: the empirical one. And even such evidence had to be reinterpreted and re-evaulated throughout history - or people would have gotten everything right from the first observation. If the premises are wrong, so are the theories and the conclusions drawn from them. Contrary to the popular adage, evidence never speaks for itself, people interpret what they observe.

There would be no discernable difference between a "meme" passed on through generations of people who believe in a certain scientific theory or approach, or the meme passed on through generations of people who fervently hold to any other belief system. You have people sitting with what they believe to be the best explanation for what they have observed in both cases, and passing it on.

You mean reproduceable evidence, observed from one particular perspective: the empirical one.

I do mean empirical evidence and not necessarily reproducible evidence. Take the background radiation of the cosmos. Certainly not reproducible, but very observable.


And even such evidence had to be reinterpreted and re-evaulated throughout history - or people would have gotten everything right from the first observation. If the premises are wrong, so are the theories and the conclusions drawn from them. Contrary to the popular adage, evidence never speaks for itself, people interpret what they observe.

Yes, people do misinterpret evidence. That is why it's important to ask reality questions. Take some observations, model a theory, and test some predictions of the theory. If reality disagrees with the predictions then those predictons are incorrect; hence, the model is incorrect and has to be re-done.


There would be no discernable difference between a "meme" passed on through generations of people who believe in a certain scientific theory or approach, or the meme passed on through generations of people who fervently hold to any other belief system. You have people sitting with what they believe to be the best explanation for what they have observed in both cases, and passing it on.

You are absolutely correct in that any information can be meme-able and scientific theory is no exception. Religious beliefs are ALWAYS a meme; whereas, scientific theory are not always a meme; although, I don't know what their meme to non-meme ration might be.

Theories aren't absolute truths and anyone whom understands theories knows this. They are flexible and can be discarded / remodeled as new evidence surfaces. Let's look at M-Theory for example. In my opinion its a great model and I WANT it to be true; however, to date it has been virtually untestable. That changes in 2007 with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in Geneva. If LHC experiments falsify the theory's predictions then it might be back to the drawing board. If they agree with and falsify some predictions then the theory can be remodeled. At some point a really good theory may have so much supportive evidence that the core idea behind it can be considered definitively true, but the details may be under constant remodeling.

Either way, a belief doesn't share that flexibility. It's is a claim of absolute truth and is bound to a person's sense of self so tightly that to contradict it threatens the life / self-worth of the individual. I suspect thats why they are so prone to meming.

I agree, but someone's common sense depends a lot on the person they are, and the result will depend on what the circumstances dictate.

In Matt. 5:39, "do not resist an evil person" refers to someone who has already asserted power over you - when the eye or the tooth has already been taken, or the cheek has already been slapped, not to repay his evil with more evil, and reproducing the problem. Before you can do that, you will have to be governed by a commitment to non-violence and peaceful resolution, and any initial resistance should be towards that goal, not away from it. Someone who retaliates rather than defends seems more committed to violence than averting it. But defense or avoidance is not necessarily the same as retaliation or even conflict-causing resistance. After all, isn't turning the other cheek just a form of resistance designed to absorb violence instead of escalating it?

Studies in rape show that a "shared commitment to violence and a shared concept of aggressive masculinity" (Deming & Eppy, "The Sociology of Rape" Sociology and Social Research, 65(4) 1981:364) is characteristic of a culture of violence where rape is prevalent. Not to further such a culture means not to share its commitment to violent means and aggressive assertions of power. Especially since in rape the outcome of violent resistance is far from certain.
It emerges from this study that active resistance is unlikely to be effective in rape locations which are private, or with rapists who are extremely violent from the start of the rape. In these situations, psychological tactics may be more successful. However, in more public locations, active resistance may scare the rapist, who wishes to avoid detection. - Study by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (http://www.wits.ac.za/csvr/papers/paprapel.htm)
But during rape, the victim is not in control of the situation anymore, and their personal preferences, about everything from sexual purity to non-violence, cease to have bearing (for the worse). "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Rom. 12:18). But when the outcome ceases to depend on someone, whether they resist violently or are frozen in fear makes little difference to the rapist - as Deut. 22:26 says: it's like murder, and people should attempt to escape that. There is no other cheek to turn, and there's no point in arguing about what someone does or doesn't do under such circumstances, unless it means committing an equal or worse crime. Focusing on the victim's "will" in circumstances where that will was suppressed is a red herring, because it puts the emphasis on the victim's subjective state rather than on the criminal actions of the perpetrator.

Either way, I think it's safe to say that there's no danger of the victim raping the rapist in resistance.

Have you ever raped anyone, or have you been raped?
Do you actually know, from your experience, what you are talking about?


We do have courts to recognize any injustice done by either party.

Since when are human courts perfect?

Keep in mind that for every Daniel there were hundreds of Christians who were killed by wild animals in the collosseums because of their belief in God.

Really? They were killed because of their belief in God? You think the Romans went and checked each one of them whether he believed in God, before they threw him to the lions?

And how could the Romans (who weren't Christians) be able to tell who is a Christian by Christian criteria?

(Note that, as per you, a Christian is a Christian only by Christian criteria, the criteria proposed by Christians. The Romans didn't subscribe to that criteria, did they?)

Those who were thrown to the lions for being Christians directly confronted the empire by openly claiming to be Christians and denying the state gods. This means that anyone thrown to the lions for being a Christian either was actually Christian or had a death wish.

Have you ever raped anyone, or have you been raped?
Do you actually know, from your experience, what you are talking about?
If only firsthand experience of the topic at hand qualifies someone to discuss it on this board, then we aren't having very many qualified discussions.

Melted Ice,

You think I melted? Hm?


It should be quite evident to you by now. 'God' doesn't exist.

Crunchy, a proper empiricist and logician would not allow himself to make such an unbased claim. You cannot prove a negative. Plus, it is not even clear what is meant by "God".

You think I melted? Hm?

Sounds like you have a different perception of yourself... a frozen victim perhaps?


Crunchy, a proper empiricist and logician would not allow himself to make such an unbased claim. You cannot prove a negative. Plus, it is not even clear what is meant by "God".

You are right on both accounts. The 'God' I am referring to is any religion's claim of 'God'. Thousands of years (and longer) of claim with no supportiing evidence and a steady influx of contradictive evidence as a whole definitively contradicts any religion's claim of 'God'; hence, they are all false.

Really? They were killed because of their belief in God? You think the Romans went and checked each one of them whether he believed in God, before they threw him to the lions?

And how could the Romans (who weren't Christians) be able to tell who is a Christian by Christian criteria?

(Note that, as per you, a Christian is a Christian only by Christian criteria, the criteria proposed by Christians. The Romans didn't subscribe to that criteria, did they?)
Are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement? Haven't you read Pliny's letter to Trajan, for example? His test was simple enough: he tested the strength of their allegiance to God. You don't have to be a Christian to read the Bible, which explains what is expected of them. Jesus said: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven", so Pliny dictates a prayer to the Emperor and the Roman gods, asks them to curse Christ, and lets them decide for themselves whether they're really Christian as it was defined by the person who put the "Christ" in "Christian".

Have you ever raped anyone, or have you been raped?
Do you actually know, from your experience, what you are talking about?
What kind of question is that? You haven't experienced x so you're not qualified to talk about x... that's a bit childish, isn't it? If experience is so required, I might ask in return "have you ever raped anyone, to know what a rapist thinks of resistance and violence"? Because that was my topic. The information in the study I cited comes mostly from rapists, and examines evidence from actual cases.

Crunchy Cat,

I was referring more to the reproducability of the observations. That's what prevents someone from reverifying eye-witness accounts. Suppose that the evidence described in the Bible was witnessed by those who claimed to witness it, then there was evidence, and it would be rational to believe it (and important to carry it down to future generations). I know you don't believe in the trustworthiness of those laymen as you believe in the trustworthiness of our cosmologists and physicists, but that's the only reason you don't think there's any evidence.

Crunchy Cat,
I was referring more to the reproducability of the observations.

Gotcha


That's what prevents someone from reverifying eye-witness accounts. Suppose that the evidence described in the Bible was witnessed by those who claimed to witness it, then there was evidence, and it would be rational to believe it (and important to carry it down to future generations). I know you don't believe in the trustworthiness of those laymen as you believe in the trustworthiness of our cosmologists and physicists, but that's the only reason you don't think there's any evidence.

Education standards from the biblical past were immensly different than they are today. People are prone to belief and fantasy. Testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information. People make claims of the miraculous today that rival those of the past and yet nothing has ever been empirically recorded. All of this produces a plethora of evidence for utterly different ideas... none of which are the existince of a super sentient life form.

Gotcha
If you think so... however, my point stands. Empiricism is not the only means of enquiring valid data, and it may even be ill suited for some fields of enquiry:
[In addition, in the soft sciences, the requirement for a "controlled situation" may actually work against the utility of the hypothesis in a more general situation. When the desire is to test a hypothesis that works "in general", an experiment may have a great deal of internal validity, in the sense that it is valid in a highly controlled situation, while at the same time lack external validity when the results of the experiment are applied to a real world situation. -- Wiki: Design of experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Design_of_experiments)
Also, "Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner", which implies that a high degree of faith needs to be placed on the ability of the practitioner. What might seem like reasonable faith in the method might end up being unreasonable faith in the person applying it.

Education standards from the biblical past were immensly different than they are today. People are prone to belief and fantasy. Testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information. People make claims of the miraculous today that rival those of the past and yet nothing has ever been empirically recorded. All of this produces a plethora of evidence for utterly different ideas... none of which are the existince of a super sentient life form.
And you're sure your perspective doesn't suffer from chronological arrogance - the fallacy that because we know "more" today, the people who knew less historically must have been primitive. Different, yes - but different doesn't equal unreliable. If history is anything to go by, our current understanding is probably just as "unreliable" from a future perspective. That doesn't stop you from making confident claims about what we may be sure of; why should it have stopped people in the past?

Considering that a lot of our present mysteries involve how people in the past managed just what they did, it might help to practice a little humility and provide a little more proof of what you claim here.

Besides, if "testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information", that includes the testimonies of sceintists about their findings. You haven't repeated them yourself, have you? And even if you had, who should reasonably believe you? It still comes down to the trustworthiness of the witness. But what other forms of evidence can one expect history to provide to corroborate unique phenomenological occurences?

Besides, if "testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information", that includes the testimonies of sceintists about their findings. Utter, complete, irredeemable nonsense.
To make a statement like this you would have to have almost zero understanding of the scientific method. Or be lying for the sake of your argument.
Either way it is too late in the day for me to waste time on an ignoramus or a liar. If any casual reader of the thread would genuinely like an explanation of why Jenyar's statement is neck deep bullshit please ask.

CC said:

Testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information.

What's the point of our judiciary system, to find a scapegoat?

If you think so... however, my point stands. Empiricism is not the only means of enquiring valid data, and it may even be ill suited for some fields of enquiry:
[In addition, in the soft sciences, the requirement for a "controlled situation" may actually work against the utility of the hypothesis in a more general situation. When the desire is to test a hypothesis that works "in general", an experiment may have a great deal of internal validity, in the sense that it is valid in a highly controlled situation, while at the same time lack external validity when the results of the experiment are applied to a real world situation. -- Wiki: Design of experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Design_of_experiments)
Also, "Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner", which implies that a high degree of faith needs to be placed on the ability of the practitioner. What might seem like reasonable faith in the method might end up being unreasonable faith in the person applying it.

You have done a great job in pointing out something already known. Hard science has a near 1:1 relationship with reality. Soft science has more layers because we don't have a means to make it "hard" (yet), hence there is alot more interpretation and error. Hard and soft science involve trust in both the data and people wielding the process of science. Exploring science in depth doesn't mysteriously give theology credability in understanding reality nor does it provide evidence that 'God' exists.


And you're sure your perspective doesn't suffer from chronological arrogance - the fallacy that because we know "more" today, the people who knew less historically must have been primitive.

Because we know more today means that people in the past were considerably less knowledgeable.


Different, yes - but different doesn't equal unreliable. If history is anything to go by, our current understanding is probably just as "unreliable" from a future perspective. That doesn't stop you from making confident claims about what we may be sure of; why should it have stopped people in the past?

It does make it unreliable because those people never were educated how to think. Oh look, the sun. It gives warmth and light; therefore, it's 'God'. One thing that is paramount to understand is that humans are prone to belief and fantasy as a default survival mechanism. While its useful and has helped our species to some extent, it is a substitute for truth and myself and many others value truth over our default mode of operation.


Considering that a lot of our present mysteries involve how people in the past managed just what they did, it might help to practice a little humility and provide a little more proof of what you claim here.

It's not a mystery to me how people in the mast survived (maybe it is for others) and humility is irrelevant to it. For some reason you really want to trap me in some corner where you can say, "see, you think you are better than those people...". I am not debating with you to make you feel good about being judgmental, to provide you with social dominance, to stroke your ego, etc. I am debating with you because you are on a science forum, have asserted that 'God' presently exists, and have not provided any evidence of it. Consequently, I noted that you were looking for evidence of something I claimed and (this might be a new experience for you) I would be happy to provide it. What claim in particular may I assist you with?


Besides, if "testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information", that includes the testimonies of sceintists about their findings. You haven't repeated them yourself, have you? And even if you had, who should reasonably believe you? It still comes down to the trustworthiness of the witness. But what other forms of evidence can one expect history to provide to corroborate unique phenomenological occurences?

This is one annoyance I have with the english language. The context of the situation changes the meaning. A testimony in religion is public declaration of some fantastic event / experience. A testimony at a science symposium is a summary of available evidence supporting a theory.

CC said:



What's the point of our judiciary system, to find a scapegoat?

What is the point of the question? To show that the judiciary system only relies on fantastic claim?

Utter, complete, irredeemable nonsense.
To make a statement like this you would have to have almost zero understanding of the scientific method. Or be lying for the sake of your argument.
Either way it is too late in the day for me to waste time on an ignoramus or a liar. If any casual reader of the thread would genuinely like an explanation of why Jenyar's statement is neck deep bullshit please ask.
Sorry if my phrasing offends you, Ophiolite, but Crunchy Cat's answer makes more sense. Speaking of "testimony" is too broad. The testimony of someone who's seen something non-verifiable is phenomenologically different than that of someone who's seen something verifiable. Science itself runs into this problem with the "soft" sciences. This is where you see the faith I was talking about: "...we don't have a means to make it 'hard' (yet)". Well, neither do we. I don't think if the events described really happened it would have been any easier for us to believe them unless we trust the people involved (regardless of how primitive their scientific explanations were).

Reality doesn't just happen to scientists.

What is the point of the question? To show that the judiciary system only relies on fantastic claim?
Do you think it does? What's the point of eye-witness testimony?

I think there might be a confusion of issues here. One's attitude before and after a rape are two totally different issues. Jenyar has very eloquently described issues regarding the "before-the-rape" scenario and the practical implications of defending ones self and the right that one has the right to defend one's self in the light of the quoted passage from the Bible. The attitude after the rape is something completely different. If you have gone to the authorities and they have not been able to track the rapist down, one has two choices. The first would be to live in hate and lust for revenge which will consume you in the long run. The second would be to forgive, so that you can go on with life and grow as an individual. God will avenge for He alone has the power and perspective to do so.

I think the problem might be that people see the Bible as a book of laws and regulations and try all in their power to abide by those laws for various reasons (very few of which have to do with either the love of God or the love of your neighbour). The Bible is about an attitude of love between God and people, between people and God and between people amongst themselves. We are called to love and to direct any action in Life that we take from a vantage and attitude of love. It is as simple and as complex as that.

What is the point of the question? To show that the judiciary system only relies on fantastic claim?

The point of the question is to help you realize that "human testimony" is relied on quite heavily in our court system. So don't through out the baby with the bathwater. Wouldn't you know they have you swear on a "fantastic claim" called a bible?

Do you think it does? What's the point of eye-witness testimony?

Not at all. The point of eye-witness testimony can be to see if it matches physical evidence, to see if there are inconsistencies, to establish credibility, to gain expert interpretation, ... and the list goes on.

The point of the question is to help you realize that "human testimony" is relied on quite heavily in our court system. So don't through out the baby with the bathwater. Wouldn't you know they have you swear on a "fantastic claim" called a bible?

The court system does rely on testimony heavily and the context of any case and scenario changes the definition of testimony wildly. In the cases where case information exists solely in the minds of people, the most error is going to occur.

Yep, I am aware that people swear on the bible. That's a seperation of church and state issue if the courtroom is favoring one philosophy over another (xianity in this case). Someone will eventually change that.

Yep, I am aware that people swear on the bible. That's a seperation of church and state issue if the courtroom is favoring one philosophy over another (xianity in this case). Someone will eventually change that.

I refuse to swear on the bible in court.

I refuse to swear on the bible in court.

Maybe you're that person to enforce the seperation then.

I agree. Nothing could be more beneficial to any society than the separation of church and state. Chrisitianity was never intended to rule, it was intended to serve.

I agree. Nothing could be more beneficial to any society than the separation of church and state. Chrisitianity was never intended to rule, it was intended to serve.

agreed. And someday there will be only one ruler - Jesus Christ. We won't need a judicial system any longer either, because justice will be served instantly. The rest of us will be at liberty to live in peace with one another.

Keep in mind that for every Daniel there were hundreds of Christians who were killed by wild animals in the collosseums because of their belief in God. God never promised to take us out of suffering, just to take the suffering out of us.

But I'll still go down fighting a sex offender if I have to, not that they would be interested in an old guy like me anyway. We have the option of martyrdom as well.

But I'll still go down fighting a sex offender if I have to, not that they would be interested in an old guy like me anyway. We have the option of martyrdom as well.
So would I. Letting yourself be raped would achieve nothing. But a martyr, as I understand it, is someone who died because of his faith (martyr comes from the Greek "witness"). Like Rachel Scott, Perpetua (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/perpetua.html), and perhaps even Maximillian Kolbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe), who volunteered to die in the place of a stranger at Auschwitz.

I liked your account ToR. It's a very real problem - how does a person resist being violated without resorting to violence themselves? Jesus seems to have said lots of things like this that go against common sense. Perhaps he said them to get us to think!

I can't help thinking of the Karpman "drama triangle" of victim/persecutor/rescuer. It is a triangle based on shame, all roles are interlinked. The only way to escape it, is to realise your own role and refuse to play. Fearless "turning the other cheek" might just be such a strategy.

Quote from "The Three Faces of Victim (http://lynneforrest.com/html/the_faces_of_victim.html)" by Lynne Forest.

Most of us unconsciously react to life from a position of victim-hood. Anytime we refuse to take responsibility for ourselves, we are opting to play victim. This leaves us feeling at the mercy of, done in by and un-faired against; no matter what our situation might be.

Victim-hood consists of three positions outlined by Stephen Karpman, a teacher of Transactional Analysis, on what he called the "Drama Triangle". Having learned of it some thirty years ago, it has been one of the most important tools in my personal, as well as professional life. As my understanding of the Drama Triangle has expanded, so has my appreciation for this simple, but powerfully accurate instrument. I call it the "shame machine" because through it we unconsciously re-enact our vicious cycles, thereby creating shame. Every dysfunctional interaction takes place on the Drama Triangle! Until we make these dynamics conscious, we cannot transform them. Unless we transform them, we cannot move forward on our journey towards re-claiming our spiritual heritage.

Karpman named the three roles on the Drama Triangle Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim and placed them on an upside down triangle representing the three faces of victim. Even though only one is called Victim, all three originate out of and end up back there. Therefore they are all stopping places on the road to victim-hood.....

...In order to get off the Triangle, we must first decide to take responsibility for ourselves. We then begin to allow ourselves to acknowledge and express our true feelings, even when doing so is uncomfortable. As we explore our core beliefs and starting gate positions, we become better able to recognize when someone is attempting to hook us, and refuse to allow it.

Both of your contributions were extremely valuable and insightful to me, thank you!

There's a time for everything... but I think the point is that one person's wrong cannot be used to justify another person's wrong.

Again I am not educated in 'Jesus' but didn't he strike someone once, the traders outside the temple?

Note: You are NOT being violent if you are de