Reply to: Oh Dear

[The Lone Gunman]

Surely then, knowing the frailities of us humans, any God worth half his weight in salt should have dispensed with all the cryptic stuff and parables and drafted something decent, more along the lines of one of those typical EU documents which doesn't leave a stone unturned so to speak...

The Jihadists will tell you that he did.

[Joe Black]

Surely then, knowing the frailities of us humans, any God worth half his weight in salt should have dispensed with all the cryptic stuff and parables and drafted something decent, more along the lines of one of those typical EU documents which doesn't leave a stone unturned so to speak...

[The Lone Gunman]

Daring to interpret/translate the word of God in such case can no doubt lead to problems

No, they get neatly around translation by stating that any translation is no longer the word of God. They are having trouble with interpretation though. Normally when there is a question of what was meant they then look for precedents in the "traditions", if there isn't one then an Imam will make a judgement on what they think is meant.

Thus Sunni and Shia have differing views on "The word of God".

Attempting to twist or change the meaning has dire consequences in this world or the next.

[Joe Black]

It was interesting to hear about the "woman submits to man" being incorrectly translated in the bible compared to the greek original.

I think its not just a case of perhaps being incorrectly translated. In the case of the King James version I believe they had a choice of different translations, Greek, Latin etc, so in some cases its a combination of wording. Something which of course is dependant on human judgement.

The Koran on the other hand of course gets round that by Mohammed proclaiming (a smart move on his part perhaps) that it is entirely the word of God, and thus can only ever be recorded in the language it was received, namely Arabic.

Daring to interpret/translate the word of God in such case can no doubt lead to problems...

[Chico]

Hyper, well thank you taking the time to listen to the sermon. You have indeed gone up in my estimation. Regarding the misapplication of the "wives submit to husbands text" is shows why Bible study is so important. A lot of myths are banded around and it adds to the general apathy and distrust.

[hyperD]

Chico, I wasn't referring specifically to christianity, I was talking about abusive relationships where religion is used as an tool to make the wife a prisoner in a relationship and for her to leave a taboo. This applies to any religion, be it christianity or islam.

In this case, laws have been created to address this crime.

Now what you are referring to, and what Gumbel is talking about (yes, out of respect I listened to it hence the delay in replying) are two people learning about respect, communication and love in a marriage. I agreed with the majority of Gumbel's point of view in his 47 minute sermon and I believe these aspects are essential for a marriage to succeed. However, I also believe that these are not exclusively a christian set of morals and beliefs or necessarily a belief in god: they are freely available to anyone that truly mutually cares, loves, respects and commits to their partner. Or anybody come to think of it.

With my original point, even Gumbel turned around in his sermon and said "...there are cases of domestic violence, I'm not talking about that" when referring to Rick Warren and Kay determined to work on their marriage by saying divorce is out of the question.

It was interesting to hear about the "woman submits to man" being incorrectly translated in the bible compared to the greek original. I wonder how many more examples of this are still being used as the foundations of christian principles.

I think this country could do with a double dosage of respect. Whether it be through an alpha course or the teaching of a decent social code - I don't frankly care.

[Chico]

Interesting dilema - rape within a marriage based on an outmoded religious doctrine is well documented and sadly the women often feel compelled to stay in abusive relationships by scripture mandating them to submit to their husbands.

However the law changed in 1991 in England to recognise this crime, encouraged by a more permissive society, which has enabled the victim to escape further abuse.

Hyper - are you married? It quite interesting when people go quoting scripture to justify their ignorance. I could post a long riposte on everything you said but I will not as Nicky Gumbel (much more eloquent than myself) talked about this about a month ago and will do a much better job. If you are genuinely interested on knowing what the Bible has to say about marriage and the roles of the husband and wife then I suggest you download this talk to you Ipod or your MP3 player.

'How to Revolutionise your Relationships: Part 1 - Husbands and Wives'

[John Galt]

Gosh how sterotyped a good few of you seem to see things. "Asking for it", what tosh

Rapists on the whole don't go for the flirtatious strong willed good looking women, but for average looking, the ones that are trying to avoid being noticed, the ones who are quiet, the ones they can scare. For these criminals rape is essentially a power thing, and that is what the rapist is getting off on.

Only a small percentage of rapists attack flirtatiously dressed women and these perps are generally deranged due to substance abuse and it does not matter if it a woman or a man, what they look like, or anything like that, the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, statistically speaking it is probably safer for a woman to be "power dressing" it is more likely to put the rapist off.

Couldn't agree more Threaded. I think most psychiatrists would agree with you. Rape has very little to do with the sexual act, it is a power trip for the rapist and, as you so rightly say, the fear factor is what spurs him on. These men are essentially cowards who get off on the domination of those he considers weaker - women are the easiest targets.

[hyperD]

I do - if all sexual activity was confined to marriage then we would not have the rapes and other ills our so called permissive culture has foisted upon us.

Except that a husband these days can be convicted of raping his wife...

Interesting dilema - rape within a marriage based on an outmoded religious doctrine is well documented and sadly the women often feel compelled to stay in abusive relationships by scripture mandating them to submit to their husbands.

However the law changed in 1991 in England to recognise this crime, encouraged by a more permissive society, which has enabled the victim to escape further abuse.

[OwlHoot]

I do - if all sexual activity was confined to marriage then we would not have the rapes and other ills our so called permissive culture has foisted upon us.

Except that a husband these days can be convicted of raping his wife...

[vista]

Gosh how sterotyped a good few of you seem to see things. "Asking for it", what tosh

Rapists on the whole don't go for the flirtatious strong willed good looking women, but for average looking, the ones that are trying to avoid being noticed, the ones who are quiet, the ones they can scare. For these criminals rape is essentially a power thing, and that is what the rapist is getting off on.

Only a small percentage of rapists attack flirtatiously dressed women and these perps are generally deranged due to substance abuse and it does not matter if it a woman or a man, what they look like, or anything like that, the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, statistically speaking it is probably safer for a woman to be "power dressing" it is more likely to put the rapist off.

PURE C0CK CUSTARD

[threaded]

Gosh how sterotyped a good few of you seem to see things. "Asking for it", what tosh

Rapists on the whole don't go for the flirtatious strong willed good looking women, but for average looking, the ones that are trying to avoid being noticed, the ones who are quiet, the ones they can scare. For these criminals rape is essentially a power thing, and that is what the rapist is getting off on.

Only a small percentage of rapists attack flirtatiously dressed women and these perps are generally deranged due to substance abuse and it does not matter if it a woman or a man, what they look like, or anything like that, the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, statistically speaking it is probably safer for a woman to be "power dressing" it is more likely to put the rapist off.

[Joe Black]

The courts and the law have enough difficulty sorting this out, and I dont know the answer

Perhaps as good a recommendation as any for the principle of not publicly identifying the accused until proven guilty. Something which unfortunately isn't the case at the moment...

[vista]

Lefty trap

An amnesty international poll has reported that 20% of 1000 people polled agree that women are partially responsible if they are raped when

They dress provocatively
Get drunk
Behave flirtateously

The comments here make interesting reading.

What do you lot think. Personally I cannot think of a situation when a woman would be 'asking for it'

Women should be able to walk about starkers flirting with anyone they want safe in the knowledge that nothing will happen unless they want it to. However in this ideal world bliar wouldn't have made it beyond an embyo and brown would be selling his ass on some glasgow dock.

Rapist should be castrated or imprisoned for 30 years or more.

However........

If a woman dresses provocatively and flirts with 'bad men' there is a chance that she will get raped instead of the plain withdrawn woman that keeps her head down, fact. It isn't right, it doesn't excuse the rapist for an instant and shouldn't play any part in his 30 years or castration but if you want to reduce your chances of getting raped don't put it about or on display and if you don't like this situation stop voiting labour, expel all lefties from any position of power and support enforcing the law with sentances that mean something.

Our society will get as much crime as its prepared to tolerate.

Are our resident lefties happy that another soul was sacrificed on the alter of political correctness, two police women paired because the police don't see gender, blood thirsty feckers.

[xoggoth]

That's what I thought when I read it. Two possible meanings. Did the respondents mean they deserve to be raped? or did some simply mean they are asking for trouble as DG is implying. Answers no and possibly.

I wonder if there is also a cultural element in this. Some do not seem so advanced (in theory anyhow) in regard for women.