John Mackay #fundie

John Mackay #fundie askjohnmackay.com

"The modern atheist mind wants to use modern their definition of rape as an absolute, such that a woman both before and after marriage is an autonomous being who has rights to resist any man including the man she married, and if he insists on sex, then that is rape and the male is legally guilty of a crime. One atheist University student we discussed this with was shocked to find such a definition did not exist even 20 years ago. Before that in most a western cultures, a married woman could not be raped by her husband since they were one flesh – a very biblical concept. Since the Biblical concept of love makes love not a feeling, but a choice which benefits another, then the Godly man has already figured out if she has a headache coming on, and such compassion means that she never needs to use sex as a weapon, or a legal threat, because a Godly woman is wise enough to never deny her husband to the point where she is forcing him to go elsewhere. "

72 comments

old comment by

That it took so long to specifically state to people that marriage doesn't actually work that way should be embarassing. The most advanced nation in the world neglected to codify something in law that a society of violent professional marauders understood 1200 years ago.

Atheist non-morals: Don't do something because it hurts another or violates their clearly defined rights and is thus reprehensible.

Godly morals: Hurt people that displease you using methods that are normally condemned but by convoluted logic nearly all the things you aren't supposed to do ever are actually okay under some circumstances. As long as it's done to someone you think it's okay to hate.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"One atheist University student we discussed this with was shocked to find such a definition did not exist even 20 years ago. Before that in most a western cultures, a married woman could not be raped by her husband since they were one flesh a very biblical concept. Since the Biblical concept"

...and that's all I needed to read. Then you lot wonder why no-one 'believes' these days?

Certainly why Rule of Law - the basis of Western civilisation, never mind culture - exists today. What more proof does one need that right-wing Fundamentalist Christainity represents a clear & present danger to world peace infinitely worse than Al-Qaeda; at least they're open about their intentions.

To quote from "Star Wars" ep. III, 'Only Sith deal in absolutes'. You know who the Sith are don't you, Johnny-boy: the enemy of Freedom.

If you are not for civilisation, then you are the enemy, right-wing fundies. [/Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader]

old comment by Swede

In Sweden (a part of "western culture") rape within marriage became illegal in 1965. Last time I checked, that was 49 years ago. Before that, it was more or less seen as giving consent when one agreed to get married; you don't need any "biblical concepts”.

Having sex with a person against his/her consent is a rape; a raped person feels violated, regardless of what the laws say.

No Godly man has ever raped his wife, as they all figure out on their own when their wives are not in the mood? I call bullshit! I'd say more men than women use sex as a weapon or a threat. Rape is a very common war-time strategy, for example. Maybe Godly man ought to treat his Godly woman with love, empathy and compassion, so that she will always be in the mood for him.

Btw, does this "in the mood" thing concern shopping for clothes and handbags too? Godly men are surely wise enough to never deny their wives to the point where he is forcing her to go elsewhere, right?

old comment by

Marital rape has been designated a crime in many western countries for far longer than 20 years, and prior to that it was regarded as rape, or at least spousal abuse, by most people, even if the laws weren't yet on the books to prosecute the perpetrators.

Also, the fact that for centuries it was deemed impossible for a man to rape his wife had much less to do with the Bible than with the second class status of women as the possessions of men with few rights of their own. It was about power and control, not religion.

And no "Godly" or otherwise decent man would use his wife telling him she's not in the mood as an excuse to go elsewhere. What are you, six years old?

old comment by Deep Search

And the atheists are still the evil ones, right? Of course back in the day women were raped by their husbands. Just, legally, it was not considered rape and women were basically powerless to do anything about it. Misogyny was prevalent and in many ways it still is today. The bible humpers are trying their damnedest to drag us backward as they want to keep women under their thumb, using religion to make it acceptable because it's "biblical."

Love is a choice that benefits another, huh? Pretty sure that shouldn't involve doing something you don't want to do because otherwise you're "forcing" your partner away or you're "asking" to be raped. I like how he makes women out to be the ones who use sex as a weapon by not wanting to have sex. Also like how women are blamed for "forcing" men to do things. And it's great how a man is "compassionate" when he does not rape his wife and accepts she doesn't want to have sex. A godly husband's basically psychic when it comes to his wife's feelings and needs, apparently.

old comment by Jessie's Guitarist

Maybe because women and men, regardless of whether they're married or not, have I dunno, feelings?! That free will you talk about? Maybe because if you force someone to have sex, even if you're married to them, that's considered rape?! of course it's considered a crime, because rape is really, really fucking awful to do. Sure, they're still alive, but they're very likely damaged from that.

The definition didn't exist twenty years ago because we were different twenty years ago. The world changes. Every day, it's the end of the world as we know it, for better or for worse, because the world constantly changes.

Oh, and on top of this, I agree with the idea that if a man or woman tries to force sex on someone, that's rape. I'm a Christian. So when even people who are sharing your religion think you're really insane, terrible, and dangerous, maybe you should think about yourself.

old comment by Kuno

And the fact that you think that this is a bad thing just shows that you are a horrible human being.

One atheist University student we discussed this with was shocked to find such a definition did not exist even 20 years ago.

Yeah, some people are shockingly ignorant about even recent history and about how good we have it today, compared to even just a few decades ago. Or did you mean something else?

Before that in most a western cultures, a married woman could not be raped by her husband since they were one flesh a very biblical concept. Since the Biblical concept of love makes love not a feeling, but a choice which benefits another, then the Godly man has already figured out if she has a headache coming on, and such compassion means that she never needs to use sex as a weapon, or a legal threat, because a Godly woman is wise enough to never deny her husband to the point where she is forcing him to go elsewhere. "

If it is a choice then how come the wife can “never deny” her husband sex?

old comment by SpukiKitty

...a woman both before and after marriage is an autonomous being who has rights to resist any man including the man she married...

The fact that you're so blatantly admitting that you think women & girls should have no autonomy whatsoever shows that you don't know morality from a hole in the ground.

It's interesting how frummers used to be so discreet & dog-whistley about their views...nowadays they just come right out and say it! I'm glad they're so honest, these days...it helps progressives combat them better.

To this Mackay turkey, I say, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart...

PLEASE SODOMIZE YOURSELF WITH A SAGUARO CACTUS, DRINK A DIARRHEA-AND-VOMIT MILKSHAKE & DIE IN A FIRE!

Thank you.

old comment by the_ignored

This is how fucked up that guy is. His statements get worse as he goes on:

What’s the real issue then? As we repeatedly tell the atheists, If they were god we would be impressed by their rules about sex ad rape and marriage, but since they are not god, and had nothing to do with the origin of sex, nor why it works so well, we defer to the real God who actually did create man and woman, and sex, and has the right to tell us what is wrong!’ Their atheism which uses evolution to justify their rejection of the Creator God, provides them with no durable moral basis for any rules, including what is or is not rape!

So then in other words, without biblegod telling him, he would have no reason to say that raping someone was wrong. That's a slam on his own morality, not the atheists!

And he shows that he has no sense of irony here:

Now for one helpful last point about how to deal with claims about how cruel it was to kill all the Midianites including the boy children. Just ask them again if they believe in a woman’s rights over her own body, then move on to the right to abortion on demand, then subtly bring up how many children they have put to death in the last decadeand the answer is millions. Then politely tell them they are gross hypocrites!

Icing on the cake award? "Politely" tell them that they are "gross hypocrites"!

The perfect response to that? Point out that at least it's something the woman chose, as opposed to having a divinely-mandated sword thrust through her gut that kills both her and the baby! And they pretend to be "pro-life"! Yet the one who ordered that many times in the OT is "holy", and morally perfect in their eyes.

Then tell them bluntly that they are the complete hypocrites with no fucking sense of morality other than "divine command theory".

Even worse? Read what his next paragraph has to say: He basically admits that creationist *need* their god to tell them that rape itself is wrong, and that they are therefore morally superior to atheists because we don’t have any “durable moral basis for any rules”.

Holy shit

“What’s the real issue then? As we repeatedly tell the atheists, ‘If they were god we would be impressed by their rules about sex ad rape and marriage, but since they are not god, and had nothing to do with the origin of sex, nor why it works so well, we defer to the real God who actually did create man and woman, and sex, and has the right to tell us what is wrong!’ Their atheism which uses evolution to justify their rejection of the Creator God, provides them with no durable moral basis for any rules, including what is or is not rape!”

So not content merely setting a grotesque double standard on lust and adultery while trivializing rape this is a statement turning marriage as an institution into little more than an exchange of flesh for limited benefit far from any recognizable concept of love let alone righteousness rendering marriage an empty concept. Further painting "Biblical" morality overall not a code of personal conduct and responsibility but a series of excuses to exempt a favoured class of individual from judgement for what is normally considered immoral while they retain the right to moralize and even punish the unfavoured for the same "sins" rendering morality not just subjective but downright meaningless as well. Unless you consider threats of harm from a supernatural being meaningful making morality a purely self-serving concept.

... And yet it's the godless who cannot understand the concepts of good, morality, law, or virtue? And would supposedly be rampaging hedonistic monsters if not for the influence of "Biblical" morality which is a threat-based might-makes-right elitest sadist show of victim blaming that scoffs at the notion of sexual agency, women as anything but their sexual organs, or even an inherent wrongness in actions ranging from infidelity and betrayal to outright murder depending on the actor and their place in the social order vs their victim. Oh, and pretty explicitly mandates child abuse at several points as well as saying the only thing wrong with incest is that you might be tapping something your dad - the favoured class of individual - has already claimed or might be interested in repeatedly excusing incestuous rape and even weaving tales of divine punishment falling on those who take umbrage with the rapist.

John Mackay #fundie askjohnmackay.com

72 comments

Confused?