Politician statement about so-called "legitimate" rape

[894tt3h9]

Ahhhh... that makes sense then. But still, I would have thought that even they would have drawn the line at teaching 13th century 'science' as factual. I only brought up Alberta because they're notorious for being very right-wing.

I don't think they even taught it was fact. We were taught Evolution and science with the same material as everyone else. Of course we had to take religion courses and all that garbage but the school I went to was very competitive academically. Who knows! I think it was in my fitness class I heard the rape thing when we did a very small unit on sexual health lol.

 

[Billy]

Well, I quickly start off with his assumption that Erasmus didn't have the best set of texts because I'm lazy and don't want to go upstairs and get the book. He bases the entire book off of that. Why?
@Billy I'm sure other people have my opinion. That book is marketed to new-atheists. Its new-atheist literature. It doesn't have to be correct. No one will check it out.

Well I think its important because well, oral tradition can fuck up the original story. If Erasmus was using copies of copies of copies, which he most certainly would have been considering that there were no printing presses back then. You would have to assume for him to have a legit version of the NT that every copy was copied accurately and historically we know this not to be the case when people copy, copies. Not to mention the oldest piece of surviving book that has been found (to date) to date the original gospels on is the P-52 fragment which is literally just a few scribbles.

Combined with the fact that there are SOOOO many versions of the original gospels written by different people. We have to accept that the validity of them are suspect at best. Especially since they were copied 100s of years after the original gospels were written. It makes sense then why the authorities in Rome would need to stamp out the versions they didn't want and why so many different sects existed, Gnostics, Arians. etc.

So its kind of a tough sell to say that the modern bible is based off of old Alexandrian texts, when the texts themselves are suspect to boot.

At some point someone in Rome decided "well this is the shit were gonna use" and "thats the shit we aint" What prompted such a decision? Power? Truth? We will never know, but we do know that Constantine may not have even been a real Christian, if thats the case he merely converted to unify a crumbling empire, which I would understand considering how fast the Christian cult was growing.

Here is P-52



Thats what we have to go on...

 

[Apone]

I don't think they even taught it was fact. We were taught Evolution and science with the same material as everyone else. Of course we had to take religion courses and all that garbage but the school I went to was very competitive academically. Who knows! I think it was in my fitness class I heard the rape thing when we did a very small unit on sexual health lol.

Ahh, so you weren't really 'taught' that it was more like some typically brilliant PE teacher briefly went outside the curriculum and decided that they needed to bring in their own tremendous insights into the topic, probably while everyone else rolled their eyes and said 'yeah, sure'.

It's all becoming so so clear to me now.

 

[Saru Inc]

Ahh, so you weren't really 'taught' that it was more like some typically brilliant PE teacher briefly went outside the curriculum and decided that they needed to bring in their own tremendous insights into the topic, probably while everyone else rolled their eyes and said 'yeah, sure'.

It's all becoming so so clear to me now.

I think once you say this out loud it might make sense as to what you're saying.

Or I can just say it back so you can call me ridiculous:


Ahh, so you weren't really 'taught' that it was more like some typically brilliant PE teacher briefly went outside the curriculum and decided that they needed to bring in their own tremendous insights into the topic, probably while everyone else rolled their eyes and said 'yeah, sure'.

It's all becoming so so clear to me now.

 

[CindyLou]

Well I think its important because well, oral tradition can fuck up the original story. If Erasmus was using copies of copies of copies, which he most certainly would have been considering that there were no printing presses back then. You would have to assume for him to have a legit version of the NT that every copy was copied accurately and historically we know this not to be the case when people copy, copies. Not to mention the oldest piece of surviving book that has been found (to date) to date the original gospels on is the P-52 fragment which is literally just a few scribbles.

Combined with the fact that there are SOOOO many versions of the original gospels written by different people. We have to accept that the validity of them are suspect at best. Especially since they were copied 10s of years after the original gospels were written. It makes sense then why the authorities in Rome would need to stamp out the versions they didn't want and why so many different sects existed, Gnostics, Arians. etc.

So its kind of a tough sell to say that the modern bible is based off of old Alexandrian texts, when the texts themselves are suspect to boot.

At some point someone in Rome decided "well this is the shit were gonna use" and "thats the shit we aint" What prompted such a decision? Power? Truth? We will never know, but we do know that Constantine may not have even been a real Christian, if thats the case he merely converted to unify a crumbling empire, which I would understand considering how fast the Christian cult was growing.

Here is P-52

View attachment 15031

Thats what we have to go on...

But that's the entire point I guess and somewhere we can agree. He wants me to believe and I guess he was taught to pretend that there is some magic set of greek texts and those are somehow inspired by "God". Lol, there are over 100 different pieces of texts and NONE OF THEM MATCH EACH OTHER. So, that's where Erhman ran into trouble. Why did he assume that those pieces were the inspired, infallible word of God? Why the pieces and just one set of manuscripts? In the second chapter of the book he completely throws out examining any other manuscripts with just a short explanation. Why? But, that's the way it works in neo-evangelism I suppose. I can understand why he lost his faith there, I would too if I had come to Christianity thinking that the texts were the inspired, infallible Word from God Himself and found corruption. But, I guess that wasn't my sticking point..or my tough sell. I didn't care if the bible was infallible, or inspired in the beginning. Miracles. That was my tough sell.

Again, you can trace versions back to three areas. Not all the manuscripts came out of Alexandria, you keep saying its only Alexandrian and focusing only on that.

But even so, now we are getting into history and the philosophy of history. If you were to look at the Greek texts and documents without any assumptions that they are reliable and pretend that they were not religious in nature but treat them the same way any other historian would treat a piece of ancient literature what conclusion would you come to as a historian?

 

[Soulful]

@CindyLou @Billy

Beat it.

 

[Billy]

But that's the entire point I guess and somewhere we can agree. He wants me to believe and I guess he was taught to pretend that there is some magic set of greek texts and those are somehow inspired by "God". Lol, there are over 100 different pieces of texts and NONE OF THEM MATCH EACH OTHER. So, that's where Erhman ran into trouble. Why did he assume that those pieces were the inspired, infallible word of God? Why the pieces and just one set of manuscripts? In the second chapter of the book he completely throws out examining any other manuscripts with just a short explanation. Why? But, that's the way it works in neo-evangelism I suppose. When you start making assumptions like that, of course you'll run into problems.

A tough sell? I'm not trying to sell you that because you can trace back the manuscripts back to three areas. Not all the manuscripts came out of Alexandria, you keep saying its only Alexandrian and focusing only on that. I know exactly what prompted the decision to use those manuscripts in Rome..the DARK forces of EVIL *oooohh* j/k. Lol.

But even so, now we are getting into history and the philosophy of history. If you were to look at the Greek texts and documents without any assumptions that they are reliable and pretend that they were not religious in nature but treat them the same way any other historian would treat a piece of ancient literature what conclusion would you come to as a historian?

Well ifI was a historian I would come to the conclusion that they were inaccurate representations of history that secular historians disagreed with, there was much more to go on of course than just the bible.

And I think you should watch the lecture, because he goes into depth about additions to the gospels that were never even in the originals (like the story of the adulteress and the whole cast the 1st stone story...) that was added 1000 years after the death of christ. And the Ending of Mark which was amended, when the women go to the tomb of Christ and find his body missing, and some man tell them Christ has risen and will meet the disciples in Galilee , but they don't because they are afraid. It wasn't until almost the 1600s when they added an additional 12 verses in where Jesus gives them specific instructions about spreading christianity.

You are telling me that the English bible is based on Erasmus who based his shit on the Alexandrian texts. NOT the Antioch ones... well, if thats the case, how can anyone put faith in that?

Erhman assumes its inspired by god because... thats what Christians believe lol. Thats the whole point. If something is the word of God dont you think you should at least have the right words? And if humans are adding addendum to the word of God, isnt that kind of fucked up? How can a religion based on a book take itself so seriously when the book is so severely flawed?

People, in the US especially believe in the bible, they believe its the word of God, that its historical truth, that going against it is a mortal sin.

And now let me tie this all back into the OT of this thread. These same people make LAWS. THey make laws based on a flawed understanding of a book they probably have never read all the way through, or researched it validity. Thats whats at stake here, our freedom, and the reason why Jefferson was so adamant about keeping religion out of the Government. Shit like the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch trials, so on and so forth were atrocities committed both upon human kind and common sense. How can you use faith, blind faith at that, and a book as a justification for torturing people to death? Now they want to take away the rights of women based on this same book, they want to keep homosexuals from marriage based on it. Its fucked up.

 

[Billy]

@CindyLou @Billy

Beat it.

Naw. For your pleasure I just tied the 2 discussions back together for you, see my last post. Its relevant to the topic.

 

[acd]

I'm actually at a loss for words. Well no, I had a couple phrases I thought I'd pull out, but none of them seem to fit.


1) lol. I threatened to tell you to get back into the kitchen? bitch, please.

2) I tried to embarrass you by asking if you were on your period? bitch, please.

3) You're convinced on not answering a single one of my claims? bitch please.

4) You've not made fun of me, threatened me, or tried to embarrass me for being gay? bitch, please.

5) So everything I believe is wrong because I'm gay and so is a shitty music star? bitch please.

6) It literally does not matter what I say because ironically this is one of the most close midned forums I've ever been on? Hmm.

7) Need I say again you're mentioning god not me?

or do you not fucking get it yet.

yeah, i can be that gay bro who says bitch please.

Your move, Sandra Fluke!

I can tell you're having a hard time. Tell you what: take a day and think it over.

 

[Soulful]

Naw. For your pleasure I just tied the 2 discussions back together for you, see my last post. Its relevant to the topic.

Lol. I see what you did there.

Too bad. It was a fruitful discussion. What a shame to cut it short.

 

[CindyLou]

Well ifI was a historian I would come to the conclusion that they were inaccurate representations of history that secular historians disagreed with, there was much more to go on of course than just the bible.

And I think you should watch the lecture, because he goes into depth about additions to the gospels that were never even in the originals (like the story of the adulteress and the whole cast the 1st stone story...) that was added 1000 years after the death of christ. And the Ending of Mark which was amended, when the women go to the tomb of Christ and find his body missing, and some man tell them Christ has risen and will meet the disciples in Galilee , but they don't because they are afraid. It wasn't until almost the 1600s when they added an additional 12 verses in where Jesus gives them specific instructions about spreading christianity.

You are telling me that the English bible is based on Erasmus who based his shit on the Alexandrian texts. NOT the Antioch ones... well, if thats the case, how can anyone put faith in that?

Erhman assumes its inspired by god because... thats what Christians believe lol. Thats the whole point. If something is the word of God dont you think you should at least have the right words? And if humans are adding addendum to the word of God, isnt that kind of fucked up? How can a religion based on a book take itself so seriously when the book is so severely flawed?

People, in the US especially believe in the bible, they believe its the word of God, that its historical truth, that going against it is a mortal sin.

And now let me tie this all back into the OT of this thread. These same people make LAWS. THey make laws based on a flawed understanding of a book they probably have never read all the way through, or researched it validity. Thats whats at stake here, our freedom, and the reason why Jefferson was so adamant about keeping religion out of the Government. Shit like the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch trials, so on and so forth were atrocities committed both upon human kind and common sense. How can you use faith, blind faith at that, and a book as a justification for torturing people to death? Now they want to take away the rights of women based on this same book, they want to keep homosexuals from marriage based on it. Its fucked up.

Since when does what a bunch of Christians believe = the truth? I'm not interested in what Christians believe. I'm more interested in what is. You keep saying "the English Bible" and you keep saying all English bibles are translated from the same manuscripts, the same source. They're not.

You say that faith is blind, but that doesn't make all faith blind. Yeah, its fvcked up but its people that are fucked up. Not the book. The book isn't a joke. No book is a joke. I'm so used to hearing it that I just roll my eyes at it now. We agree, they do make laws based on a flawed understanding of a book. Don't blame the book though. Blame the people. Kinda like how you were telling me not to blame online dating sites for all the weird people I ran into on those sites?

I don't like abortion. The only reason I don't like abortion is because we teach our kids to value life then wonder why our kids grow up not really valuing life. That's my only issue. I would never call it "murder"; I'd be lying to myself. I do not honestly believe abortion to be the same as something like murder. I mean, come on. I tolerate it, but I don't accept it for myself. I would be really uncomfortable if the option wasn't there. If I were raped non-legit style and got pregnant, I'd get an abortion. You know, early. Something like @ 5 or 6 weeks. I've already thought about it though, so I wouldn't waste weeks figuring out what I was going to do.

Please don't hate me sweet INFJ forum posters... I'm a terrible, selfish, person sometimes and I know I wouldn't be strong enough to handle that type of thing alone.

Plus, If I'm going to stick around here, I'll try my best not to start these up with you in the future.

 

[894tt3h9]

Ahh, so you weren't really 'taught' that it was more like some typically brilliant PE teacher briefly went outside the curriculum and decided that they needed to bring in their own tremendous insights into the topic, probably while everyone else rolled their eyes and said 'yeah, sure'.

It's all becoming so so clear to me now.

Yes I think so. I was trying to pinpoint exactly where I heard it and this is the only place that made sense.

 

[Lerxst]

First of all, the first Christian laws by a Christian emperor found women guilty of rape simply because they "could have screamed" to prevent the rape. So take anything, any religious institution gives you on the subject with a very heavy grain of salt.

Second, rape was never officially defined by ancient cultures, but "breeding" with a population was a traditional strategy for long-term enemies. Whether or not it was rape is up in the air, but if you figure a male encounters a female with whom he is an enemy, would it really be consensual?

Third, it takes timing in order to become pregnant. Everything has to occur at the right time in the right order and that's for purely consensual sex. The odds are, rape isn't going to be timed specifically for the purpose of pregnancy. So, yeah, you could argue that rape-pregnancy is rare, but you'd be better off making a mathematical argument rather than a scientific one.

 

[this is only temporary]

Please don't hate me sweet INFJ forum posters... I'm a terrible, selfish, person sometimes and I know I wouldn't be strong enough to handle that type of thing alone.

No you are not!

Don't be silly. I'm not a fan of abortion either, and under normal circumstances would never even consider one, but in the event of rape would certainly have an early-term abortion, probably more likely use a morning-after pill, no questions asked and no guilt.

It is incredibly challenging to go through pregnancy, give birth, recover from childbirth, and give your hormones time to level out so you are not a post-partum depressive. And there's no guarantee pregnancy will be easy, either, you could easily wind up hospitalized for quite some time. I can't imagine going through pregnancy after the trauma of rape. People who haven't done it probably can't understand the physical difficulties involved, or they simply don't care (more likely).

Then you would have to either give up your infant, which would be heart-wrenching, or you'd have to meet all the many, many 24/7/365 needs of an infant or toddler, and try your best to do the right things as a parent. AND all that is expensive, and you will wind up being unable to support yourself financially for a considerable time. You think people are going to line up to help you? No, they are not. Judge you, sure, but help you? No way.

I cannot imagine trying to do all these things after having been raped, being (presumably) single, and having the whole "You deserved it, you slut" vibe dumped all over me to boot. I'd go crazy.

So don't apologize, at least not to me.

 

[CindyLou]

No you are not!

Don't be silly. I'm not a fan of abortion either, and under normal circumstances would never even consider one, but in the event of rape would certainly have an early-term abortion, probably more likely use a morning-after pill, no questions asked and no guilt.

It is incredibly challenging to go through pregnancy, give birth, recover from childbirth, and give your hormones time to level out so you are not a post-partum depressive. And there's no guarantee pregnancy will be easy, either, you could easily wind up hospitalized for quite some time. I can't imagine going through pregnancy after the trauma of rape. People who haven't done it probably can't understand the physical difficulties involved, or they simply don't care (more likely).

Then you would have to either give up your infant, which would be heart-wrenching, or you'd have to meet all the many, many 24/7/365 needs of an infant or toddler, and try your best to do the right things as a parent. AND all that is expensive, and you will wind up being unable to support yourself financially for a considerable time. You think people are going to line up to help you? No, they are not. Judge you, sure, but help you? No way.

I cannot imagine trying to do all these things after having been raped, being (presumably) single, and having the whole "You deserved it, you slut" vibe dumped all over me to boot. I'd go crazy.

So don't apologize, at least not to me.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the morning after pill.

I want the opportunity to make the "right" choice, whatever that may be. I could see myself keeping it as some sort of effort to tip the scales. I just don't know. Pregnancy and childbirth was difficult with a baby that I had I planned, with a man I loved. I just don't know.

 

[Cherokee]

This is not an issue about abortion (I myself am pro life, and that's all life, which means that I'm anti war and pro animal life). This is about the definition of rape. This is about the fact that so many people in my country, (including
those people who inhabit our highest offices, who make the laws that we live by) act as though there are different kinds of rape, as though some kinds are more acceptable then others. All rape is rape, and rape is NEVER acceptable!

Though we live in relative freedom in this country women still are not as free as they should be, and this is not necessarily because of our laws, but more often because of our cultures attitudes about things like rape.

1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime, and those are only the ones that report it, we all know that the true number is much larger then that.
Because of the fact of rape and because of the fear of rape women are less free in their activities then they ought to be.

You can not speak lightly of rape and expect your sons not to grow up and become rapist. Even this type of behavior is taught through words.

 

[Cherokee]

On a side note, I'm very happy this year that I live in Missouri, and I get to vote against this guy.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Just for clarification, this is along the lines of what I was told. Miscarriages happen. Hormones go wild. The body does a lot of crazy shit under stress including losing babies. Maybe it's a result of the trauma of rape. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's a big coincidence.

Christian Life Resources will tell you that assault rape pregnancies are rare. If you read their website they even make an attempt to break down the math for you. What sweethearts. http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461

Then you have doctors in the past who claim that rape victims rarely get pregnant. Here's a nice quote for you:



Of course there's not a lot of data.

Then you get studies that say that rapes can result in MORE pregnancies than consensual sex:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-08/rape-results-more-pregnancies-not-less

Reading through these articles and countless others online, they all seem to site the same studies and sources which come up with stats that are hard to measure because so many rapes go unreported. It's hard to say how many rapes result in pregnancy to gain any real data. They can only work with what's been reported.

I don't know if people are more upset about the lack of scientific back up for what this dude said (aside from what pro-lifers have been saying for years and years) or if it's because he's suggesting that some rapes are legitimate and some aren't. In other articles I've read there are suggestions that some women get pregnant and afterwards claim that it was rape. I know people who this has happened to also. So when he says he "mispoke" maybe this is what he was conveying - people engaging in consensual sex and then claiming rape afterwards as justification for an abortion. Unfortunately the way he chose to string his words together it came off as grossly ignorant and misinformed. Now he suffers!

Don't everyone get too excited though.

I can't decide whether or not I am defending him.

I haven't done any research but the theory that was taught to you in school seems correct. I know the human body is constantly allocating and re-allocating resources. Some people allow the stress of having a baby prevent them from getting pregnant. So it's easy to see how the stress of being raped could reduce the chances of successful pregnancy.

Also when women get aroused their body makes all these changes to ensure the highest chance of successful pregnancy. If those things don't happen because she is scared for her life then chances of pregnancy are definitely reduced.

 

[moonlightam]

WOW. I want some of whatever this guy is smoking. I remember such a thing being mentioned in school too (a soviet school, if anything), but as far as I can recall, it was an ethics lesson and the teacher has been telling us about all sorts of myths relating to pregnancies. Yes, stress of rape, in theory, can result in micro-abortion (this happens a lot to a lot of women and majority never even realize they have been pregnant, and it doesnt have to be rape), but this defense mechanism doest work to the "T", every body is different, just thinking about no birth-control methods being fully 100% speaks volumes as well.

Now, I believe, that rapes resulting in pregnancies are rare these days, because women are not afraid anymore to be judged, moralized etc and are seeking help, they go to the police, hospitals, and a standard procedure (in most civilized countries) is giving these women the morning after pill. Plus for a rape to be registered as such - it doesnt have to be a "standard" rape...