Rape in the OT

Rapists often come to sticky ends in biblical narratives.

Ammon rapes Tamar (2 Sam 13) and so gets murdered by his half-brother.

Shechem rapes Dinah (or does abduction marriage, Gen 34). Consequence: tricked into circumcision & killed while his offending body part is in pain.

— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) December 8, 2018

Men of Gibeah rape the concubine (Judges 19:25) and their entire city is destroyed.

Lot foolishly offered his daughters for non-consensual sex (Genesis 19:8). No act is carried out, but he's repayed by non-consensual sex with them in Genesis 19:31-35.

— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) December 8, 2018

Conclusion: even though biblical narratives usually do not directly comment on the morality of actions, they often emphasize poetic justice in ways that we miss.

— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) December 8, 2018

Redefining rape

It's important that conservatives force liberals to be consistent. During the Kavanaugh hearings, liberals were reading from an old script. According to that script, biological men rape biological women. 

But according to transgenderism, those categories are defunct. According to the new script, a "transgender woman" (i.e. biological male who self-identifies as female) can rape a biological woman. But if you're supposed to believe women, which woman are you supposed to believe–the biological woman or the "transgender woman"? 

Or suppose, before "she" transitioned, the "transgender woman" was convicted of raping a biological woman. But according to GLAAD, transgender identity is retroactive:

https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-responds-vanity-fair-cover-featuring-caitlyn-jenner-releases-updated-tip-sheet

So the rapist was never a man. But in that event, which "woman" are you supposed to believe? 

Or suppose a "transgender woman" rapes a gay adolescent boy. Who are you supposed to believe–the "woman" or the homosexual? 

The presumption of innocence

There's currently a debate about whether Kavanaugh ought to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

1. The presumption of innocence is an artificial legal standard. In our system of justice, it's better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be convicted. That's a good legal standard. For one thing, a defendant has so much to lose in a criminal trial. In addition, the state has resources that most defendants don't. 

2. However, I wouldn't say there's an abstract or general presumption of innocence outside the courtroom. Rather, it depends on the evidence. If there's insufficient evidence one way or the other, the responsible attitude is to suspend judgment.

3. The mentality of secular progressives, exemplified by affirmative consent and campus kangaroo courts, is that when a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment, assault, or rape, the woman is presumptively innocent and trustworthy while the man is presumptively guilty and untrustworthy. 

That's a sexist attitude, and it disregards reality. Sometimes men lie, sometimes women lie. When you throw alcohol into the mix, the accuser or the accused can sincerely misremember. 

There's no justified general presumption, no presumption in the abstract, that a female accuser is the innocent victim, is telling the truth, while the accused is the perp. That can only be assessed on a case by case basis. It depends on specific evidence, or lack thereof. 

4. At this point I support Kavanaugh's confirmation, not based on the presumption of innocence, but because I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he's guilty. I make allowance for the possibility that her story is true. The fact that Kavanaugh hung around Mark Judge makes it likely that he attended some of the same drinking parties. 

But that doesn't make the allegation true or even probably true. What if she was under the influence? What if they were both under the influence? That clouds judgment. 

5. The closest thing to independent evidence is the polygraph. But that's dicey:

i) From what I've read, polygraph results are just slightly better than chance.

ii) We don't know what questions she was asked.

5. In addition, there are holes in her story. 

6. It's important that we not let Democrats win using these tactics. 

Lustful monkeys with big brains

As I've probably said on more than one occasion, conservative candidates are at a disadvantage in public debates. Democrats and/or secular progressives are uninhibited in saying whatever they think. They express the most outlandish views with impunity. By contrast, conservative candidates have to project sensitivity. To mix metaphors, they're constantly pulling their punches and walking on eggshells. They're afraid to say what needs to be said. They're afraid to challenge liberal assumptions. Liberals win by stipulating outlandish claims as indisputable, then proceeding to build on that false premise. 

I don't necessarily blame conservative candidates for being so squeamish, because many voters are irrational. It's a tough environment to navigate. That's why those of us who aren't candidates need to challenge Democrats and/or secular progressives to be consistent.

A Supreme Court nominee has been accused of attempted rape when he was 17. How should that be morally assessed? That depends in large part on our moral frame of reference. Is that Christian ethics or secular ethics? Before I get to that I'd like to address two preliminary issues: 

1. What's the difference between rape and attempted rape? Attempted rape is ambiguous. Consider two different scenarios:

i) A male intends to have sexual intercourse with a female against her will. He initiates the action, but for whatever reason, is unable to carry it through. 

ii) A male at a drinking party gets sexually aggressive with a female to test her sexual receptivity. If she resists, he will back down.

In the case of (i), he was willing but unable. In the case of (ii), he was able but unwilling. In the case of (i), he tried and failed. In the case of (ii), he was in a position to physically overpower her, but relented. In the case of (ii), the overture was unsolicited, but whether he carried through with it was contingent on her consent. He didn't intend to have sexual intercourse against her will. 

Are both these actions attempted rape? Is (ii) sexual assult or aggressive unsuccessful seduction? Is (i) failed rape while (ii) is failed seduction? 

Up to a point, this is reversible. At a drinking party, a female might get sexually aggressive with a male to test his sexual receptivity. She can't physically overpower him, but her overture is unsolicited. She "forces" herself on him in the sense of forcing the issue, pressuring him to make a choice. Is that sexual assault or aggressive unsuccessful seduction? 

Men can be the object of rape. That's common in prison. 

It's possible for a woman to roofie a guy and perform sexual actions on him. Is that rape? 

It's possible for a woman to sodomize a man if she incapacitates him and uses something like a mop handle. That's rape.  

2. Another issue is the role of alcohol in relation to rape or attempted rape. There's a sense in which intoxication induces a state of diminished responsibility. And if both male and female are drunk, that lowers or erases the threshold for consent. Indeed, that's one reason some people get drunk in the first place: to remove sexual inhibitions.

That said, an agent can be morally responsible for inducing a state of diminished responsibility. If I drive to a tavern, I intend to drive back. If I get drunk, I'm making a choice, at the time I'm sober, which will severely impair my perception and reflexes. If I kill a cyclist or pedestrian when I'm under the influence, I'm culpable for inducing that condition. 

However, there's a sense in which driving drunk is more brazen, more premeditated, than getting drunk at a party–where the objective is to create open up certain possibilities. 

Moving along to the main point: 

3. From a Christian standpoint, humans have animal bodies, albeit bodies designed for human minds. We have the ability to inflict physical or emotional harm on others. But we're supposed to exercise self-restraint out of consideration for the welfare of others. 

In addition, standard Christian ethics regards fornication as a sin. That rules out rape, attempted rape, and seduction. Consensual as well as nonconsensual premarital sex. Not to mention extramarital sex. 

Of course, secular progressives despise Christian ethics in general and Christian sexual ethics in particular. So what's their alternative? 

4. From a secular standpoint, humans are libidinous monkeys with big brains. There are, moreover, evolutionary theories of rape. Combined with evolutionary ethics, what's the secular basis to condemn rape or attempted rape? 

One response is that sometimes we have a duty to resist our natural impulses. But there are problems with that response:

i) How many times have you seen atheists say we don't need God to be moral because evolution can account for our moral instincts? But how can they simultaneously insist that we ought to suppress our evolutionary mores? Is evolutionary psychology a reliable source of morality or not? 

ii) What's the standard an atheist relies on to differentiate good evolutionary mores from bad evolutionary mores? 

5. Since sexual performance declines with age, isn't it reasonable, from a secular standpoint, for men to make the most of their short-lived sexual prime? Why should they turn down opportunities when their opportunities will diminish with the passage of time? 

6. Sodomy and sadomasochism are more damaging than attempted rape. If attempted rape is so traumatic to the victim as to disqualify a candidate, why not sodomy or sadomasochism? 

Stats on rape allegations

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-rape-claim-statistics/

Libido and libation

There's an explosive, detailed allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

1. To judge by the story, I find the allegation realistic and credible. But credible isn't the same thing as convincing. 

2. For the most part, her account lacks any independent corroborative. Thus far, no one else at the party confirms her story. That doesn't mean her story is false. If it happened, both Kavanaugh and witness Mark Judge have every incentive to lie. And if it happened, they were the only direct witnesses. Mind you, if she was distraught, other partiers might notice her condition as she left. 

This is a problem with failing to report a crime when it happens. The witness pool dries up. Memories fade. 

3. The closest thing to corroboration is the polygraph. I think it's significant that she passed the polygraph. Indeed, I think it's significant that she agreed to take it in the first place. If she fabricated the story whole cloth, would she even dare to take a polygraph?

4. That said, a polygraph is not infallible, and to my knowledge, it only shows that the subject is convinced of what they say. Some people who claim to be victims of ritual Satanic abuse might pass a polygraph. Some "alien abductees" might pass a polygraph. On the vicissitudes of the polygraph:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

5. If true, it's odd that she's uncertain what year it happened. Given such an unforgettable incident, how could she be unsure about the year? 

Likewise, she's given conflicting accounts of her age at the time of the alleged assault. Was she 15 or in her "late teens"? How could she not remember her age?

The fact that she says she doesn't remember the year or the place could be a calculating way to render her allegation unfalsifiable. 

6. Although I find her allegation plausible, there's another plausible scenario. Both she and Kavanaugh were inebriated. 

She denies that she was drunk, but I treat her denials the same way I treat the denials of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. If guilty, they have reason to hide their guilt. They have reason to protect their reputation. But that cuts both ways. For by the same token, if she was inebriated to some degree, she has reason to deny it, since admitting that both were intoxicated dramatically changes the social dynamics. 

Why do teenagers go to drinking parties if not to drink and hookup? By design, it's a sexually charged setting.

7. If they were both intoxicated to some degree, then she could be completely sincere in her recollections, yet intoxication might impair her perceptions at the time, what signals she was sending, as well as her memories of the event. (By "perception" I don't mean sensory perception but interpretation.)

When teenagers and college students attend drinking parties, there's a presumption that the partiers are under the influence and sex is on their minds. It pretty much removes the conditions necessary to establish nonconsent. 

8. Rape charges are often hard to verify if there are no witnesses. In addition, rape depends on nonconsent. And that makes attempted rape even harder to verify. Throw in a drinking party with barelyclad teenagers, and what's the presumption? What's the expectation? 

9. In addition, the timing is politically calculated to derail his confirmation. She's a registered Democrat. 

Now, that's still consistent with the truth of the allegation. But it's equally consistent with expedient defamation. That's a problem with last-minute accusations, which weren't reported at the time the alleged incident occurred. 

10. There's also the issue of double standards. Suppose, at a drinking party, a teenage girl shoved a boy onto a bed and began to tear his clothes off. Technically that's sexual assault, but if girl does it to a boy, does anyone honestly think that's sexual assault–or do we instinctively understand that what may be a traumatic experience for a female isn't a traumatic experience for a male? Men are wired differently. 

Or suppose you had a gay drinking party in which one young sodomite forced himself on another young sodomite. Is that attempted rape? Of did he leave himself open to that, given the setting? Swim with sharks...

Our society needs to get honest about standards. Either have a consistent unisex standard or a consistent complementation standard. If secular progressives are serious about how men and women are physically and psychologically interchangeable, then what is attempted rape when a male takes the initiative is attempted rape when a female takes the initiative.

If, on the other hand, we admit that normal men and women are physically and psychologically different, then that justifies a double standard in some situations (where sexual differences come to the fore), but that needs to be consistently applied. That means excluding women from certain occupations to which they are physically and/or psychologically unsuited.

What we have right now is a double standard when it benefits women. Where men are presumptively guilty. That's a miscarriage of justice. 

What about female abuse victims?

One criticism I've run across regarding the Catholic abuse scandal is neglect of the female victims:

i) I'm no expert on the demographics, but it may well be the case that in the past a higher percentage of Catholic clergymen were straight. I believe there was a custom in some Catholic communities with large families to dedicate one son to the priesthood. He was groomed for the priesthood. Pressured to become a priest. That wasn't motivated by an inner sense of vocation, but a desire not to disappoint your parents, aunts, parish priest, &c. Don't let the team down.

As a result, you probably had many straight priests who were never devoted to chastity. Indeed, priests who weren't genuinely pious, but only went into the priesthood because it was a tradition among some Catholic ethnicities to arbitrarily designate one son as a priest-to-be. 

It's not surprising if some of them had mistresses. Frequented brothels. Had affairs with nuns. Whatever. 

ii) However, it seems that far fewer straight men these days are prepared to sacrifice a normal family life for the priesthood. If so, it's not surprising if the incidence of sexual abuse has shifted from more heterosexual cases to more homosexual cases. And it's natural to focus on the present rather than the past since it's too late to rectify the past.

iii) In addition, there's a difference between isolated cases and a pattern of abuse. Not that isolated cases are insignificant, but those are harder to prevent. By contrast, a pattern implies some interrelated factors. It may be possible to break a pattern whereas isolated cases are unpredictable. 

iv) We need to engage in tree-thinning to better see the isolated cases, which are obscured by a more systematic pattern. If one can eliminate the larger problem, then it's easier to refocus attention on the smaller problem.

v) A certain amount of sexual abuse is unavoidable, both inside and outside the church. Some sexual abuse can only be punished, not prevented. 

But we need to distinguish between gratuitous risk factors and necessary risk factors. Ordaining known homosexuals is a gratuitous risk. Eliminating gratuitous risk factors makes it easier to concentrate on normal cases. Currently the church of Rome is overwhelmed. 

vi) There's a distinction between sexual sins and sexual crimes. A straight priest with a mistress is committing a sin but not a crime. Consenting adults. 

Adults seducing minors is a crime, not merely a sin. Raping prepubescent boys and girls is a crime, not merely a sin. 

Mind you, I think the church of Rome may well have crossed a line of no return. It's like a hull breach. Once a ship takes on too much water, it will capsize. Once the hull begins filling with water, there's a point beyond which that's irreversible. It will continue to fill until it sinks. 

"Marry your rapist law"

Citing Biblical injunctions (particularly Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marry-your-rapist_law#Antiquity_until_1900

I've discussed the Deuteronomic passages before:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/09/legal-technicalities.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/06/10-questions.html

By contrast, Exod 22:16-17 concerns a shotgun wedding in the case of consensual premarital sex. For instance: 

The primary and secondary rulings in these verses concern a man who entices an unbetrothed girl to have intercourse with him. The inference appears to be that the girl agrees to this; she is not raped as in Deut 22:2-29. J. A. Thompson describes it as "seduction". T. D. Alexander, Exodus (IVP 2017), 498.

Aisha

1. I believe White is responding to Steve Camp. It's my impression that Camp engages in virtue-signaling rather than serious apologetics or evangelistic outreach. This is just sending a message to other people that he's tough on Islam.

2. In addition, I agree with White that there are many other issues we can bring up besides Aisha. Islam is a target-rich environment.

3. Likewise, leading with Aisha can shut down discussion before discussion ever gets underground. A conversation-stopper rather than an opening.

4. That said, is White suggesting that Muhammed didn't have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl? When he makes dismissive comments about "ignorance-laden, bigoted attacks" on Muhammad in reference to Aisha, that seems to be what he means.

5. Moreover, White seems to be suggesting that Christian apologists should never bring up the issue of Muhammad's pederastic marriage. Yet this isn't just ad hominem. Muhammad is the role model for Muslims. And they consider unfitting behavior to discredit prophetic or messianic claimants.

Are we not supposed to talk about child rape in relation to Muhammad? What about cult leaders who practice child rape on the compound? Is that verboten?

White appears to be saying that Muhammad's sex life is offlimits in Christian apologetics and countercult ministry. That there's absolutely no circumstances under which a Christian can legitimately raise that issue. Does White think it's always wrong to "attack" Muhammad's character?

What about the moral credibility of Joseph Smith? Are Christian apologists not allowed to point to evidence that Joseph Smith was a con man? What about Benny Hinn? Does White have a consistent standard in countercult ministry?

What about the subculture of pederasty in the Catholic priesthood and episcopate? Are Christian apologists permitted to raise that issue?

Further, do you really, really think Dr. Yasir Qadhi has never heard surface-level, ignorance-laden, bigoted attacks upon Muhammad in reference to Aisha? Seriously? You think you have something to tell him on the matter? I can assure you, you don’t.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

If he had equal time he could bury you under references from historical sources off the top of his head that you wouldn’t even know how to pronounce, let alone access, let alone understand. 4) There is more than sufficient reason to discuss the Islamic claims concerning the role

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

of Muhammad as an example, as THE example, upon which morals and ethics in sharia are to be based. I have repeatedly asserted that I believe a significantly better, less emotional, and more profitable discussion is to be had regarding Zaynab bint-Jash,

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

for this allows one to go directly into the text of the Qur’an and make direct application to key apologetic issues—issues that, Steve, I do not believe you to be proficient in even outlining, let alone pursuing in such a conversation. But even here we have gone outside the

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

parameters of the intended focus and topic of discussion, and again, I will honor the person with whom I am speaking, I will honor my word, and I will honor the audience, by not engaging in such grand-standing. 5) Finally, the only way to honestly approach the Aisha issue is

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

with a broad and firm historical foundation. One must be prepared to answer such obvious questions as, “If your accusation is true, why are there not other examples alongside Aisha? Why are all of Muhammad’s other wives not only older, but had already been married?

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

And why does it seem that, aside from Kadijah, Aisha was the closest to Muhammad throughout the rest of his life (not the norm for such relationships)?” There is no question that the example Muhammad established has been destructive to many young women down through the centuries,

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

but you are actually *distracting* from that serious and real issue by using Aisha as a brickbat without fairness and accuracy as your goal. Muslim apologists are often unfair with Christian history (look at what many of them do to Paul, for example), but we as Christians

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

do not have the right to turn around and return the favor. It is far better to be cautious and careful than it is to be bombastic and in the process profane the truth.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

Is consent a sufficient criterion?

Homosexual activists typically draw the line with consent. At least that's what they say when publicly defending their lifestyle. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever. 

Let's test that. Suppose an attractive mother and her attractive teenage daughter are captives in a concentration camp. One of the guards has designs on her daughter, so the mother offers to take her daughter's place. That's consensual sex, but does that make it right? 

Consider another example: Fr. Maximilian Kolbe offered to take the place of a prisoner condemned to die. That's consensual. Does that mean the Nazis were blameless in starving him to death?

"Islamophobic Muslims"

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/georgetown_spins_muslim_selfcriticism_into_islamophobic_muslims.html

"A God who accepts there are rapists in his universe"

He’d much rather have a God who sovereignly decrees a person be raped, than have a God who accepts there are rapists in his universe. 

http://evangelicalarminians.org/ff171201/

That comparison is supposed to make Arminianism look good in contrast to Calvinism. 

Suppose the alternatives were between an Arminian world in which God doesn't allow rapists into his universe and a Calvinistic world in which "God sovereignly decrees a person be raped". If that was the choice, then Arminianism would certainly be more prima facie appealing than Calvinism.

But when it comes to the fact of evil, Arminians are in the same boat as Calvinists. 

A God who "accepts" there are rapists in his universe. How euphemistic. The Arminian God has an open border policy on rapists? 

In law enforcement, we tolerate a certain level of criminality because we lack the resources to prevent every crime. The best we can do is to keep crime at manageable levels. Keep crime from spiraling out of control. But the Arminian God doesn't suffer from the same limitations.

It's easy for the Arminian God to accept that there are rapists in his universe since the Arminian God will never be a raped. It's a whole lot easier to accept a hazardous situation from a position of safety. When you yourself are invulnerable. But that's sorry consolation to the rape victim. Evils that would be intolerable if they threatened me or my family are not as urgent when we're out of harm's way. And yet it's often virtuous to endanger yourself to save others. 

I'm struck by moral smugness of the SEA contributor, as if his alternative is obviously superior.

Rape jihad

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449526/afghan-refugees-rape-jihad-europe

Afghan "refugees"

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ive-worked-refugees-decades-europes-afghan-crime-wave-mind-21506?page=show

"Transgender women" in women's shelters

http://globalnews.ca/news/3300518/concerns-over-transgender-client-at-okanagan-shelter/

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/a-sex-predators-sick-deception

Informed consent and the Virgin Birth

On Facebook, I got into a debate with John Mark Reynolds on the Virgin Birth. Reynolds is Eastern Orthodox, and I take it he's a freewill theist. 

Reynolds 

God is not a rapist and came with consent.

Hays 

Do Biblical prophets consent to be prophets? Did Moses consent to that? Or Jeremiah? Or Ezekiel? Or St. Paul. They had pretty grueling lives. Let's drop the demagogical "rapist" label, shall we?

Reynolds 

"Demagogical" is the old ethical. No. The prophets did indeed consent to be prophets. As did Saint Paul . . .

Let me suggest: to conceive a child without full consent (knowing what one is getting into) is rape. It is bad.

Hays 

Really? Did Jeremiah know what he was getting into? "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me" (Jer 20:7). Is that your notion of informed consent?

Moses is a paradigm of the reluctant prophet. So is Jonah. It's a real stretch for you to claim that consented to be prophets.

You think parents know what they are getting into? Did the parents of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer know what they were getting into?

What about the parents of a boy who becomes a hopeless drug addict and commits suicide? 

There's a continuum. At one extreme there's having no idea what you're getting into. At the other extreme is exhaustive foreknowledge or counterfactual knowledge. Only God has that. In-between those two extremes are many gradations of knowing and not knowing. 

Hasn't John Mark Reynolds made decisions which, with the benefit of hindsight, he would not have made? Events often turn out differently than we expected, going in.

What about a man who marries a women who later develops a degenerative illness like MS or Huntington's disease. He didn't know what he was getting into. In some cases, if he had the benefit of foresight, some men would have married a different woman.

Given JMR's strictures, does he think a man in that situation has grounds to divorce his wife since he lacked informed consent when he said "I do"? 

If not, then where does that leave his original argument?

i) If you're mistaken, you called God a rapist. Don't you think you ought to be more circumspect? You're prepared to call God a rapist based on your a priori stipulation that to conceive a child without "full consent," which you define as "knowing what one is getting into," is "rape". I'm curious about people who are so utterly confident in their intuitions that they have no hesitation about making potentially defamatory statements about God. How is that distinguishable from hubris or impudence? 

ii) But let's play along with your stipulation. Since Jesus only had one biological parent, in principle, God could have made Joseph the biological parent rather than Mary. Suppose he miraculously created a temporary womb in Joseph and made Joseph the surrogate "mother" or incubator of Jesus. If he did so without securing Joseph's "full consent," would he be guilty of "raping" Joseph?

iii) Actually, there's nothing about consent in the account of the Annunciation. Gabriel simply gives Mary advance notice of what's going to happen. He doesn't come to Mary with a proposal from God and ask for her to vote it up or down. It's not a request, but a prediction. It gives her an opportunity to prepare for what awaits her. 

iv) Suppose, for argument's sake, that Mary had no warning. Suppose she simply become pregnant by direct divine agency. She'd be unaware of the process by which she became pregnant. The agency of the God in effecting that result would be indetectable. How is that equivalent to rape? 

Lots of things happen to us without our consent to, including bad things. Take cancer or degenerative illnesses. Is that equivalent to divine rape?

"I do think you need informed consent to have sex and make a baby."

Since the virginal conception didn't involve sex–which is what makes it virginal–your comparison is already disanalogous.

"I do think a lack of consent is rape"

That's so simplistic. Although it's true that rape is nonconsensual, that's hardly a sufficient criterion. As we know, rape involves a man physically forcing himself on an unwilling woman. That, in turn, generates psychological trauma.

Suppose Gabriel hadn't given Mary advance notice. Even though she didn't consent, none of the other elements would be present. It trades on the odious connotations of rape without most of the elements we normally associate with rape.

"We marry for better or worse or in sickness or in health to having considered the weight of our decision."

But that's an abstraction. How is massive ignorance of the future compatible with informed consent? You have two principles that tug in opposing directions: risky commitment and informed consent. 

You duck the point that we often make decisions we later regret because we had to act on the information which we had at the time, which turned out to be inadequate to make an informed decision. That's a commonplace of human experience. 

"This is why modern vows are so risky…As for having a child, when I have a child I choose the risk."

What makes it risky is ignorance of the consequences. Informed consent and risk pull in opposing directions. Risky because we don't know the future. You need to come down on one side or the other of your conflicting principles. 

"Second, God isn't the proximate cause of evils like cancer."

That's getting a bit offtrack, but since you bring it up, although God is not the proximate cause of natural evils like cancer, he's the remote cause. Or, to put it differently, his prior action is a necessary condition. How that distinction is supposed to help your overall position is unclear. 

"Third, a prophet has a choice. None of your examples contradict that."

I don't see where your getting that from examples like Moses, Jonah, Jeremiah, and St. Paul. Rather, you appear to have an a priori commitment to choice, which you impose on these examples. They *must* have had a choice.

Unclear what you mean by choice in that context. Even if you put a gun to a man's head, there's a sense in which he still has a choice. He can choose to be shot in the head. But he's acting under duress. 

"Fourth, men do get raped, so "yes" the situation you describe would be rape of Joseph."

Equivocal. That's typically in the case of, say, men sodomized in prison. But that's hardly comparable to the situation I described. 

"If you insist on not seeing consent in 'the let it be done into me…' Because of foreknowledge, I would of suggest John Martin Fischer."

i) I didn't bring up the issue of freedom and foreknowledge. However, John Martin Fischer rejects libertarian freedom, so citing him is counterproductive to your position. He takes the position that freedom and foreknowledge are consistent in a compatibilist (or "semicompatibilist") sense of freedom, not the libertarian sense. 

ii) More to the point, there's a distinction between willing and unwilling submission. Mary willingly submits to God's resolve to make her the mother of the messiah. That doesn't imply that she had a veto. Scripture contains many examples of unwilling submission to God's inexorable resolve.

You can't get what you need out of Mary's "be it done until me according to your will," if by that you mean the Incarnation was contingent on her consent. 

"I don't think God deceived Jeremiah and you don't either. What we cry out to God in sorrow... Can be immoderate."

Sure, the way Jeremiah expresses himself is emotional and rhetorical. But as one commentator notes:

"Almighty God enlisting an innocent young man (probably just a teenager!) in a lifelong, hapless task, not telling him upfront that he would never be able to marry or have children, nor telling him that he would, in fact, be beaten and imprisoned and publicly humiliated (didn't God promise that he would be rescued from his enemies?), not fully explaining to him the living hell he would experience," M. Brown, REBC 7:288.

That just doesn't fit into your preconceived grid about the necessity of informed consent. Your not starting with the data. 

"Finally, to assume any Gospel account is 'all there is' is belied by the Gospels themselves. The stories are summaries. The Gospels don't have Jesus ever laughing, but I am confident he did."

I haven't assumed that any Gospel account is all there is. But if it's not in the Gospels, and it's not in some reliable extrabiblical source, then you have no evidence for your claim. 

"And by the way, if a man signs up to be a prophet and then is shocked…"

Which misses the point. Moses, Jonah, Jeremiah, and St. Paul didn't enlist. Rather, God conscripted them. They were draftees, not volunteers. 

"She also knew the prophets, what they experienced, and said. She knew."

We have a pretty good idea of what she knew from the Magnificat, and it's quite triumphal. There's no Suffering Servant in the Magnificat.

Reynolds 

Just to be know: who was the first person in Church history to adopt your own preferred view of Mary? That date would be helpful.

Hays 

If you're asking me, that would Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 1C.

Reynolds 

That is the question, isn't it. The BVM spent 30 years pondering out Lord's birth and unlike most followed him to the Cross. I bet...she knew.

Hays 

You bet she knew what? That she had advance knowledge regarding the Passion of Christ, or did you have something else in mind?

Reynolds 

The Passion... The sword piercing her heart.

Hays 

How does a generic metaphor like that amount to specific knowledge of the future?

Reynolds

"generic"...if I lived through the Annunciation, the birth of the baptist, the shepherds, the Wise men, the Temple incident, knew Isaiah, lived with Jesus...I might suspect his mission wasn't to have a good time.

What was she pondering?

Hays 

Most of that doesn't fit your criterion of informed consent, since it's after the conception of Jesus. Too late for her to know what she's getting into before the die is cast. 

So you seem to be shifting ground and changing the subject. 

She was pondering Simeon's cryptic comment. Of course, if she knew what he meant, what would there be to ponder?

Reynolds

Actually it does fit my previous argument. She was pondering the mystery of the Suffering Servant. I view it as phenomenally implausible that someone who went through what Mary did (even assuming we have an exhaustive account of what was said to her) and lived with Jesus for 30 years did not much gain more than the initial redemption account (required for the initial yes). Did Jesus teach in the Temple and they found out nothing? Did they talk for decades? Much to ponder beyond the basic outline ...

Essentially nobody in church history had your low view of Mary...until the reformation and later then! Why would anyone think the Mother of God "blessed among women" would be ignorant? Nobody did...see images in catacombs, early 3rd century prayers, and the consensus of almost all gospel readers for centuries.

Steve Hays 

The question isn't whether his mission was to have a good time. That's a straw man. If you can't bring yourself to be serious in how you frame the issue, so be it. What is there in the Annunciation, the birth of the Baptist, the shepherds, the Wise men, and the Temple incident to suggest that Jesus would encounter vicious and malicious opposition? The Annunciation, for one, describes his career in triumphal terms. And there's nothing in the other items to counter that.

As to Isaiah, it's easy for us to see Jesus in Isa 52-53 because we have the benefit of hindsight. As far as Isaiah goes, the passage that might jump out at her is Isa 7, but there's nothing about a suffering messiah in that passage. To the contrary, he's depicted as a triumphant king who subjugates his enemies on the battlefield. 

Moreover, you keep moving the goal post. You're now up to the 30th year of Jesus. That's not foresight. 

My "low view" of Mary is that Mary is human, not a goddess. She's not even prophetic. Rather, Simeon and Anna are prophetic. 

I'm not ashamed to be Protestant. 

Your question is a non sequitur. To be the mother of God incarnate doesn't' make the mother omniscient or even prescient. She doesn't share divine attributes. 

What do 3C prayers have to do with anything? 

"Ignorance" is a matter of degree. Your problem is an all-or-nothing fallacy.

Reynolds 

The flight to Egypt suggested that things were not going to be easy. Herod acts as a murderous opponent of Jesus and they are forced into exile. Symeon suggested it.

Beyond that, I think informed consent in a relationship requires knowing what you are getting into... And see no reason to think Mary didn't know and good reason (informed consent) to think she did. Why see the Suffering Servant only after Jesus? Is Mary allowed any insight? 

My view doesn't require Mary knowing everything

..just what she was agreeing to do. I mention 30 years with Jesus, because she is the only person we know of with that much exposure to Jesus.

Mary is no goddess, but the Magnificat is...amazing...and behold all generations have called her blessed...as she said.

My point is this ... Every text or image we have in the first centuries of the Church has a high view of Mary. Reformers shared this early on...a bizarre minimalism began . Why? Misogyny? Fear of idolatry? Gnostic views? Hard question

We haven't even mentioned John's image of Mary in Revelation

Hays 

"Misogyny". Yeah, that must be it. And if JMR disapproves of homosexual behavior, then he must hate homosexuals.

"Gnostic views". Actually, it's perpetual virginity that betrays a gnostic disdain for physicality and sexuality. 

The "bizarre minimalism" is basing one's belief on reliable historical evidence rather than pious fiction and legendary embellishment. 

Your appeal begs the question of whether the woman in Rev 12 is reducible to Mary.

Mark Daviau 

The problem, Steve Hays, is that you seem insistent on making us adopt your view that Mary was simply some poor peasant girl…"

Hays

You mean like: 

"26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human beingmight boast in the presence of God" (1 Cor 1:26-29).

Disarming the police

I believe Campaign Zero is an arm of Black Lives Matter. 

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

I agree with some of their proposals. We should have independent investigations of police shootings. A police department has a conflict of interest. We should end for-profit policing. Bodycams are a good idea, though that only works if storage of the footage is contracted out to an independent third-party. Up to a point, I oppose the militarization of the police force, which makes it an occupation force. I oppose stop-and-frisk on civil liberties grounds. 

That said, I'd like to focus on this objective:

We can live in an America where the police do not kill people. Police in England, Germany, Australia, Japan, and even cities like Buffalo, NY, and Richmond, CA, demonstrate that public safety can be ensured without killing civilians. By implementing the right policy changes, we can end police killings and other forms of police violence in the United States. 

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/problem/

i) It's hard to take that seriously. Is BLM really that Polyannaish? Maybe so. Radicals can be softheaded utopians.

Perhaps, though, there's an anarchist contingent in BLM. Maybe chaos is their goal. Anarchism is another form of utopianism. 

In addition, you have self-hating Americans who want to burn it down. A fifth column. 

There are political factions that profit from pandemonium. The white liberal establishment benefits by fomenting a free-for-all, as a pretext to crack down. That's a way to expand its grip on power. 

ii) Let's take an example of what happens when you disarm police. I don't necessarily mean literal disarmament. If police fear that they will be indicted if they do their job, then that's the functional equivalent of disarmament.

Take Muslim rape gangs in Europe. Their tactic is to form a phalanx around the victim. That both blocks the view of what's going on, as well as blocking police from rescuing the victim. 

The solution is for police to draw their guns, order the phalanx to disperse, and if they refuse, start shooting. Shoot their way through a crowd that's shielding the rapist. That's the only way to rescue women from Muslim rape-gangs who use that tactic.

But European police don't do that because they know the political establishment won't back them up. As a result, you have marauding Muslim rape gangs that act with impunity. 

Incidentally, that's also what happens when you disarm civilians. The consequences are only too predictable. For instance, Muslims attack Jews in Paris. If, however, Parisian Jews were armed, that would be a deterrent.  

War grooms

i) Atheists like to quote Deut 21:10-14 as a case of Scripture sanctioning rape or sex slavery. I've discussed this before. The passages makes provision for war brides, not sex slaves. 

ii) In addition, it's fallacious to infer that a law code condones whatever it regulates. For instance, a libertarian legislator might propose a law to decriminalize possession of Marijuana, not because he approves of potheads, but because he thinks the "war on drugs" is more detrimental than letting people smoke pot. 

iii) The contention that this is rape or sex slavery is based on the fact that it's a forced marriage. However, one problem with that objection is that it disregards the circumstances in which this issue crops up. The setting involves a warrior culture in which the able-bodied men were killed in combat, thereby widowing their wives. The women no longer have any men to protect them or provide for them, which is a dire situation for women in the ancient Near East. 

So it's a question of how to play the hand you were dealt. We are often "forced" into situations we dislike, "forced" to make decisions we dislike, due to onerous circumstances beyond our control. 

iv) However, I'd like to approach the issue from a different angle. Suppose the scenario involved war grooms rather than war brides. Suppose you have a queen. The army fights at her behest. Her army defeats the enemy. Some of the war captives are handsome men. She wants to marry one of them, and she exercises her royal prerogative to do so. The male war captive is "forced" into a marriage with the queen. 

Is that rape? If they were honest, I doubt people would characterize the arrangement in those terms because they don't think men must be forced to have sex. 

Or let's vary the illustration. Suppose the queen adds some of the handsome male war captives to her harem. They are her sex slaves. They are available for her pleasure.

Is that rape? The male war captives didn't choose to be harem boys to service the lascivious monarch. But even if they find the prospect distasteful, is it rape?

This poses a dilemma for atheists. Many atheists pride themselves on their egalitarian views of men and women. They champion feminism. If they think men and women should be treated alike, if they don't think a queen who has sex with a harem boy is raping him, then the war bride scenario isn't rape. 

If, on the other hand, they admit that men and women are wired differently in this regard, then they must forfeit their feminism. Opt for one or the other: you can't have both!