Oklahoma Republican Declares That Rape Is The ‘Will Of God’

[Fweethawt]

http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/05/oklahoma-republican-declares-that-rape-is-the-will-of-god/

 

Women should get as far away from Oklahoma as soon as possible because Christian Sharia law is about to make their lives a living hell.

[Tsathoggua9]

Wotta goddam asshole!  

[Jeff]

fuck religion

[nutrichuckles93]

Fuck that dude.

[Lilith666]

Of course it is. If nothing happens that is outside of gawd's will, then it follows that rape, since it occurs, is included in his will.

 

I watched the video below the article because it was incredible that anyone would say something so horrible. This Faught character truly is a pile of garbage. Even my very pro-life fundy father, who refused to believe every piece of evidence that the Planned Parenthood "fetal tissue videos" were not about selling tissue, conceded that abortion should be allowed in cases of pregnancies from rape and incest. (Edit: I realize abortion itself wasn't mentioned, but since it is so closely tied to women's rights and Christianity, it's relevant. Also, I wanted to note that he has less respect for women than many fundies do.) It's nauseating that Faught believes rape is the will of his god, and we can infer that he thinks it should be mandatory to continue a pregnancy even if it results from rape, so that he can cling to his delusion of a mansion over the hilltop.

 

I love the fantasy-land Christians live in where women allow themselves to be forced to have children. I don't ever want children. If I were to become pregnant, and especially if I were pregnant from being raped, I would do anything in my power to terminate it. If abortion were illegal or inaccessible, I would resort to other options, such as the stairs or a coat-hanger. Even suicide, if it somehow came to that, would give me more dignity than carrying and giving birth to a child I did not want.

 

I don't know what else to say about this. It's revolting.

[Daffodil]

 

Of course it is. If nothing happens that is outside of gawd's will, then it follows that rape, since it occurs, is included in his will.

 

I watched the video below the article because it was incredible that anyone would say something so horrible. This Faught character truly is a pile of garbage. Even my very pro-life fundy father, who refused to believe every piece of evidence that the Planned Parenthood "fetal tissue videos" were not about selling tissue, conceded that abortion should be allowed in cases of pregnancies from rape and incest. It's nauseating that Faught believes rape is the will of his god, and that it should be mandatory to continue a pregnancy even if it results from rape, so that he can cling to his delusion of a mansion over the hilltop.

 

I love the fantasy-land Christians live in where women allow themselves to be forced to have children. I don't ever want children. If I were to become pregnant, and especially if I were pregnant from being raped, I would do anything in my power to terminate it. If abortion were illegal or inaccessible, I would resort to other options, such as the stairs or a coat-hanger. Even suicide, if it somehow came to that, would give me more dignity than carrying and giving birth to a child I did not want.

 

I don't know what else to say about this. It's revolting.

 

And by that logic, child molestation is also god's will.  Delightful.  

[mwc]

     I was taught pretty much everything this guy said in Baptist school.  I totally accepted it, believed it and repeated it throughout my life.  It made perfect sense that god would do this sort of thing and we shouldn't mess it all up.

 

     But if a person is going to get an abortion after a rape isn't this something god should know?  Or at least be able to take into account after the fact and have a Plan B in mind?  I mean, someone gets raped, has an abortion, and god's like "Well, I guess we're all shit of luck since that's all I had planned and I can't do this again in a non-rapey way."  Seems that when god asked if someone was up for a raping they were usually cool with it.  What happened to that?  An old-fashioned pre-rape notification angel?  I guess that just wasn't rapey enough and he changed it.

 

          mwc

 

[rerics]

 

Fuck that dude.

Absolutely, since it's God's will anyway.

 

[Ellinas]

 

 

And by that logic, child molestation is also god's will.  Delightful.  

 

Of course.  The logic is inescapable.  As god is in control, everything is in accordance with his will.  Therefore, even such experiences which are nothing short of horrific torture are the will of god.  His "loving" will, of course...

 

Though this creates a logical problem.  If sin is that which is against god's will (a pretty standard definition), then it cannot exist as everything is his will.  Which rather undermines the whole structure.

 

The usual Christian way around this is to talk in terms of distinguishing "permissive" and "prescriptive" will, as if this, somehow, relieves the omniscient and omnipotent of his responsibility.

 

You need to be in the right frame of mind to think about this without becoming either loopy or angry.

[Daffodil]

 

 

Of course.  The logic is inescapable.  As god is in control, everything is in accordance with his will.  Therefore, even such experiences which are nothing short of horrific torture are the will of god.  His "loving" will, of course...

 

Though this creates a logical problem.  If sin is that which is against god's will (a pretty standard definition), then it cannot exist as everything is his will.  Which rather undermines the whole structure.

 

The usual Christian way around this is to talk in terms of distinguishing "permissive" and "prescriptive" will, as if this, somehow, relieves the omniscient and omnipotent of his responsibility.

 

You need to be in the right frame of mind to think about this without becoming either loopy or angry.

 

That is brilliant!  Wish I had thought of that when I had an argument with a Calvinist back when I was still a Christian.  He kept insisting that god could not be or do anything outside of who he was.  I argued that didn't make sense because if he was all-powerful, he could do absolutely anything!  The man said no, not if it was outside of who he was.  I can't remember exactly how this started, but it had to do with a fellow church member's son falling off a roof and becoming paralyzed from the neck down.  Why couldn't god prevent that tragedy?  "He would have had to go against his own will."  Why couldn't he have miraculously healed him?  "He would have had to go against his own will."  If god is all-powerful and in control of absolutely everything, then YES HE COULD!  I pointed out to the man that he was putting god in a box, but he was unmoved.  Calvinists are mindbogglingly stubborn and unwilling to even consider another possibility!  We left that church shortly after this incident and attended a church that was more Arminian, and then deconverted completely just a few years later.  Thank . . . my ability to think logically!

 

ETA:  Oh, I just remembered what led to that exchange in the first place!  It was in a class where they were introducing John Piper's Calvinist teachings, as the church as a whole had decided to follow John Piper.  The father of that paralyzed man was arguing that it was not god's will that his son fall, because god is good and merciful.  The leader said it was god's will because everything that happens, happens according to his will.  The father couldn't accept that because he sees god as kind and merciful (now how the poor man has to do intellectual cartwheels in order to maintain that belief while caring for his son is a whole other conversation!), and it just got my mind roiling at the craziness of it all.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

Of course.  The logic is inescapable.  As god is in control, everything is in accordance with his will.  Therefore, even such experiences which are nothing short of horrific torture are the will of god.  His "loving" will, of course...

 

Though this creates a logical problem.  If sin is that which is against god's will (a pretty standard definition), then it cannot exist as everything is his will.  Which rather undermines the whole structure.

 

The usual Christian way around this is to talk in terms of distinguishing "permissive" and "prescriptive" will, as if this, somehow, relieves the omniscient and omnipotent of his responsibility.

 

You need to be in the right frame of mind to think about this without becoming either loopy or angry.

 

How do you refute Christians who start down the "permissive" and "prescriptive" will bit? Because that is literally exactly what happens to me, it's like how do you argue with such nonsense when rationality isn't the priority?

[Ellinas]

You could try pointing out that election is not "permissive will" - the doctrine requires that the saved have no choice but to be saved and therefore, regardless of all Christian protestations to the contrary, neither do the damned have any choice in the matter, and this makes the whole Christian concept of deity that of a psychopathic egomaniac.  Refuse to accept all the "we don't understand it, we just believe it" as being nothing more than a failure to address a fatal logical flaw in their argument.

 

You can also point out that the logic of their argument is that a god who is "of purer eyes than to behold evil" permits sin - i.e. actively allows that which he cannot stand, which is perfectly within his capability to stop, and which he is bound to stop if he is indeed willing that "none should perish".

 

You could point out that, in the context of the omnipotent, omniscient deity they propose, the distinction of "permissive" and "prescriptive" lacks credibility.  Either god is in control or he is not, and if he is so, then the responsibility for all that offends him remains with him.

 

You won't win any such arguments, in the sense that you will just see them squirm and adopt any and every formula to get out of these issues.  But you might find the increasing level of bollocks they are forced to talk entertaining.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

You could try pointing out that election is not "permissive will" - the doctrine requires that the saved have no choice but to be saved and therefore, regardless of all Christian protestations to the contrary, neither do the damned have any choice in the matter, and this makes the whole Christian concept of deity that of a psychopathic egomaniac.  Refuse to accept all the "we don't understand it, we just believe it" as being nothing more than a failure to address a fatal logical flaw in their argument.

 

You can also point out that the logic of their argument is that a god who is "of purer eyes than to behold evil" permits sin - i.e. actively allows that which he cannot stand, which is perfectly within his capability to stop, and which he is bound to stop if he is indeed willing that "none should perish".

 

You could point out that, in the context of the omnipotent, omniscient deity they propose, the distinction of "permissive" and "prescriptive" lacks credibility.  Either god is in control or he is not, and if he is so, then the responsibility for all that offends him remains with him.

 

You won't win any such arguments, in the sense that you will just see them squirm and adopt any and every formula to get out of these issues.  But you might find the increasing level of bollocks they are forced to talk entertaining.

 

Well, if I can leave it, maybe the "seeds of doubt" will "fall on good soil."