The verses you provided refer to how the RAPIST should be treated- not how the woman should feel. Also, your verses are about rapists whose intentions are fully to harm, not about doctors who, though possibly in lust at some random point in their life, have the intention to help most people they come across. However, this is fully against my point, and I refuse to argue rapists vs doctors. Back on topic, you cannot justify saying that any pain can be equivalent the the mourning of a lost child. I'm not saying it is the worst pain, I'm just seriously asking you to stop comparing losing a loved one to things that have nothing to do with the matter. It has nothing to do with your point, and is only hurting your argument. A GOOD argument doesn't need extremes like you say you're using- it should speak for itself without the shock factor. Take that into consideration next time you post.

[color=#0000FF][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote] STOP. I never said it was acceptable or modest.[/quote][/color] I was primarily basing my assumption on most of your previous posts concerning the subject of nakedness and modesty in previous threads. You can try to intellectually dance around it and try to take shots at my character (reading into my examples as somehow condemning women rather than my trying to encourage them to make better decisions) or keep bringing up that tired old thoroughly debunked argument of intentions being a factor in whether a person is being modest when they are naked in public...but that's just more distractions from the discussion. Let's test to see if you truly no longer consider it modest for a woman to be naked before a man not her husband. It either is or it is not. You can't just hide in the middle of this question. [color=#008000] [b]Which is it? Maybe I should phrase it this way...is it even possible for a woman to still be "modest" while laying there naked having her private places touched by a man not her husband? [/b][/color] Simple question and if you give a simple yes or no, we can go the next logical question without the fluff appealing to the negative emotions of other readers. If no, then I'm thrilled that we are in agreement and we can move forward with this thread. If yes, then... [color=#008000][b]What grounds do we really have to persuade such a woman that she cannot have other men do so as well?[/b][/color] Please answer with Scripture, if you can, and not with personal attacks that only distract. Statistics are not meaningful for this discussion either. It's a hypothetical question that you should be able to imagine enough to give a moral judgment about. [b]Forcedelune wrote:[/b] [quote]By your statement, are you saying that fear is somehow good and pleasure is somehow inherently bad?[/quote] [color=#0000FF][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote]No, I am not saying that./quote] [/color] [color=#008000]Rhetoric aside, what are you saying then? Is there something wrong with a woman sharing her nakedness (having her private areas touched) with a man not her husband for pleasure (as she does routinely in the male OBGYN case often out of fear)? If no, then we can discuss that further. If yes, why? [/color] I'm not trying to badger you, considering that you do agree with me on the surface about this point, but I'm concerned (based on your former posts) that you agree with me...JUST BECAUSE..and not for the right reasons that really matter. I think this is an important enough issue that we need to be able to give women more of an answer than...I just feel like you shouldn't. This is a big leap of faith for women to have to take in a culture that is going in the opposite direction on this issue. Women need to have a better foundation to stand on than just the personal feelings of others. I see that this as something very harmful to women and marriages in very subtle but meaningful ways that most of us don't quite understand, but that the Word warns us to avoid. All you have to do is simply answer the question, rather than avoid it and trying to use the cliche insinuations that I don't care about the inside of a person because we are discussing concepts regarding the outward nakedness of a person. If a woman get's so drunk that she sleeps with another man, mistaking him for her husband in the dark...the physical act of adultery has still occurred, though it may be debatable if she is guilty of it or not? The physical act still occurred and is significant. If a mentally handicapped person rapes a woman who is in a comma and he does not realize what he is doing...was she not just raped regardless of who is to blame? I'm sure her husband will agree. She was violated REGARDLESS of intention. Please get off the intention bandwagon because it just isn't relevant to this discussion or to how the Bible addresses the issue of porn/public nakedness. If a woman sleeps with a man who she did not know was actually her father (because she never met him)...it is still incest whether she mentally knew it was or not? INTENTIONS have no bearing in these areas. Intentions matter when it comes to issues of the heart in life, but that is not the topic of this discussion. Please answer the questions without personal accusations or feel good statements about intentions. I've highlighted them in green for you.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]The verses you provided refer to how the RAPIST should be treated- not how the woman should feel. Also, your verses are about rapists whose intentions are fully to harm, not about doctors who, though possibly in lust at some random point in their life, have the intention to help most people they come across. However, this is fully against my point, and I refuse to argue rapists vs doctors. Back on topic, you cannot justify saying that any pain can be equivalent the the mourning of a lost child. I'm not saying it is the worst pain, I'm just seriously asking you to stop comparing losing a loved one to things that have nothing to do with the matter. It has nothing to do with your point, and is only hurting your argument. A GOOD argument doesn't need extremes like you say you're using- it should speak for itself without the shock factor. Take that into consideration next time you post.[/quote][/color] Not true. Jesus often used extreme examples to make his points. Hate is murder. Lust is Adultery. Eat my flesh an drink my blood. I think you missed the point of those two verses I cited in the previous posts [color=#FF0000][Deuteronomy 22:23-29][/color]. It was not about God instructing fathers to force daughters to marry some vicious rapist. Do you really think that? I'm a little disturbed if you do. If you look at these verses properly, in the context of the passage and of the culture, you will see that it was actually talking about a man initiating the marriage act with a woman without the father's approval (arrangement). In our modern mindset of "choose your own" marriage...this looks like God is forcing women to marry some serial rapist. In reality, women did not normally have any part in the "consensual" decision of marriage. She accepted the man who her parents arranged her to marry. So, in the instance of these verses...they are not about "rape" (as we understand it), but more so about a woman who found herself hurried into the act of marriage intimacy to a man who did not seek her father first. So, let's put to rest the whole rape angle, because that is obviously not the point of the verse that is compared to murder. Again, unless you are insinuating that God was forcing fathers to marry their daughters to some viscous rapist. The truth is that the violation being compared to murder was indeed that a man uncovered the nakedness of another man's wife and went into her. That is the comparison made. The only relevance that the so called "forced" part has in the verse is in determining if this already betrothed woman is also guilty of going along with the adultery when she could have called out for help. I was just clarifying the nature of my same comparison for the situation happening in the doctor's office. Intentions don't matter, because my focus is not to point out whether each or both parties are guilty of the violation (which is the only reason intentions would matter in this case)...but my focus here is to point out that the harm is being done regardless and should be avoided if at all reasonably possible. For the sake of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me who is at fault...but rather that women and married couples get free or find ways out of this damaging lifestyle. The verse I cited just points out how serious the act itself is, whether the woman is guilty of any sin or not...the damage is being done in deeper ways than most of us understand, but God does (hence the strong language He used comparing a man violating another man's wife's nakedness as being like killing a part of that man and their marriage). Again, nothing to do with rape or intentions in this comparison but moreso the outcome of such areas being exposed or shared with a man not her own husband.

You know what? No. I'm not answering your questions, because you refuse to acknowledge that you are not just dealing with ideas, but also people. People have feelings and emotions and motivations as well as rational minds, and those things are important. Relevant. Significant. You can't ignore that and expect to persuade people. You might validate your opinions to yourself, I suppose. But look - when both me and Hatter are telling you that your comments are insensitive and offensive and that that is hurting your arguments, that ought to be a clue that maybe you're going about this the wrong way. I'm done responding to you, because every time I do I have to rewind and try to undo a mess of presuppositions and loaded statements. All you want to do is post excerpts from whatever book it is you're writing and have us all agree with you, erecting and burning strawmen when we don't. Fine. But it isn't worth my time.

First: ^This. I won't argue with you again, these are my final statements here as I can see you do not want to accept anything posted on your thread, even if it tries to agree with you. Next: Considering that in Deuteronomy 22:24, it is instructed that the girl is in trouble because she "did not scream for help," yes, I do believe that this is about what should be done with a rapist, or any other violations having to do with a man against a young girl in regards to sex, and determining which party is to be considered guilty under what circumstances. Especially considering that in my version, the word "rape" is used twice in the segment you yourself choose to quote. It has nothing to do with a girl "being rushed into marriage," as many of the verses apply to a young woman who is promised to be married when a stranger comes to town. You think that the way I interpret this is extreme? I said you were being extreme, and you said we had to be, that the Bible is extreme. If you want to believe that, then do. If not, don't. You can't choose what you think should and should not be extreme if you can't handle it. Frankly, I think stoning children is extreme, but that's in Deuteronomy as well. You also keep comparing everything to murder, but refuse to address anything I've had to say about losing a loved one, and you insist on defending all of your statements instead of trying to defend your point as a whole. Miscarriage is not murder. Loss of a loved one is not always under the category of murder. Stop using murder as an example- no one but you has brought it up. I'm asking you (nicely up to this point) to not compare rape or molestation or modesty at all to losing another human being whom you love. I'm not asking you to do it because "you're indefinitely wrong"- on the contrary, I said I could see what you're trying to do, and agreed with it, but asked to find another way to do it that doesn't hurt those people who HAVE lost a loved one. You just drive people away when you insist such a thing. Do not tell people how to feel about their own modesty, do not tell them how to feel about death. They will not feel this way just because you say that is how it should be. This is shown in basic psychology and the steps of grieving. How someone feels is based off of their lives, and their raising, and their experience. Not based off of the individual verse you pulled to fit your situation. Please respect this. Finally: You know, a few people had previously stated that they agree with you, but you choose to argue with them anyway when they were merely making suggestions and requests. Instead of respecting their opinions as human beings (who do and will, in fact, have different thoughts than your own), you choose to tell people how wrong they are by throwing out verses that have nothing to do with your cause just so you can blend them to say what you wish. If a debate is what you choose to seek each time you post, I will be more than happy to move all your threads to that forum.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]I can see you do not want to accept anything posted on your thread, even if it tries to agree with you.[/quote][/color] This is not really true. I think the only person who has "agreed" with me and that I have still pressed further with a particular issue is BrotherReed. The reason for this, is because he really doesn't agree with what I'm saying in the first place and misses the point of the whole thread. If this was the DMV Forum and I was posting threads on how we all can drive more safely to avoid hurting others on the roads...BrotherReed would be that guy who loves the thrills of drag racing his Corvette anywhere and everywhere he pleases, and so would likely be spamming our discussion on safe driving (safe dressing in this case) with comments about why we should consider the intentions of that guy going 200 mph in a 30 mph zone. No...this is not a Courthouse forum in which we're discussing who should be held guilty or not guilty for the unsafe driving...this is the DMV forum in which we're only interested in discussing what is and is not safe driving practices in the effort to stop others from being hurt by unsafe driving. Arguing over people's intentions is just a distraction from the subject matter, because if you're driving 200 mph in a 15 mph school zone (regardless of ii you have good intentions or bad intentions) you're going to do just as much damage to that child when you ram into them while they're trying to get to school. Again, intentions are meaningless in such a discussion because the outcome we desire to avoid (someone getting hurt) will be the same either way. This is not a court forum for judging people's hearts, but rather for judging whether certain driving practices are safe or unsafe for you and for others around you on the road. The Driver's manual, in this case, is the Word of God. To take this metaphor a step further, BrotherReed agreeing with me that we should not drive 200 mph in a school zone for his own reason of "those cops will put you in jail for that" is in no way in agreement with the heart of this discussion which is actually about preventing your self or others from getting hurt by unsafe driving (dressing). Just because he agrees that he should not drive 200 mph in the school zone (because of cops) doesn't mean he agrees with the true heart and most important point of the discussion in the first place...which is not to risk hurting others via reckless driving. And yes, while sometimes we do have to use such terms as "reckless" driving to make a point about safe driving...that in no way should lead the discussion to get all off on a tangent about who's reckless driving in their heart and who is not. That's not the point of the discussion and just because I happen to bring up an example that may mention a word might have something to do with fault ("reckless" ) ...it's just for reference and not meant to steer us away from the heart of the discussion (safe driving to avoid hurting others on the road). This is why I keep making the point that BrotherReed is missing the point and clouding the discussion with unrelated fluffy talk. My threads have been about what is and is not safe to be distracted by or to look at while driving (What Is & Is Not Porn), what is and is not safe driving (What Is & Is Not Modest), and how to avoid a collision through unsafe driving (Male Doctor's vs Feminine Modesty). In the case of the current thread, one could argue that they have very good intentions for driving 200 mph in that 30 mph zone (such as "my wife was having a baby" ) ...but that still doesn't help that family of 5 in the minivan that you smashed into when you disregarded the speed limit laws (which were set to 30 mph for everyone's safety). This is the heart of what I'm attempting to get across on this forum.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] Next: Considering that in Deuteronomy 22:24, it is instructed that the girl is in trouble because she "did not scream for help," yes, I do believe that this is about what should be done with a rapist, or any other violations having to do with a man against a young girl in regards to sex, and determining which party is to be considered guilty under what circumstances. Especially considering that in my version, the word "rape" is used twice in the segment you yourself choose to quote. It has nothing to do with a girl "being rushed into marriage," as many of the verses apply to a young woman who is promised to be married when a stranger comes to town. You think that the way I interpret this is extreme?[/quote][/color] Actually, I do agree with you that the use of this terminology in this verse does have to do with a woman being forced into adultery in the field. My concern is when others miss the underlying effect of this verse (something precious was killed and what that precious thing was at its root) and, more importantly, when we assume that these same terms we often translate as "rape" (due to the context) in this verse also mean the same thing in the surrounding verses when applied to a non-married woman. This is dangerous, because this insinuates that as long the woman who get's raped is a virgin...it's all good and you can take her to be your wife. So my point is that we have to be careful not to present these terms as only meaning the modern term rape, as we think of it...because it was also used in consensual situations of adultery as well in the surrounding verses about being in the city. The reason why I went off on this point (my apologies to you, because I didn't give you the full background of why I felt this so important a distinction) is because if you go to Google and search for terms like "bible condones rape"...you'll find quite a few individuals out there who lost faith in the Bible over this very subtle misunderstanding of these concepts. I'm sorry I went off like that, but this is why I don't allow that one to get by without trying to dispel those common (though subtle) misunderstanding of these passages. We can agree about that one verse, but with caution that we truly understand the underlying principles and not just take it at face value...or else we will fall into the trap of having to say that a virgin girl is free game for the rapist (as we understand it in modern terms) based on the surrounding verses.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] You also keep comparing everything to murder, but refuse to address anything I've had to say about losing a loved one, and you insist on defending all of your statements instead of trying to defend your point as a whole. Miscarriage is not murder. Loss of a loved one is not always under the category of murder. Stop using murder as an example- no one but you has brought it up. I'm asking you (nicely up to this point) to not compare rape or molestation or modesty at all to losing another human being whom you love. I'm not asking you to do it because "you're indefinitely wrong"- on the contrary, I said I could see what you're trying to do, and agreed with it, but asked to find another way to do it that doesn't hurt those people who HAVE lost a loved one. You just drive people away when you insist such a thing. Do not tell people how to feel about their own modesty, do not tell them how to feel about death. They will not feel this way just because you say that is how it should be. This is shown in basic psychology and the steps of grieving. How someone feels is based off of their lives, and their raising, and their experience. Not based off of the individual verse you pulled to fit your situation. Please respect this.[/quote][/color] I simply used the loss of something precious (miscarriage) for my metaphors because it is a concept that most Americans are still not yet desensitized to. Believe me, there are cultures out there that are desensitized to this as well (those who practice child sacrifice and so forth) that I would have to use even more radical concepts of loss in order to wake them up to the subject matter at hand which they are desensitized to, but that does share at least one similarity. A metaphor or symbol of comparison like this is never meant to be taken to extremes (extraneously comparing every little facet of both sides of the comparison), but are rather usually meant to compare one or two similarities that apply to the discussion at hand. In this case, I didn't even leave room for guessing and clarified my specific point of comparison..."loss of something precious." In regards to "murder"...I don't remember using "murder" for any other comparison I've ever made on this site (including this one, which I only later quoted a verse that contained the word "murder" when making my point further about "the loss of something precious"). I may be wrong about that (my memory can fail me) so maybe I have used "murder" as a loose metaphor to make a point in some previous thread...but the point really would be the same as to my purpose. Again...believe me, there are cultures out there that are desensitized to murder as well (those who practice child sacrifice and so forth) that I would have to use even more radical moral concepts in order to wake them up to the subject matter at hand. At any rate, I think you are definitely right that this thread is being diverted by this whole murder, miscarriage, loss of something precious, and who's to blame for what kind of content. And by the way, I'm old enough that I've experience my own share of losing loved ones to death and I've suffered through two miscarriages with my wife many years ago. I'm not a robot here on this forum and I'm not making these comparison because I can't relate or don't care about others. I'm just using the miscarriage comparison to represent the one single point of loss that most women can emotionally relate to and pointing out that your modesty is precious as well. No need for us to take the comparison to extremes, just please take my comparisons for the reason I state I'm meaning them to express.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] Instead of respecting their opinions as human beings (who do and will, in fact, have different thoughts than your own), you choose to tell people how wrong they are by throwing out verses that have nothing to do with your cause just so you can blend them to say what you wish. [/quote][/color] As I've stated all along, and please don't take offense, these kinds of statements are easy to make about me but not as easy to back up. Please give me specific verses that I used having nothing to do with what I'm stating, so we can have a discussion about it...rather than just saying it's so. That is the usual pattern (of human nature even back to ancient times and often used against Jesus) with most who do not agree with a subject, but can't disprove what's being said. They say "you're this" and "you're that"...but never, "well here is why what you stated is incorrect from Scripture." I'm seeing a lot of "you're wrong, because I just think it so"...but not much at all of anyone being able to prove these concepts wrong from Scripture (or even sound reasoning). I would be glad to discuss any of these verses or any of the pointed questions I've presented in my threads, if someone has a disagreement they can back up with Scripture (within context) or even sound reason. We've already discussed this current issue of my use of the verses regarding women's nakedness being violated by a man that is not their husband (the ones you are only willing to view as the surface level and obvious situation of rape)...so no need to drag that any further through the mud. Do you have any other examples you would like to discuss? Let's not discuss me, but rather the ideas and concepts I'm presenting. Please.

She IS pointing out the things you've said. She's not using verses because it's not the verses that are the problem. It's your tone of voice and phrasing. Do you have any idea just how dang condescending you sound?