The Real Reason I Left

[_harmony]

“Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one in sin.”

Of course, you realize he was just giving his opinion as a man?

Thank God for wise penguins wearing assorted leaves.

[Gadianton]

Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)

Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you even thinking while you write this? If murder is a greater violation than rape, why should anyone choose murder over rape?

If you had given any intelligent thought to what I had said, you would have realized that I made no mention of choosing murdering over rape, nor did I even imply it in what I said, nor does murdering factor into what I said, and you may also have saved yourself the embarrassment of having asked such a thoughtless question (ironically in the process of questioning my thoughtfulness).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

“Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one in sin.”

Of course, you realize he was just giving his opinion as a man?

Are you giving this opinion as a man or a penguin? lol.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I'm not sure what this has to do with a discussion about rape. And when did you sign up for military service? Or volunteer firefighter? Or volunteer EMT? I have only admiration for those who actually do put their lives on the line, whether in military service (in my family, that would be my son, my brother, my dad) or as volunteers (in my life, that would be my husband). I find the pathetic numbers of LDS who serve in the military to be lamentable, and just one more example of how we pound our chests, telling the world what a patriotic people we are, yet when push comes to shove, we cringe from our duty. So please expound on your service to our country, Wade. Are you in the National Guard?

It has been my experience that those who actually have been willing to sacrifice their lives, and who have put their willingness into action, tend to be the least likely to engage in the kind of self-righteous and sweepingly dismissive rants like the above. I certainly am disinclined to do so myself.

Rather, it is too oft, and ironically, the penchant of raging hypocrites who are in the least position to say and ask.

Whether that is the case here or not, is not for me to judge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are being either a hypocrite or else you are simply ignorant, but I'm leaning toward hypocrite. In your zeal to defend the church in every issue that comes up, you are blathering incoherently. The church was wrong. Kimball was wrong. Don't turn yourself inside out to defend the indefensible, don't twist meanings and put your own questionable virtues on display like this. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[_moksha]

...but may I point out that literally fighting to the death is inherently dangerous and often deadly.

Well said.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)

Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you even thinking while you write this? If murder is a greater violation than rape, why should anyone choose murder over rape?

If you had given any intelligent thought to what I had said, you would have realized that I made no mention of choosing murdering over rape, nor did I even imply it in what I said, nor does murdering factor into what I said, and you may also have saved yourself the embarrassment of having asked such a thoughtless question (ironically in the process of questioning my thoughtfulness).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, so you're entire presence in this thread hasn't been in defense of Kimball/church?

[_Mr. Coffee]

Don't you want to use your real name when you publicly castigate somebody who uses his real name?

See where it says "email" next to "PM" at the bottom of this message? That's my name and my general use email address. Substitution @gmail.com for my GMail address.

Wow, for a laywer you aren't very observant.


Now back to your regularly schedualed verbal curbstomping...

Blah blah blah... Retarded Attempt to try and justify placing blame for being victimized on the victim... blah blah blah

Wenglung, are you seriously saying that the victim of a rape is at all responsible or somehow wrong for being the victim of a crime?

No, obviously not.

Really, because you've been saying that because they were victimized that a rapee is somehow less valuable a person, Wade.

Wrong again. Perhaps in your extrodinarily narrow and uninformed world view that may be so. But, not as I understand the concept.

Ok, so then what else is "some of us see a certsain connection between "virtue" and "rape"" and "Some of us view "virtue" as a state of purity, where the soul is sexually and otherwise unviolated and unmared by evil and unrighteaousness" supposed to mean other than you view a rape victim as being less valuable?

Wrong again. I have said nothing of the sort.

Which is why you've been defending Kimballs retarded idea that a woman should die rather than let her "virtue" be affect because someone is trying to rape here, right?

I do not view fighting for one's life, virtue, and so forth, as "needless".

Could you at least attempt to be consistant and stop with the backpeddling, Wade?

You've been saying the entire time that virue and chastity are more valuable than life. In fact, you got yourself into this argument by trying to defend Kimball's statements of the same.

Unlike perhaps you, I actually believe there is great value in life, virtue, and so forth, sufficient to at times make fighting and death needful.

Nice misrepresentation of what I've said, you dishonest jackass. I've said and continue to say that life is more valuable than "virtue". Not that the two are equal, but that the two are not equal and that life is the more valuable of the two.

The woman being raped has one of two choices, either surrender or die. You're saying that you'd rather them die. Full stop, end of story.

Wrong again. I am saying that I value the sanctity of women (their life and virtue and so forth) such that I believe it worth dying for, and I would honor those who may choose to fight even to the death to protect the sanctity of women.

So then you are saying that a woman should die rather than let her "virtue" be harmed. Concession accepted.

Unlike with you, I wouldn't make the issue about me and what I may or may not want.

Nice dodge.

Rather, I would honor and respect those women in whatever choice they may hypothetically be forced to make.

But you were just saying that a woman having virtue is more important than her being alive. That would mean that you would "honor" and "respect" them less than you would a woman who had not been raped.

I trust that were I in a position to prevent them from being raped, and were it to be at the expense of my own life, I would prefer to die rather than their being subjected to such hideous violation.

But if you weren't around and they got violated you'd still look down on them for having their "virtue" sullied.

How about you? Would you be willing to do the same? And, if so, then why would you deny the same to the victims, themselves?

I would do the same in that I would do my best to defend the victim and make sure that they got any medical attention they needed afterwards and would be more than willing to appear in court to testify against her assailant in the unlikely event the guy lived throiugh the encounter.

What I wouldn NOT do is look down on the victim for having somehow lost their virtue through no action of their own.

Wrong again. What part of "certainly not on the part of the victim" do you not understand? Obviously, I don't view rape as concentual. The only "will" that is consenting to rape is the will of the rapist's. There is no "mutual will" about it. For there to be "mutual willful", would require mutual consent (or, if you are too dense to understand what that means, it means that both people want to do it). Clearly the rape victim is not consenting to the rape, but "wills" strongly not to do it. Do you now understand, Nimrod?

Then why did you use the words "mutually willful", dumbass? You said "mutually willful" meaning that more than one party ahd to give consent, and then followed up by saying "not on the part of the victim". Who else is the rapist supposed to mutually will the act of rape with, Wade?

Wrong again (as expected). The so-called "clean house" analogy was intended to illuminate how "virtue" may be aversely affected by violations and and unwanted intrusions, and in no way was intended to suggest that a clean house is worth dying for or even burnt down for--though, to the home owners who may think the sanctity of their homes worth putting up a fight for, I certainly won't falsely judge their rationale as "retarded".

You've said many times throughout this thread that you believe a woman who has been raped to have lost her virtue, and that you hold a woman with virtue as being better than a woman without. You then compared a woman to a friggin' house, saying that a house that had been dirtied (lost it's virtue) because of the actions of an inturder is the same as a woman being raped. By your own words that would mean that the value of that home is less, just as you view the value of a woman who has been raped to be less.

Are you even capible of being consistant or honest?

Wrong again (at least you are consistent). I can't control for the bizzarre and false conclusions you jump to. I said nothing of the sort.

Than learn to communicate clearly and in a noncontradictory fashion. Everything you've said thus far indicates that you believe a woman should be viewed as less valuable a person if they are raped because they some how lost their "virtue" through no fault of their own.

So which is it, Wade? Is a woman less valuable for having lost "virtue" through no action or intent of her own or not?

[_moksha]

“Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one in sin.”

Of course, you realize he was just giving his opinion as a man?

Are you giving this opinion as a man or a penguin? lol.

Both. The penguin in me would note that President Kimball took a limited view on the power and capacity for forgiveness. The religious man in me would hope that such a view is but an aberration in the LDS Church and that the members can grow beyond this limitation for forgiveness that President Kimball envisioned. Wouldn't it be nice if that book was reedited and brought more in line with the principles of love, mercy and forgiveness?

[_wenglund]

And here I was so hoping you were in the Guard. I am destined to be disappointed, I guess.

Disappointment is invariably the destiny of the hypocrite and those with double standards (not that this necessarily applies to you in this case).

I, on the other hand, am not the least bit disappointed, but thought your responses to be quite predictable and expected. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

Wouldn't it be nice if that book was reedited and brought more in line with the principles of love, mercy and forgiveness?

Yes it would. You know I actually read the whole book this morning and I have to say I found it lacking on narly all counts. A revised edition would be very good and generous thing.