Do not resist an evil person

Silas said:
I'm a bit lost here - water is an atheist and SouthStar is a believer again?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...

Are you really sure about this? Defence can be quite bloody, and violent.
 
Last edited:
Gandhi also said a woman should fight with her teeth and nails to the end if her modesty is in danger.
Click to expand...
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.​
 
Jenyar said:
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.​
Click to expand...

This is just another way of saying "Let yourself be raped for the sake of peace".
 
water said:
This is just another way of saying "Let yourself be raped for the sake of peace".
Click to expand...
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?
 
Jenyar said:
How does letting yourself be raped promote peace, or show love or compassion?
Click to expand...

By me not hurting the attacker.
Duh.


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

Do not resist ...

Damn, we need us some ultra-Christians, they'll tell you something about non-resistence.
 
water said:
By me not hurting the attacker.
Duh.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jenyar said:
By me not hurting the attacker.
Duh.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You misunderstand.
In my self-defense, I could inflict some harm on the attacker -- and one should by no means inflict harm ...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jenyar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
water said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

water said:
Silas said:
"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."
Click to expand...
Are you really sure about this? Defence can be quite bloody, and violent.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Silas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
water said:
A Christian is to strive to be a Christian at all times and places, right?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Silas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top