Mrs Kellie #fundie

Mrs Kellie #fundie teens-4-christ.org

[The fault lies not with the woman who refused him but with the man who continued despite her protests.]

WRONG. The woman sinned by not dressing modestly, and tempting the man. The man sinned by lusting after a woman that is not his wife, and raping her. In your example the woman sowed seeds of lust in the man, and she reaped the consequences of her actions. While both were guilty of sin, legally the man will be punished criminally.

[Looking at it in another light, if a man went out with a fancy suit and got mugged, would you say that the man was tempting his mugger?]

No the mugging is not his fault, nor did he sin. He may have not been very smart about being on a good side of town, and not going overboard in being flashy. I don't believe the Bible says that being rich is a sin, but it does talk about women dressing modestly.

67 comments

old comment by Rahab

I feel most sorry for this woman's daughters. Imagine if one of them gets raped. "It was your fault, honey, because you insisted on showing your wrists when you went out!" Ugh. Psychological abuse, nothing more, nothing less.
And I always interpreted the part about women dressing "modestly" (I assume she's talking about 1 Peter) to be referring to dressing without a lot of glitz and accessories - if you look at the context, that's clearly what Peter was describing (i.e., he says not to wear the braided hair and excessive gold jewelry, etc.). Basically, women shouldn't be dressing like they're loaded when they come to church. (Which actually strengthens the analogy of the woman getting raped = the rich man getting mugged.)

old comment by lytefoot

I don't believe the Bible says that being rich is a sin, but it does talk about women dressing modestly.

Err... read, well, MOST parts of your damn holy book. It doesn't explicitly say that it's a sin to be rich, but it does say it's a sin to be greedy; to be rich while others are poor.

Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This is a favorite... unfortunately not quite as extreme as one would like. The original text reads "The Eye of the Needle" which was one of the smaller gates of the city of Jerusalem. A camel could pass through it, if it was careful; it was merely difficult.

old comment by szenah

Oh and I might be remembering it wrong but I thought the eye of a needle was the name for one of the pedestrian gates into one of the larger biblical cities so it is possible to get a camel through one but only with great difficulty
"For the last two centuries it has been common teaching in Sunday School that there is a gate in Jerusalem called the eye of the needle through which a camel could not pass unless it stooped and first had all its baggage first removed. After dark, when the main gates were shut, travellers or merchants would have to use this smaller gate, through which the camel could only enter unencumbered and crawling on its knees! Great sermon material, with the parallels of coming to God on our knees without all our baggage. A lovely story and an excellent parable for preaching but unfortunately unfounded! From at least the 15th century, and possibly as early as the 9th but not earlier, this story has been put forth, however, there is no evidence for such a gate, nor record of reprimand of the architect who may have forgotten to make a gate big enough for the camel and rider to pass through unhindered." From biblicalhebrew.com Christians have a long history of watering down some of Jesus' more difficult teachings to make them more palatable. This is one example.

old comment by Rahab

See, the more and more I think about it, Mrs. Kellie is full of shit. (Not that we hadn't already guessed at that.) The only Scripture I can think of that would back up her theory about women sinning by not dressing modestly (and I'm talking modest in the sense of not exposing a lot of skin - not modest in the sense of loading on the gold jewelry and designer clothes, which I'm pretty sure is what that verse in 1 Peter is about) is the one where Jesus says it's better for a man to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck than to cause someone to sin.
The thing is, this verse makes just as much sense when applied to the hypothetical overdressed guy who got mugged as it does when applied to the hypothetical underdressed woman who got raped. This has nothing to do with being rich; it has to do with flaunting it and "tempting" the mugger. Even that, though, I would argue does not in any way mean the man deserved to get mugged, any more than a beautiful, well-proportioned woman who wears pants or (gasp) shows a little cleavage deserves to get savagely raped. In short, I offer this comment up as further proof that Mrs. Kellie is a moron.

old comment by Swede

Didn't Jesus tell his followers to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor? If you follow what Jesus said, there will be no rich people. The guy who was mugged was tempting the mugger, you silly bint! The mugger lusted after the fancy suit.

If you're right about the dressing modestly, there'd be no rapes in India, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, where women are draped from head to toe in fabrics, and nothing but rapes in nudist colonies. Strangely enough, it's the other way around; just the other day, two young women were gang-raped and hanged in a tree in India. Two of the rapists were police officers. Meanwhile, a nudist colony is one of the safest places on Earth. Very few rapes and almost no muggings.

Mrs Kellie #fundie teens-4-christ.org

67 comments

Confused?