Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't know what all the pastor says. We only got bits and pieces. I don't believe in judging without having all the facts. I made my point clearly. His comments do not directly refer to the rape victim. Otherwise, he would be saying "this girl".
Ok, so what do you think he was saying? Was he saying it only in the context of girls who are of age, who participate in consensual sex? That would be odd, considering he was defending the hiring of this guy, who raped a 13 year old with a razor to her neck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Don't even go there. This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm not going to get into a debate over the age of consent either. This is about what the pastor said and he didn't specifically say only 13 year old girls.
Don't go where? I only stated the obvious. If you are advocating that the legal age of consent should be as low as 13.... well, as I said, it says a lot about the person advocating for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Of course not, and I see no proof that this pastor is only talking about the rape victim here.
I see no proof Jesus or God prohibits loving gay relationships, but that doesn't keep you from assuming.
At any rate, I am not saying he is talking about ONLY the 13 year old rape victim. The fact is, however, talking about ANY rape victim like that is sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Both are sinful acts that can be forgiven. Rape is much more damaging and consequential than the other.
The real question is that if you stole a candy bar 20 years ago, should you always be labeled a thief even if you don't steal any more? If you call this man a rapist then you must agree to this position, otherwise, it is hypocritical. That's the point the pastor is making.
You and I both know that there is a HUGE difference in stealing a candy bar, and raping a 13 year old at knifepoint. Violent crimes are not in the same category as stealing a candy bar. There is a whole different side of psychology involved. Could he be reformed? Sure, he could be, but statistics say it is likely that he isn't.
People who commit violent crimes, like sexual assault, whether you like it or not, will always be labeled. The reason is very simple, and if you are honest with yourself, you would feel the same way. People who commit these types of crimes are likely to do so again. People aren't too worried about the kid who stole a candy bar, but they are worried about the guy convicted of MULTIPLE sexual assaults, especially if they are against minors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, and I wouldn't put a person in recovery from alcoholism in a bar. We forgive and believe people can change, but it is foolish to throw that person directly into the path of temptation.
So you are labeling him as a current sexual predator too. If you truly thought he was reformed, you shouldn't have a problem letting him be with kids, alone. You see Jeff, you agree with what we are saying, you are just too chicken to come out against someone claiming your religious affiliation.
Note: My wife was sexually assaulted in high school. I can tell you right now, if anyone ever told me, or her for that matter, that she asked for it, I would be finding a way to get rid of a body. It is sickening that you are defending this guy, as well as the good reverend. It is also proof that you are incapable of seeing someone you agree with as wrong.
Ok, so what do you think he was saying? Was he saying it only in the context of girls who are of age, who participate in consensual sex? That would be odd, considering he was defending the hiring of this guy, who raped a 13 year old with a razor to her neck.
I don't know what he was saying. We don't have the full interview. The snippet they gave us doesn't make any sense in the context you propose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
Don't go where? I only stated the obvious. If you are advocating that the legal age of consent should be as low as 13.... well, as I said, it says a lot about the person advocating for that.
I never advocated that at all. The obvious is your implication that I approve of sex with minors which I don't. Keep your personal opinions about me to yourself and stick to the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
At any rate, I am not saying he is talking about ONLY the 13 year old rape victim. The fact is, however, talking about ANY rape victim like that is sickening.
The fact is we don't know who is referring too. He could be talking about grown women. Are you going to say consensual sex between a man and a woman is rape too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
You and I both know that there is a HUGE difference in stealing a candy bar, and raping a 13 year old at knifepoint. Violent crimes are not in the same category as stealing a candy bar. There is a whole different side of psychology involved. Could he be reformed? Sure, he could be, but statistics say it is likely that he isn't.
The severity of the crime is irrelevant. You are still believing that even if a person pays his debt to society, lives a righteous life, he should still FOREVER be labeled with the crime he committed decades ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
People who commit violent crimes, like sexual assault, whether you like it or not, will always be labeled. The reason is very simple, and if you are honest with yourself, you would feel the same way. People who commit these types of crimes are likely to do so again. People aren't too worried about the kid who stole a candy bar, but they are worried about the guy convicted of MULTIPLE sexual assaults, especially if they are against minors.
If they are a danger to society then they shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
So you are labeling him as a current sexual predator too. If you truly thought he was reformed, you shouldn't have a problem letting him be with kids, alone. You see Jeff, you agree with what we are saying, you are just too chicken to come out against someone claiming your religious affiliation.
Many churches don't even think it's a good idea for a church leader to be in a situation of being alone in close contact with the opposite sex. A person can be reformed but still have temptations. You think a recovered drug addict would never be tempted again especially if you threw him in a drug den? But would you still say he is a drug addict? Unless you got proof that he is currently raping women then you can't say he is a rapist. Do you have proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
Note: My wife was sexually assaulted in high school. I can tell you right now, if anyone ever told me, or her for that matter, that she asked for it, I would be finding a way to get rid of a body. It is sickening that you are defending this guy, as well as the good reverend. It is also proof that you are incapable of seeing someone you agree with as wrong.
And you would go to prison for murder too. The law isn't even on your side with that scenario. If it is sickening to have a different opinion on the topic then the thread should have never been created in the first place.
I don't know what he was saying. We don't have the full interview. The snippet they gave us doesn't make any sense in the context you propose.
It makes no sense in the context you propose either, Jeff. He was defending the hiring of this guy, so one would assume that is who and what he is talking about. From one of the articles quoted on this forum, "When asked about the rape conviction, Orten said "this is a situation, if that girls chooses...it takes two to tango, okay? So if that girl chooses to sleep with him, she's just as guilty as he is."
He WAS talking about the girls that this guy raped, assuming the context is correct. I have no reason to assume otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I never advocated that at all. The obvious is your implication that I approve of sex with minors which I don't. Keep your personal opinions about me to yourself and stick to the topic.
I never said you did. I said IF you were to advocate that, then that would tell us a lot about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The fact is we don't know who is referring too. He could be talking about grown women. Are you going to say consensual sex between a man and a woman is rape too?
Of course not Jeff, I am not an idiot. He wasn't talking about consensual sex, according to the articles. If you can show me somewhere that it shows he was talking consensual sex, and not the rapes this man committed over a decade or two, then I will change my mind. Until then, I have no reason to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The severity of the crime is irrelevant. You are still believing that even if a person pays his debt to society, lives a righteous life, he should still FOREVER be labeled with the crime he committed decades ago.
It really isn't. Are you telling me you would look at a convicted child molester or murderer in the same way as the person who stole a candy bar? Because unless you do, you just proved my point. This guy didn't rape 1 person decades ago, Jeff. He has done so MULTIPLE times. At some point you have to realize that the punishment isn't working with this guy. He had not shown that he is reformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If they are a danger to society then they shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place.
3 strike rule would work for me. Get arrested 3 times (I'm talking violent crimes here), stay in prison until you die. If they can't prove they can stay out of trouble, they don't deserve to be free. Just my opinion of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Many churches don't even think it's a good idea for a church leader to be in a situation of being alone in close contact with the opposite sex. A person can be reformed but still have temptations. You think a recovered drug addict would never be tempted again especially if you threw him in a drug den? But would you still say he is a drug addict? Unless you got proof that he is currently raping women then you can't say he is a rapist. Do you have proof?
I have proof he has done this multiple times, all after "paying his debt to society". Why should I think this time would be any different? He hasn't given anyone reason to think so. So excuse me if I think the pastor should have used a little more caution and gave people a warning at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And you would go to prison for murder too. The law isn't even on your side with that scenario. If it is sickening to have a different opinion on the topic then the thread should have never been created in the first place.
Oh, I would never be caught, Jeffery!
Of course, I was exaggerating, since you didn't get that. However, they may be spending some time nursing wounds, I certainly wouldn't kill them. Use my size, strength, and training to teach them a lesson? Maybe.
I think that some of the comments on this thread shows that it is usually not what happened but who did it that counts. on threads about threats to Christians it is assumed that the threats are real and had to come from either atheists or gays, if Facebook rights are suspended then we must wait for the facts before one can accuse Christians of doing anything to cause it, if the Pastor says that it takes two to tango we must not assume that it has anything to do with the charges Hopper was convicted of.
The take away is according to some on this thread if you accuse a Christian of doing anything you must be able to back up your claim, however if you accuse a atheist of doing anything you do not need any facts or proof for your claim and all atheists on the forum are responsible for these actions.
Jeff; seldom is an offender kept in prison beyond their term. He did his time and now we wait to see if he offends again or not. Unlike some others on this thread I have no problem with Hopper getting a job with a church. My problem is the pastor covering up or at least minimizing what Hopper was convicted of. I asked you once before if Hopper was an astheists and never found God who you be find with him having a similiar type role in a non religious organization with as little safeguards as the pastor seems to think are needed, a safegaurd to protect Hopper not neceissarily the children?
I think that some of the comments on this thread shows that it is usually not what happened but who did it that counts. on threads about threats to Christians it is assumed that the threats are real and had to come from either atheists or gays, if Facebook rights are suspended then we must wait for the facts before one can accuse Christians of doing anything to cause it, if the Pastor says that it takes two to tango we must not assume that it has anything to do with the charges Hopper was convicted of.
I'll agree with the bolded part but not in the way you think. Sadly, we live in a society where women are getting raped every day. Probably even at this very moment. Where is your outrage for those victims? But if it remotely involves Christians, OH MY, get that on front headlines! Rally the troops! You know what outrages me today? Reading about a scumbag parent who burned their young child to death in scalding hot water so bad that the skin was falling off this child's body. That's on my radar. A person in Kentucky who committed an act of rape decades ago, not as much.
I'll agree with the bolded part but not in the way you think. Sadly, we live in a society where women are getting raped every day. Probably even at this very moment. Where is your outrage for those victims? But if it remotely involves Christians, OH MY, get that on front headlines! Rally the troops! You know what outrages me today? Reading about a scumbag parent who burned their young child to death in scalding hot water so bad that the skin was falling off this child's body. That's on my radar. A person in Kentucky who committed an act of rape decades ago, not as much.
Jeff
If you read all my comments on this thread I have not once attacked the rapist. It is the attitude of the pastor which I find awful. His dismissal of the rape victim aND of any need to protect the children is 2hat you would have picked up from my posts if you read with unbiased eyes. It is an attitude like his which gives others the idea that women and girls are not as important. The rapist has done his time and it is great that the church took him on but based on the words on the video the pastor who hired him was worried about protecting the rapist and really minimized what happen to the girl.
Rape is wrong, shaming rape victims is wrong, and so is any attitude that minimizes the affect on the victims. I am sure we agree on the points. And that is what my posts were about, not the rapist himself, he has done his time and I do hope he does not repeat.
I think the Pastor was wrong, but I did not think I had outrage. I responded to a thread. If you are so concerned with rape victims why are you on a religious forum? Obviously 9ne can be concerned about different issues at the same time but address those concerns in different places. Your bringing up new rape cases or parents burning their kids seem like simply an attempt to shut be down, to infer that I should not be here expressing an opinion that is different from yours. Those cases are not part of this thread as you sometimes say. The funny thing is I do not think we are in opposition to each other on this thread if you actually read what I typed.
Both deal with the pastor who hired a felon convicted of multiple offenses, including raping a 13 year old girl, while holding a razor knife to her throat, and then saying that girl was complicit in her rape, because, "It takes two to tango."
Now read responses from Christians who defend that. How could you? How could you just ignore what the girl went through, and play the 'forgiveness' card? How can you defend the pastors words that the girl is to blame? How can you defend the pastor saying the rape is no worse than stealing candy?
There are some Christians on here who I respect, even when disagreeing. I have no respect, nor should anyone, for those who come to the rapists and this pastor's defense. How can anyone have that despicable a viewpoint... has your religion have you so indoctrinated?
What was the matter, didn't the victim scream loud enough. Guess she should have been stoned to death, just like the OT says, right?
You are as bad as the ISIS crowd, and I mean that. Same mentality.
Yeah, it makes me angry that people in this day and age still promulgate that type of attitude. I would enjoy having a coffee with many of my adversaries on here, but people who not only excuse but support this pastor's behavior, I don't even want to be in the same room for fear your dirtiness will stay with me. Go back into whatever hole you came from.
If you need to get up to speed, you can read the whole story here:
In line with your thread title...if "Christians are looked down upon", where does that put Atheists?
The Christians rank waaaaaaay above Atheists in terms of overall acceptance and respect.
MOF...the Atheists have been known to be very high (typically top level) on "The Most Hated and Least Trusted" scale.
If the Christians are viewed being looked down upon...the Atheists are really hurtin'!!
Let's face it, this thread and the other similar threads were intended to stir up a hornets nest and bring out the worst in people. And this is what has happened. People not in any way connected with this story are at each others' throats!
Let's look at it for what it is. A formerly convicted offender, now released as per the law, was taken on by a church pastor. And the media went in for a feeding frenzy. These days the Christian Church is forever in the sights of the popular media. And, they milk every perceived impropriety at every opportunity for the sole purpose of discrediting Christianity and Christians. And, it would appear that the mindless public await such things with bated breath. Just check out these threads as a perfect example of what I say.
A Church!
A formerly convicted rapist!
A church taking on a rapist!
How dare they!
The public will be outraged!
Because they're stupid!
We can manipulate their minds as we always do!
This is great!
Let's go after this and run with it!
Wait a moment for the outrage!
THE MEDIA! LEECHES! All of this was planned BEFORE the pastor was interviewed and BEFORE he said those inappropriate things. As said previously, the media don't give a damn about the girl who was raped. Her case is necessary in order to spice up the story. No, the media don't give a damn. They just want a story to rile up the stupid community! And, it works ...clearly!
Shame on those who fell for this crap!
Tomorrow is another day. This incident will pass quickly. Meanwhile the media will be on the hunt for something else to satisfy the blood-lusts of their gullible clientele . . .
Let's face it, this thread and the other similar threads were intended to stir up a hornets nest and bring out the worst in people. And this is what has happened. People not in any way connected with this story are at each others' throats!
Let's look at it for what it is. A formerly convicted offender, now released as per the law, was taken on by a church pastor. And the media went in for a feeding frenzy. These days the Christian Church is forever in the sights of the popular media. And, they milk every perceived impropriety at every opportunity for the sole purpose of discrediting Christianity and Christians. And, it would appear that the mindless public await such things with bated breath. Just check out these threads as a perfect example of what I say.
A Church!
A formerly convicted rapist!
A church taking on a rapist!
How dare they!
The public will be outraged!
Because they're stupid!
We can manipulate their minds as we always do!
This is great!
Let's go after this and run with it!
Wait a moment for the outrage!
THE MEDIA! LEECHES! All of this was planned BEFORE the pastor was interviewed and BEFORE he said those inappropriate things. As said previously, the media don't give a damn about the girl who was raped. Her case is necessary in order to spice up the story. No, the media don't give a damn. They just want a story to rile up the stupid community! And, it works ...clearly!
Shame on those who fell for this crap!
Tomorrow is another day. This incident will pass quickly. Meanwhile the media will be on the hunt for something else to satisfy the blood-lusts of their gullible clientele . . .
Do you have evidence for this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
