Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


Partner cracklover


Oct 25, 2012, 9:20 AM
Post #1 of 24 (1423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God
Report this Post
Can't Post

So, after the latest flap with the Republicans and abortion, I'm left shaking my head. Not at what he said, but at the reactions to it.

As an atheist, I don't have any problem with what he said. It seems completely consistent with the standard Christian mumbo-jumbo.

I mean, Mourdock basically said: God put a soul there, he loves that person, it's God's will that that person live a full life, even if that person came from rape. Isn't that pretty much a no-brainer if you're Christian? I mean, if everyone has a soul, and God is the only one who can create new souls, then of *course* it's God's will that the raped girl got pregnant, right?

So yeah, no objection from me - it's all a bunch of bull, but it's entirely consistent. So, I wonder, why the anger from people who consider themselves to be Christian?

The only way I see for Christians to be outraged is if they feel that Mourdock is claiming that it's God's will that bad things happen in the world. Um, newsflash - if there's a God, and he's omnipotent, he's obviously fine with that, since a lot of really bad shit happens all the time. And who else but God would be putting that soul in the raped girl's fetus?

I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

GO


veganclimber


Oct 25, 2012, 9:28 AM
Post #2 of 24 (1418 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [cracklover] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think the problem was with how he said it:

"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

God intended for that life to happen. The only way it could have happened is for the woman to be raped. Hard to avoid the conclusion that god wanted her to be raped.

In reply to:
I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

It's not very difficult to come to that conclusion that god is an asshole. Just read the bible, for instance. It also seems very easy to ignore that fact. Mourdock pointed it out in a way that is very difficult to ignore.


Partner cracklover


Oct 25, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #3 of 24 (1417 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [veganclimber] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

veganclimber wrote:
I think the problem was with how he said it:

"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

God intended for that life to happen. The only way it could have happened is for the woman to be raped. Hard to avoid the conclusion that god wanted her to be raped.

In reply to:
I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

It's not very difficult to come to that conclusion that god is an asshole. Just read the bible, for instance. It also seems very easy to ignore that fact. Mourdock pointed it out in a way that is very difficult to ignore.

Precisely. He phrased it in a way that inadvertently pointed out something which he does believe, but he'd have never pointed out on purpose. Something that is a pretty inescapable (and embarrassing) "fact" for Christians.

GO


lena_chita
Moderator

Oct 25, 2012, 11:28 AM
Post #4 of 24 (1401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5460

Re: [cracklover] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
So, after the latest flap with the Republicans and abortion, I'm left shaking my head. Not at what he said, but at the reactions to it.

As an atheist, I don't have any problem with what he said. It seems completely consistent with the standard Christian mumbo-jumbo.

I mean, Mourdock basically said: God put a soul there, he loves that person, it's God's will that that person live a full life, even if that person came from rape. Isn't that pretty much a no-brainer if you're Christian? I mean, if everyone has a soul, and God is the only one who can create new souls, then of *course* it's God's will that the raped girl got pregnant, right?

So yeah, no objection from me - it's all a bunch of bull, but it's entirely consistent. So, I wonder, why the anger from people who consider themselves to be Christian?

The only way I see for Christians to be outraged is if they feel that Mourdock is claiming that it's God's will that bad things happen in the world. Um, newsflash - if there's a God, and he's omnipotent, he's obviously fine with that, since a lot of really bad shit happens all the time. And who else but God would be putting that soul in the raped girl's fetus?

I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

GO

I completely agree.

Not a new idea, either:

if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Christians have a very contorted way of explaining why God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, yet very capricious in his choices of things to concern with, and things not to interfere with. the explanation never made sense to me.

You just have to remember: two guys living happily together and wanting to adopt a child-- God would love to prevent that. But a teenage girl getting pregnant after being raped by her stepfather-- that's a sign of God's miracle of life.


dr_feelgood


Oct 25, 2012, 2:52 PM
Post #5 of 24 (1380 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25626

Re: [lena_chita] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

The logical conclusion of Mourdock's Argument:

Pregnancy is god's will. Pregnancy as a result of rape is god's will.
Therefore, rape is god's will. Furthermore, rapists are fulfilling god's will.

What a fucking troglodyte. How the fuck is this justifiable.


Partner cracklover


Oct 25, 2012, 3:24 PM
Post #6 of 24 (1372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dr_feelgood] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
The logical conclusion of Mourdock's Argument:

Pregnancy is god's will. Pregnancy as a result of rape is god's will.
Therefore, rape is god's will. Furthermore, rapists are fulfilling god's will.

What a fucking troglodyte. How the fuck is this justifiable.

Justifiable? Seems more than justifiable, seems obvious. The only problem is if you want to stand up and come to God's defense, to claim that God is really a good guy, and Mourdock is slandering him. But that only works if you agree that God is good by definition. In which case, the only problem with Mourdock's argument is that he's doing it wrong: he's not supposed to say any naughty things about God, or he'll get a spanking.

It all seems so juvenile.

I mean, he obviously wasn't claiming that he's happy that women get raped. Rather he was simply saying that it's God's will. Now you wanna jump up and down to protect God's good name? How silly is that?

GO


dr_feelgood


Oct 25, 2012, 3:38 PM
Post #7 of 24 (1368 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25626

Re: [cracklover] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
The logical conclusion of Mourdock's Argument:

Pregnancy is god's will. Pregnancy as a result of rape is god's will.
Therefore, rape is god's will. Furthermore, rapists are fulfilling god's will.

What a fucking troglodyte. How the fuck is this justifiable.

Justifiable? Seems more than justifiable, seems obvious. The only problem is if you want to stand up and come to God's defense, to claim that God is really a good guy, and Mourdock is slandering him. But that only works if you agree that God is good by definition. In which case, the only problem with Mourdock's argument is that he's doing it wrong: he's not supposed to say any naughty things about God, or he'll get a spanking.

It all seems so juvenile.

I mean, he obviously wasn't claiming that he's happy that women get raped. Rather he was simply saying that it's God's will. Now you wanna jump up and down to protect God's good name? How silly is that?

GO

I think you misinterpret the portion of my argument which needs justification. To the mouthbreathing, drooling, stuttering, fundamentalist right, this logic makes sense, as Mourdock expressly articulated.
I want these fucksticks to justify why they believe in a rapist enabling asshole of a deity, and, furthermore, why they feel the prerogative to impose this belief onto american society. I want them to justify their belief that rape is acceptable and is god's will. It obviously isn't going to happen, because this segment of society is of the Life Starts At Erection mentality, even if the god-given erection is in the penis of a god-loving and -fearing rapist.
It obviously is not going to happen, because it would require forming a sentence and facing their own hypocrisy, but hey, I can dream.


Partner cracklover


Oct 25, 2012, 3:57 PM
Post #8 of 24 (1363 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dr_feelgood] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
cracklover wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
The logical conclusion of Mourdock's Argument:

Pregnancy is god's will. Pregnancy as a result of rape is god's will.
Therefore, rape is god's will. Furthermore, rapists are fulfilling god's will.

What a fucking troglodyte. How the fuck is this justifiable.

Justifiable? Seems more than justifiable, seems obvious. The only problem is if you want to stand up and come to God's defense, to claim that God is really a good guy, and Mourdock is slandering him. But that only works if you agree that God is good by definition. In which case, the only problem with Mourdock's argument is that he's doing it wrong: he's not supposed to say any naughty things about God, or he'll get a spanking.

It all seems so juvenile.

I mean, he obviously wasn't claiming that he's happy that women get raped. Rather he was simply saying that it's God's will. Now you wanna jump up and down to protect God's good name? How silly is that?

GO

I think you misinterpret the portion of my argument which needs justification. To the mouthbreathing, drooling, stuttering, fundamentalist right, this logic makes sense, as Mourdock expressly articulated.
I want these fucksticks to justify why they believe in a rapist enabling asshole of a deity, and, furthermore, why they feel the prerogative to impose this belief onto american society. I want them to justify their belief that rape is acceptable and is god's will. It obviously isn't going to happen, because this segment of society is of the Life Starts At Erection mentality, even if the god-given erection is in the penis of a god-loving and -fearing rapist.
It obviously is not going to happen, because it would require forming a sentence and facing their own hypocrisy, but hey, I can dream.

Oh that! LOL. Good luck!

Keep in mind, you're talking about people who think you can be an absolute manipulative disgusting cretin, and then at the end of your life you receive a get-out-of-jail free card by praying to the right God. Meanwhile, others, who live a just and good life, but don't pray the right way, get tortured for eternity.

This makes sense to them.

So yeah, in my opinion they're already so bogged down in moral quicksand, if they try to lift up God, they'll only sink deeper into their own morass.

Heh heh. He said "ass".

GO


Partner macherry


Oct 25, 2012, 4:06 PM
Post #9 of 24 (1357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15774

Re: [cracklover] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

i thought god only intervenes in baseball and football games


petsfed


Oct 25, 2012, 7:03 PM
Post #10 of 24 (1343 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [macherry] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
i thought god only intervenes in baseball and football games

The Cardinals did not return to the world series, ergo there is no God.

/fucking Giants


veganclimber


Oct 25, 2012, 8:11 PM
Post #11 of 24 (1326 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [petsfed] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Apparently the "pro-rape" platform isn't doing too well.

http://news.yahoo.com/...rtion-210109114.html


Attachments: 1025_IN.png.jpg (31.0 KB)


notapplicable


Oct 25, 2012, 8:17 PM
Post #12 of 24 (1326 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [cracklover] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Mourdock's "logic" creates another problem he would of course refuse to acknowledge. If the baby cannot be aborted because it's creation was gods will, then you also cannot punish the rapist. Clearly he lacks agency and is not accountable for his actions. The implications for our judicial system are profound.


veganclimber


Oct 25, 2012, 8:27 PM
Post #13 of 24 (1321 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [notapplicable] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Mourdock's "logic" creates another problem he would of course refuse to acknowledge. If the baby cannot be aborted because it's creation was gods will, then you also cannot punish the rapist. Clearly he lacks agency and is not accountable for his actions. The implications for our judicial system are profound.

I think the rapist can be considered a martyr in this case.


Partner cracklover


Oct 26, 2012, 9:13 AM
Post #14 of 24 (1298 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [notapplicable] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
Mourdock's "logic" creates another problem he would of course refuse to acknowledge. If the baby cannot be aborted because it's creation was gods will, then you also cannot punish the rapist. Clearly he lacks agency and is not accountable for his actions. The implications for our judicial system are profound.

Not the way the FBI is handling terror cases these days. Most of the terrorist prosecutions in the last eight years or so have been people who have been totally set up to take the fall, but they still go to jail. The FBI actively recruits people on "jihadi websites", and then when someone agrees, they cuff 'em and prosecute 'em.

That's the same thing here, only God is the one doing the recruiting. So, by the same logic, they can prosecute the rapists for signing up.

I just wish they'd go after the mastermind. Ever since poor Mary got knocked up, it seems this God fella has gotten more and more brazen in his raping and baby-making spree. BTW, this would make an awesome Mr. Deity episode!

Wouldn't it be cool if some rapist tried to use this as a defense? His lawyer could claim that if the DA refuses to put his client's co-conspirator (God) on trial, that it's a miscarriage of justice, and the case should be thrown out.

I can see it now, it goes all the way to the supreme court, where on a five to four verdict, it's ruled that God is a mass-rapist. But in lieu of all of His good works, he is given a light sentence in which he can serve his millions of convictions consecutively... if he ever chooses to turn himself in.

GO


saint_john


Oct 26, 2012, 11:25 AM
Post #15 of 24 (1285 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [petsfed] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
macherry wrote:
i thought god only intervenes in baseball and football games

The Cardinals did not return to the world series, ergo there is no God.

/fucking Giants

I don't know... did you see "game 6" last year? That was enough to make a believer out of me.


saint_john


Oct 26, 2012, 11:28 AM
Post #16 of 24 (1283 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [lena_chita] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
cracklover wrote:
So, after the latest flap with the Republicans and abortion, I'm left shaking my head. Not at what he said, but at the reactions to it.

As an atheist, I don't have any problem with what he said. It seems completely consistent with the standard Christian mumbo-jumbo.

I mean, Mourdock basically said: God put a soul there, he loves that person, it's God's will that that person live a full life, even if that person came from rape. Isn't that pretty much a no-brainer if you're Christian? I mean, if everyone has a soul, and God is the only one who can create new souls, then of *course* it's God's will that the raped girl got pregnant, right?

So yeah, no objection from me - it's all a bunch of bull, but it's entirely consistent. So, I wonder, why the anger from people who consider themselves to be Christian?

The only way I see for Christians to be outraged is if they feel that Mourdock is claiming that it's God's will that bad things happen in the world. Um, newsflash - if there's a God, and he's omnipotent, he's obviously fine with that, since a lot of really bad shit happens all the time. And who else but God would be putting that soul in the raped girl's fetus?

I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

GO

I completely agree.

Not a new idea, either:

if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Christians have a very contorted way of explaining why God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, yet very capricious in his choices of things to concern with, and things not to interfere with. the explanation never made sense to me.

You just have to remember: two guys living happily together and wanting to adopt a child-- God would love to prevent that. But a teenage girl getting pregnant after being raped by her stepfather-- that's a sign of God's miracle of life.

I love this.


petsfed


Oct 26, 2012, 11:56 AM
Post #17 of 24 (1280 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [saint_john] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
petsfed wrote:
macherry wrote:
i thought god only intervenes in baseball and football games

The Cardinals did not return to the world series, ergo there is no God.

/fucking Giants

I don't know... did you see "game 6" last year? That was enough to make a believer out of me.

Was that the one that went for 11 innings? Because it struck me that God couldn't decide that night. I had to go to bed because the back-and-forth was killing me. And then got up half an hour later to watch the final play.


saint_john


Oct 26, 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #18 of 24 (1272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [petsfed] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
saint_john wrote:
petsfed wrote:
macherry wrote:
i thought god only intervenes in baseball and football games

The Cardinals did not return to the world series, ergo there is no God.

/fucking Giants

I don't know... did you see "game 6" last year? That was enough to make a believer out of me.

Was that the one that went for 11 innings? Because it struck me that God couldn't decide that night. I had to go to bed because the back-and-forth was killing me. And then got up half an hour later to watch the final play.

Yeah, man. The Cards were down two runs and on their last strike, not once, but twice and came back to win. It was one of the most unreal sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...IQAisAAOM_story.html


rmsusa


Oct 26, 2012, 1:20 PM
Post #19 of 24 (1260 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [lena_chita] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Only slightly tongue in cheek, for the existence, or not, of god is completely irrelevant to my life:

That begs the question. What are good and evil, exactly?

Perhaps to god, there are no good and evil things or events, there are just things or events.


veganclimber


Oct 26, 2012, 2:53 PM
Post #20 of 24 (1254 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [rmsusa] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Only slightly tongue in cheek, for the existence, or not, of god is completely irrelevant to my life:

That begs the question. What are good and evil, exactly?

Human inventions.

In reply to:
Perhaps to god, there are no good and evil things or events, there are just things or events.

Very possible. If there was an intelligence that created this universe, I find it extremely unlikely that "he" would be the slightest bit interested in anything that we are doing on this planet.


notapplicable


Oct 28, 2012, 9:27 PM
Post #21 of 24 (1202 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [veganclimber] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

veganclimber wrote:
rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Only slightly tongue in cheek, for the existence, or not, of god is completely irrelevant to my life:

That begs the question. What are good and evil, exactly?

Human inventions.

In reply to:
Perhaps to god, there are no good and evil things or events, there are just things or events.

Very possible. If there was an intelligence that created this universe, I find it extremely unlikely that "he" would be the slightest bit interested in anything that we are doing on this planet.

You're right if talking about an unspecified god or godlike entity. The christian god is said to have created us with our capacity for suffering and empathy though, and he loves us unconditionally. He knows the nature of our plight and imposes it on us willfully. He is an asshole.


lena_chita
Moderator

Oct 29, 2012, 8:07 AM
Post #22 of 24 (1182 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5460

Re: [notapplicable] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Only slightly tongue in cheek, for the existence, or not, of god is completely irrelevant to my life:

That begs the question. What are good and evil, exactly?

Human inventions.

In reply to:
Perhaps to god, there are no good and evil things or events, there are just things or events.

Very possible. If there was an intelligence that created this universe, I find it extremely unlikely that "he" would be the slightest bit interested in anything that we are doing on this planet.

You're right if talking about an unspecified god or godlike entity. The christian god is said to have created us with our capacity for suffering and empathy though, and he loves us unconditionally. He knows the nature of our plight and imposes it on us willfully. He is an asshole.

Well said. Remember, the God that people like Mourdock are talking about is the God who is very concerned about every little detail that involves genitalia of every human on Earth, who is picky and petty and arbitrary, and who will punish anyone who doesn't believe certain things.


camhead


Oct 29, 2012, 11:02 AM
Post #23 of 24 (1168 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [cracklover] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Two problems with Mourdock's idiotic statements:

The first is intellectual and philosophical: if we should not legislate counter to "God's Will," well, we should not provide relief to natural disaster victims, we shouldn't try to prevent floods, hell, we shouldn't even convict murderers. This is just going to draw us into the whole tired argument of "why would a benevolent deity allow so much evil in the world? oh noez!"

The second point, which I think is much more important, and which has been getting way less attention, is this: For Mourdock to base his public policy decisions on one particular interpretation of religion, is blatantly unconstitutional and a violation of the Establishment Clause. He is imposing one theological viewpoint upon people who do not subscribe to it. This is the very definition of theocracy, and it's Unamerican.

You COULD make a reasoned, constitutional argument for the overturning of RvW (the unborn are human, therefore are US Citizens, and entitled to all of the rights that the Constitution extends to US Citizens). But Mourdock doesn't do this. Instead, he takes the intellectually shallow, fundamentalist, unreasonable path.

Fucking idiot.


Partner rrrADAM


Oct 29, 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #24 of 24 (1164 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [camhead] Richard Mourdock, rape, pregnancy, and God [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
You COULD make a reasoned, constitutional argument for the overturning of RvW (the unborn are human, therefore are US Citizens, and entitled to all of the rights that the Constitution extends to US Citizens).

Just being pedantic...

One has to be "born" in the US, not concieved here, or here during gestation.


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$13.46 (10% off)
$44.96 (10% off)
$17.55 (10% off)
$107.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook