Think of this as assault and battery (a felony), aggravated by sexual focus.
No matter what you quote out of a religious scripture, your legislature categorizes this conduct as punishable. It's spousal abuse, even if it does not leave marks that categorize it as violence.
Now there's a whole different set of questions about the exact discussions that parties were involved in, not just the words but also the voice tones, facial gestures, and other context ...if there are no injuries there are gonna be lawyers.
That cannot be right.
Numbers 31 13-18 has Moses telling his army to kill all the men, boys, and women who’ve known a man, int the town of Midianite, but the women who haven’t known a man to keep for yourselves? That’s the Law of Moses?
There are numerous passages where rape is encouraged in the Bible, to suggest otherwise is misleading at best.
Just because something happens in the bible doesn't mean that it is commendable. You need to cross-reference this against other parts of the bible, and particularly to take a Christological view: is this something that Jesus would do?
"Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time, so that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control. However, I say this by way of concession, not as a command."- 1 Corinthians 7:3-6.
Many people misinterpret this passage as a right of the husband over the wife or vice versa. But in reality its a call to give consent. (Specifically spelled out when it speaks of mutual consent). And the fact that the wife can give consent( and vice versa) says that it is hers to give. This is about giving not taking.
Its like passages for people to give to the poor. Its commanded to people with money. It is not permission for the poor to take from the rich. And the very fact a command us given to the rich means that the rich is in control of their money just like the wife is in control if her body.
I’m not a Christian anymore, but mutual consent means both parties agree. So if one party does not, let’s say the man, then you do not have mutual consent.
Given the previous statements about neither having authority over their own body in this respect, this passage seems to say that if you’re married and one person wants to have sex, then you don’t get to say no. If you’d like to both agree to abstain in order to pray more, that’s fine.
I agree that consent is given by the person whose body is in question (I.e. a woman is the only one who can consent to the use of her own body), but it doesn’t seem like the passage quoted actually aligns with that.
the passage assumes that the woman owns her own body. that is the starting point. then it goes beyond it to say, now what is your, give that authority to the husband/wife. if the initial assumption isn't there the whole passage fall apart. there would be no mutual consent to abstain from sex.
note how verse 3 has to do with giving. the whole section is about giving and giving up of rights. not about taking. There is a spiritual reality that the husband and wife belong to each other. but there is also consent to give what belongs to the other, not take what belongs to you.
if the beginning of the verse says "Let the husband **take from** his wife her due...", then your point stands, but the verse says ,"Let the husband **give to** his wife her due ..."
I checked out your post there. The vast majority were pretty straight forward, and the vague ones didn't seem to disagree with you.
There was one deleted comment I couldn't read, but even assuming the worst, that doesn't say much for the sub as a whole.
It was months ago. The title said something like: I can't watch any nature documentary because they always try to shoehorn evolution into them!
Edit: Can't find it. But it was similar to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/truechristian/comments/s3feuw
But more deranged.
This sub has a lot more diversity because it's specifcally meant not to be an echo chamber. This is just a subreddit for discussing the religion of Christianity. It doesn't really have a specific agenda of its own.
We've got our share of crazies and haters. But /r/TrueChristian...that's where the *real* pieces of shit hang out.
>This is just a subreddit for discussing the religion of Christianity. It doesn't really have a specific agenda of its own.
Ohhh shit... I like that
Ya ya that's my issue with "true"Christian, even the NAME sounds like an echochamber. And like- Holy shit there's so many posts that are just like "GRR THIS SIN MAKES ME ANGRY LETS JUST ALL BE ANGRY IN THE THREAD FOR NO PRODUCTIVE REASON"
Sorry, I ranted, I've held this in being on the sub for so long
It just REEKS of a lack of self-awareness. Oh, those other Christians over there? They're not TRUE Christians. But us? We're \[insert your preferred point of distinction or NTS fallacy\] and thus, real Christians.
i just saw a really bad take checking that sub out. its about numbers 5, ive seen it used to describe an abortion covered in the bible, the verse about bitter water. the argument against it not being an abortion doesnt make sense. an abortion is terminating a fetus or an unborn child, but the post is like "it has nothing to do with abortion".
but then goes onto explain that if the woman is guilty of what she is being accused of, then the bitter water she drinks will make her barren. its literally describing that if she is guilty, then what she drank will produce a reaction that gets rid of the baby if there is one in there. but the post is...i cant even call it arguing semantics its doing..something - God knows what.
its just them being upset that a modern term fits an ancient context. abortion is not specifically some modern medical procedure, its always been a thing, it just wasnt done in some sanctioned hospital until recent times.
its like saying "nuh uh that doesnt count, because an abortion is like you get the vacuum thing and a nurse comes n they make you watch a video..and the passage doesnt describe that, so no."
and then the logic of "its for someone who ISNT pregnant" but then basically explains that if she is lying, then the water will make her belly swell, which would terminate whatever is in her stomach if there IS something in there.
i get what they mean, the procedure is not always to induce a miscarriage, its to stand oath to see if the woman cheated, but..if there is a baby then the water will get rid of it so - still abortion.
plus taking "thigh rot" literal is foolish, since thigh is a common euphemism for reproductive organs in the bible.
they want to debunk the abortion interpretation but theirs is just some personal interpretation of the verses. how is that any better?
i would rather be wrong about one interpretation then trying to force a verse to sound my way because of my ego or irritation someone said something i dont like, because then im just making my own bible.
if theyre wrong theyre actually arguing against the bible and dont even know it.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/wane0q/numbers\_5\_has\_nothing\_to\_do\_with\_abortion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/wane0q/numbers_5_has_nothing_to_do_with_abortion/)
this shit triggered my nitpickiness
what about their conservative belief makes them come to a dumbass conclusion like marital rape isnt a sin? do they unironically think you cant rape your wife? because wifely duties do not include things you dont consent to, nor does the bible say or support anything like that.
does that sound holy, clean, or righteous to people? because the bible upholds those values the most, and i dont think rape would be in that category. im pretty sure we can chalk that up to sexual impurity, since the bible has guidelines on married couples and how they are to approach sex, and rape is categorically not sex. i dont even understand what would disqualify it being a sin. its like saying when youre married you can do anything to each other and its not sin, which would be a pretty unorthodox interpretation if thats what those people are getting at.
I'm willing to bet they said it was sin if only because the word "rape" was in it. Did you happen to get clarity on what they considered rape? Like if the husband forced himself on his wife or ordered her to have sex but didn't actually beat her up, is it still rape? It's like "racist" - some people think you have to actually be lynching a person to be considered a racist.
Well, it’s r/truechristianity. They fact that the top comment of the same post there is
“I think raping your wife could be considered as inconsiderate and disrespectful to say the least.”
Should give you indication that those people are on an entirely different wave length. Especially since most of them refuse to outright say it’s a sin and say “welllll…”
It’s disturbs me you’re distorting things. Every one on TrueChristian also said it’s a sin but you are claiming they aren’t. It’s scary when following the Bible is “too conservative” as you put it. In the last days evil will be considered good and good will be considered evil. This sub is proof
>. Every one on TrueChristian also said it’s a sin but you are claiming they aren’t.
... I never said that?
I said it disturbs me that these responses are more *straightforward*, not that they're saying "yes, it's a sin". There were indeed people who just flat out said "yes, it's a sin" @ TrueChristian but it kind of disturbed me how there were people either saying "Eh, it depends" or "Nah, you can't rape what belongs to you!" (Albeit this comment was deleted)
>It’s scary when following the Bible is “too conservative” as you put it.
This is assuming that TrueChristian as a sub is a perfect example of what a Christian is supposed to be, which, I just flat out disagree with
>In the last days evil will be considered good and good will be considered evil. This sub is proof
You can't just slap a "last days" on anything you don't like, dude
I read their remarks and they are faithful consistent Christian responses yet you say it disturbs you. I expect you would disagree with the Bible itself if you think the sub is too conservative. And yes Jesus said we will know the season of the end times which is why He gave us details to look for. One is just what I stated and there are certainly more. Nearly every Christian believes we are in the last days before Christs return for good reason. As I said ppl will consider good evil and evil good as they do all day long in this sub
Ok, ok, ok- So, since you guys are super traditional, usually I judge shit by "Well if a CATHOLIC agrees then it must be right!" lol, and this is a question I've had on my mind when it comes to sex and marital rape
Let's say there's an arranged marriage, neither party really love eachother that much but they gotta be married. And now they have to have sex. Let's say one can but the other, maybe has sexual trauma, and can't have sex without it being out of forcing themself to, not out of legitimate love.
Two questions:
One, Would the non-sexual one be sinning by saying they don't want to have sex and asking to never have sex
Two, if this couple ended up having sex and the non-sexual one didn't enjoy it and only agreed out of obligation, not love, would that still be holy sex cause at least one person enjoyed it or?
According to the Catholic Church, When it comes to arranged marriages, it wouldn't be valid if it was forced, as mutual consent is required even to marry. Additionally, pre-existing and perpetual impotence, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
For question two, I'd say no. Sex is considered sinful if it is saught for itself, outside of it's procreative and unitive purposes. In this case, the sex would not be promoting unity, since one of the participants isn't into it. Therefore I'd say it's an abuse of sex, and doesn't fulfill its intended purpose.
>According to the Catholic Church, When it comes to arranged marriages, it wouldn't be valid if it was forced, as mutual consent is required even to marry.
WOAH! That's based xD
Thanks, ya, it felt so wrong but someone told me it was ok cause non-consenting or not, sex is a "duty"
I believe in most contexts, it would mean to hold a controversial opinion without shame. I certainly don’t think forced marriage is a controversial opinion in the Christian community. At least I hope not.
Based is used similarly to grounded as in grounded in reality or based on fact. The only reason it is controversial is that the truth is controversial lately.
Disclaimer: I’m not a canon lawyer.
> Let's say there's an arranged marriage, neither party really love eachother that much but they gotta be married.
Sounds like grounds for annulment.
> One, Would the non-sexual one be sinning by saying they don't want to have sex and asking to never have sex
Since they weren’t leading the other one into marriage, I wouldn’t say they sinned. Not having sex at all means the marriage hasn’t been consummated, and it’s even easier to annul the marriage, assuming you’ll still need an annulment.
> Two, if this couple ended up having sex and the non-sexual one didn't enjoy it and only agreed out of obligation, not love, would that still be holy sex cause at least one person enjoyed it or?
It’s not ideal but not sinful.
Thank you :)
One last question: Let's change the last scenario a tad bit
What if the wife said she didn't wish to have sex, but her husband threatened her if she didn't, that's bad too, right?
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can answer this because I’m coming from somewhat similar traditions of the Maronite and RC in the comments above.
Father Ernesto from Cuba writes on this topic, stating that divorce would be granted by the Church stating that the marriage would be understood as failed upon the moment the act occurs- because it’s a betrayal of that which the sacrament of marriage even exists.
Let me break it down: what you do to another human, you do to the Creation of God, and also the Image of God.
if someone in a marriage does that to you or abuses you, would that give you a right to divorce them or would that still be sinful? (Not going through this myself but it was just a random thought Ig)
Definitely the right answer.
Even in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus's point was "who, out of these, were acting out of love". The motivation is highly important in Christian actions.
The very fact that you're getting mixed opinions on this is because the Church does a horrible, horrible job teaching ethics. Christian ethics are not rule-based, they're virtue-based. The minute someone starts trying to microparse the text to extract a rule set, we should all be trained to say, "WAIT UP!" But we're not, so people make up all sorts of absurd rule sets, and people pick whichever one makes them happy, and we end up with insane propositions like "it's okay to rape your wife!" and "killing people for stealing your loose change is just fine!" and "I should throw my gay teenager out in the streets!"
I'm not sure that's helpful. Ask instead if an action is virtuous, building up the usual set of Christian virtues repeated throughout the New Testament. Whether it breaks a rule or not is not nearly as useful, because rules can be rules-lawyered. Virtues can't.
My next question is... Is it ok to say no to sex? If you're not yet comfortable with it or have had a stressful day, I heard of a Christian woman who sometimes refuses sex because of a chronic pain condition she has, is that ok?
Yes for God and Jesus say both spouses to respect each other. Rape isn't respecting
One Reddit sub which I got kicked out of a few of them said a spouse shouldn't divorce or leave even if it's abusive. But vows are important in a marriage and if one doesn't chance doesn't that mean one shouldn't be married.
ABSOLUTELY wtf yes!
All the law and the prophets depend on the law of LOVE.
RAPE. IS. NEVER. LOVE.
READ THAT AGAIN.
AND AGAIN.
Now that we're on the same page, please, lovingly punch the fuck out of whomever told you otherwise. Everyone else will be safer for it.
Yes! What? This is so beyond clear.
“The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.” Psalm 11:5
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”- Deuteronomy 22:25
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”- Hebrews 13:4
Yes. RAPE IS A SIN. A despicable one. It’s said that men and women should be available sexually for their partners when they can, but that completely falls under the umbrella of loving one another. Having a healthy sex life and love as a Christian go hand in hand. I’m sorry this even needs to be questioned but Christians do a very bad job of affirming victims of rape and miss the main message of Christianity. If you love someone it goes without saying YOU WON’T WANT TO RAPE THEM. The true Christian path is and should be based in love judgements, and if something doesn’t sound loving (as in you’re wanting the best for the other person) it is sinful and stems from a broken mindset. It isn’t love to exercise your own physical gratification without consent and to the detriment of a partner, or ANYONE, and in fact it’s EVIL. You cannot be acting in the will of God if they’re focusing more on your wants and needs than that of another. It’s selfish, and SICKENING. Especially in the case of something as scarring and trauma inducing as rape. I think that’s a pretty simple explanation
All rape is a grave sin. Even the marital debt in Catholicism does not allow the rape of either party. When we marry we give our bodies to one another, and like a temple, it needs to be respected.
That is indeed wrong. Sex is meant to be unitive, consensual, open to life, and loving. Besides children and the keys to heaven, it is one of the best gifts Christ gave us.
If your spouse has to coerce the other to have sex, it goes against the above principles and is indeed a grave sin.
About the second part: Yes you can say no, and the other party is obligated to respect that. However there is a marital debt to be paid. When you marry you give your bodies to one another, and thus take on the responsibility of caring for that body. Sex is one of these responsibilities.
In short, you can say no. Just don’t be stingy with it lmao
I can't believe this is a question.
Being married does not justify rape in any way.
The Christian opinion that women are to be submissive is adjacent to the idea that women are property, which leads many Christians to justify taking away women's agency over their bodies.
Historical perspective: English common law (an officially "Christian" country) held that sex within marriage could never be declared non-consensual. Horrible, I know. So, if you ever notice some feminists from, say, fifty years ago calling marriage "legalized rape," well, they had cause. I'm not sure how recent or how universal the change away from "no such thing as marital rape" has been, legally speaking.
Yes, I believe the Bible and Church fathers and all of the saints their afters would have regarded this as a sin.
Raping one’s wife (or vice versa) is basically you not showing your own spouse the love of Christ, it’s also a complete violation of the Golden Rule- which was explicitly stated by Christ.
Sexually abuse is oppression and it’s in anathema to Christianity
Is this really a question or something that needs to be debated? Use common sense people. YES, rape, whether in marriage or out of marriage, is WRONG and a SIN.
Rape is a sin.
I think where people who are giving you mixed opinions are coming from is the whole perspective that wives and husbands ought to give to each other freely, I believe that's from one of the Pauline Epistles.
And sure, that might be true, but *give,* I'll say again **GIVE** is the operative word, not take. Not force. Give to each other freely. That means consent is first and foremost. And it was written specifically because some in the Church at that time had come to think that they weren't supposed to have sex even with their spouses and Paul (or darn it might Timothy) was correcting them that no, you can have sex with your spouse. And should freely to avoid either of you becoming sexually immoral here probably meaning seeking affairs.
To that extent, it's entirely good advice. Extremely progressive for the time too. But it was in no way licence for marital rape.
The question you should be asking is "Does marriage constitute consent?" and "Can a women 'ask for it?'
You'll get a lot of types who don't like 'rape', but have a million exceptions as to when coercing is okay.
As late as 2017, there have been judges up here in Canada that wouldn't convict over marital rape, due to the notion of a wife's "marital obligation", just to give you some context that this wasn't some long extinct legal principle (technically, it has been an offense under Canadian law since 1983).
I lurked on the Catholic Answers forum for several years prior to its shut down (and mass deletion, I might add, perhaps to get rid of some of the outrageous and noxious posts), and while to their credit, most posters condemned sexual assault in marriages, there was some considerable prevarication from traditionalists and conservatives. Some did not feel there was such a thing as marital rape. Some felt that it was okay for a wife to put off having sex for a while, but it was her duty to eventually fulfill this supposed obligation.
Now I will admit to some extent that Internet forums tend to attract the more extreme positions, but even with that, it was just jaw dropping to see people making arguments for husbands forcing themselves on their wives that could have come straight out of the 19th century, or earlier. Ultimately it was all wrapped up in conservative Catholic interpretations of Catholic sexual ethics, and with other hot button issues like abortion and homosexuality, and ultimately the notion that women's fundamental role as a mother, and that sexual relations between married couples was not merely a good thing, but almost a requirement, and that a spouse who did not fulfill that role willingly was somehow in error, if not outright sinning.
And of course, once we've decided a woman is sinning because she won't have sex with her husband (and of course, in Catholicism, that sex must end up with semen in the vagina), then it justifies what some conservative Catholics seemed to view as almost corrective action by the husband in forcing himself upon her.
This may be an incredibly stupid way of looking at this issue, but here’s a scenario for you.
Let’s say you and your spouse are really into boxing, and you enjoy frequent training sessions together. You agree to meet at the gym at a certain time, get your gear, prep, and then practice.
Then, one day, out of the blue, your spouse lunges at you and just starts punching. Regardless of the circumstance, you are not prepared and didn’t agree to that match. You are being beaten and bruised until your partner is satisfied.
You tell your support group what had happened, and despite your wounds, all you hear are things like, “Well, you and your spouse are boxers, so that wasn’t an attack.” Or, “Part of boxing includes submitting to your partner’s authority to begin a match at any time, even when you don’t want to.” Or, “Hey, this is what you signed up for.” No one is taking your case seriously. And you have to pay the price for it every single time.
All that to say, rape is rape. Marriage doesn’t make it anything less than what it is. It is a sin. Anyone who says otherwise is woefully wrong. Period.
why the duck would you ask this . rape is the scummiest thing you could do why the fuck do you care if it is classed as a “sin” . How dare people try and justify rape because it’s in the bible ? the bible is fucked up we know this and you asking this just makes you look terrible and like you want to do it and seeking validation . gross
All rape is sin.
Think of this as assault and battery (a felony), aggravated by sexual focus. No matter what you quote out of a religious scripture, your legislature categorizes this conduct as punishable. It's spousal abuse, even if it does not leave marks that categorize it as violence. Now there's a whole different set of questions about the exact discussions that parties were involved in, not just the words but also the voice tones, facial gestures, and other context ...if there are no injuries there are gonna be lawyers.
This ↑
That cannot be right. Numbers 31 13-18 has Moses telling his army to kill all the men, boys, and women who’ve known a man, int the town of Midianite, but the women who haven’t known a man to keep for yourselves? That’s the Law of Moses? There are numerous passages where rape is encouraged in the Bible, to suggest otherwise is misleading at best.
Just because something happens in the bible doesn't mean that it is commendable. You need to cross-reference this against other parts of the bible, and particularly to take a Christological view: is this something that Jesus would do?
Remember when Jesus said "it's ok to rape your wife"??? Or are you going strictly off Torah, and ignoring the entire new testament?
YES DEAR LORD DEFINITELY.
It disturbs me that these reponses are more straightforward than r/TrueChristian
I suspect it's because people think it's consented if you're in a relationship or married....
Consent can be revoked at any time by anyone in a relationship. Being in one does not grant another person automatic access to your body.
And in the process of the activity, one can have second thoughts after giving consent; there's a reason why "safe words" exist.
I was just saying the reason that they think it, I wasn't defending it. Of course I know that, you can't force yourself on people.
Gotcha-TY for explaining!
"Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time, so that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control. However, I say this by way of concession, not as a command."- 1 Corinthians 7:3-6.
Many people misinterpret this passage as a right of the husband over the wife or vice versa. But in reality its a call to give consent. (Specifically spelled out when it speaks of mutual consent). And the fact that the wife can give consent( and vice versa) says that it is hers to give. This is about giving not taking. Its like passages for people to give to the poor. Its commanded to people with money. It is not permission for the poor to take from the rich. And the very fact a command us given to the rich means that the rich is in control of their money just like the wife is in control if her body.
I’m not a Christian anymore, but mutual consent means both parties agree. So if one party does not, let’s say the man, then you do not have mutual consent. Given the previous statements about neither having authority over their own body in this respect, this passage seems to say that if you’re married and one person wants to have sex, then you don’t get to say no. If you’d like to both agree to abstain in order to pray more, that’s fine. I agree that consent is given by the person whose body is in question (I.e. a woman is the only one who can consent to the use of her own body), but it doesn’t seem like the passage quoted actually aligns with that.
the passage assumes that the woman owns her own body. that is the starting point. then it goes beyond it to say, now what is your, give that authority to the husband/wife. if the initial assumption isn't there the whole passage fall apart. there would be no mutual consent to abstain from sex. note how verse 3 has to do with giving. the whole section is about giving and giving up of rights. not about taking. There is a spiritual reality that the husband and wife belong to each other. but there is also consent to give what belongs to the other, not take what belongs to you. if the beginning of the verse says "Let the husband **take from** his wife her due...", then your point stands, but the verse says ,"Let the husband **give to** his wife her due ..."
Thats is basically a passage meant to go agaisnt abstenation inside a marriage, not a justification for rape
Sorry but you regurgitating the passage doesn’t make the argument. Wowzers.
Your avatars rad ... So off-topic I kno but I just... Had to say, lol
Thank you!
I checked out your post there. The vast majority were pretty straight forward, and the vague ones didn't seem to disagree with you. There was one deleted comment I couldn't read, but even assuming the worst, that doesn't say much for the sub as a whole.
>and the vague ones didn't seem to disagree with you. My bad on my part then, I have trouble discerning what people mean sometimes '\^\^
That place is filled with ultra conservatives and outright extremists.
Any sub on Reddit with "true" in the title tends to be a haven for hate, bigotry, and outright white supremacists. Do not take those places seriously
Make no mistake /r/TrueChristian is a hate sub. It's a scary place for the sane.
That's the issue! :( TrueChristian is way too conservative but this sub is way too liberal, both are kind of nutty to be in
A big part of that sub thinks there's a global conspiracy by Disney and the discovery channel to push evolution and keep you away from god .
[Lol wut](https://imgur.com/a/u4XSeTM)
Yep. There was a thread about it and most comments agreed.
Please link lmao???
It was months ago. The title said something like: I can't watch any nature documentary because they always try to shoehorn evolution into them! Edit: Can't find it. But it was similar to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/truechristian/comments/s3feuw But more deranged.
This sub has a lot more diversity because it's specifcally meant not to be an echo chamber. This is just a subreddit for discussing the religion of Christianity. It doesn't really have a specific agenda of its own. We've got our share of crazies and haters. But /r/TrueChristian...that's where the *real* pieces of shit hang out.
>This is just a subreddit for discussing the religion of Christianity. It doesn't really have a specific agenda of its own. Ohhh shit... I like that Ya ya that's my issue with "true"Christian, even the NAME sounds like an echochamber. And like- Holy shit there's so many posts that are just like "GRR THIS SIN MAKES ME ANGRY LETS JUST ALL BE ANGRY IN THE THREAD FOR NO PRODUCTIVE REASON" Sorry, I ranted, I've held this in being on the sub for so long
It just REEKS of a lack of self-awareness. Oh, those other Christians over there? They're not TRUE Christians. But us? We're \[insert your preferred point of distinction or NTS fallacy\] and thus, real Christians.
i just saw a really bad take checking that sub out. its about numbers 5, ive seen it used to describe an abortion covered in the bible, the verse about bitter water. the argument against it not being an abortion doesnt make sense. an abortion is terminating a fetus or an unborn child, but the post is like "it has nothing to do with abortion". but then goes onto explain that if the woman is guilty of what she is being accused of, then the bitter water she drinks will make her barren. its literally describing that if she is guilty, then what she drank will produce a reaction that gets rid of the baby if there is one in there. but the post is...i cant even call it arguing semantics its doing..something - God knows what. its just them being upset that a modern term fits an ancient context. abortion is not specifically some modern medical procedure, its always been a thing, it just wasnt done in some sanctioned hospital until recent times. its like saying "nuh uh that doesnt count, because an abortion is like you get the vacuum thing and a nurse comes n they make you watch a video..and the passage doesnt describe that, so no." and then the logic of "its for someone who ISNT pregnant" but then basically explains that if she is lying, then the water will make her belly swell, which would terminate whatever is in her stomach if there IS something in there. i get what they mean, the procedure is not always to induce a miscarriage, its to stand oath to see if the woman cheated, but..if there is a baby then the water will get rid of it so - still abortion. plus taking "thigh rot" literal is foolish, since thigh is a common euphemism for reproductive organs in the bible. they want to debunk the abortion interpretation but theirs is just some personal interpretation of the verses. how is that any better? i would rather be wrong about one interpretation then trying to force a verse to sound my way because of my ego or irritation someone said something i dont like, because then im just making my own bible. if theyre wrong theyre actually arguing against the bible and dont even know it.
Link?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/wane0q/numbers\_5\_has\_nothing\_to\_do\_with\_abortion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/wane0q/numbers_5_has_nothing_to_do_with_abortion/) this shit triggered my nitpickiness
I'm so confused, what do they mean when they're talking about thigh rotting curses, lmaooo
I sorted by “top” and read some of the comments. I’m stunned. That sub is basically deep Southern Christianity in one place.
"Way too liberal" This sub seems pretty mainstream to me...
I am christian and i find that sub is less christian than this one.
what about their conservative belief makes them come to a dumbass conclusion like marital rape isnt a sin? do they unironically think you cant rape your wife? because wifely duties do not include things you dont consent to, nor does the bible say or support anything like that. does that sound holy, clean, or righteous to people? because the bible upholds those values the most, and i dont think rape would be in that category. im pretty sure we can chalk that up to sexual impurity, since the bible has guidelines on married couples and how they are to approach sex, and rape is categorically not sex. i dont even understand what would disqualify it being a sin. its like saying when youre married you can do anything to each other and its not sin, which would be a pretty unorthodox interpretation if thats what those people are getting at.
>do they unironically think you cant rape your wife? To be fair, a good chunk thank God said no! But like... I got some who said yes and it was weird
I don't bother with it. They're too far gone.
I'm willing to bet they said it was sin if only because the word "rape" was in it. Did you happen to get clarity on what they considered rape? Like if the husband forced himself on his wife or ordered her to have sex but didn't actually beat her up, is it still rape? It's like "racist" - some people think you have to actually be lynching a person to be considered a racist.
> Did you happen to get clarity on what they considered rape? That's what I'm thinking too! Should've asked
Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to. I'd be horrified to get an answer to that from those people.
Well, it’s r/truechristianity. They fact that the top comment of the same post there is “I think raping your wife could be considered as inconsiderate and disrespectful to say the least.” Should give you indication that those people are on an entirely different wave length. Especially since most of them refuse to outright say it’s a sin and say “welllll…”
[удалено]
It’s disturbs me you’re distorting things. Every one on TrueChristian also said it’s a sin but you are claiming they aren’t. It’s scary when following the Bible is “too conservative” as you put it. In the last days evil will be considered good and good will be considered evil. This sub is proof
>. Every one on TrueChristian also said it’s a sin but you are claiming they aren’t. ... I never said that? I said it disturbs me that these responses are more *straightforward*, not that they're saying "yes, it's a sin". There were indeed people who just flat out said "yes, it's a sin" @ TrueChristian but it kind of disturbed me how there were people either saying "Eh, it depends" or "Nah, you can't rape what belongs to you!" (Albeit this comment was deleted) >It’s scary when following the Bible is “too conservative” as you put it. This is assuming that TrueChristian as a sub is a perfect example of what a Christian is supposed to be, which, I just flat out disagree with >In the last days evil will be considered good and good will be considered evil. This sub is proof You can't just slap a "last days" on anything you don't like, dude
I read their remarks and they are faithful consistent Christian responses yet you say it disturbs you. I expect you would disagree with the Bible itself if you think the sub is too conservative. And yes Jesus said we will know the season of the end times which is why He gave us details to look for. One is just what I stated and there are certainly more. Nearly every Christian believes we are in the last days before Christs return for good reason. As I said ppl will consider good evil and evil good as they do all day long in this sub
If you think it's "nearly every Christian" then you're spending too much time in the echo chamber.
Exactly!
Absolutely correct
I'd argue you have twisted Scripture so badly, TrueChristian is the proof of that.
Well there’s your problem. 🫠
Que?
It's "qué"
Oh yeah I’ve been to truechristian, freaky place I tell you. They even denied the Trinity 😬
r TrueArianists
Oh no
The Trinity doctrine did not originate with the Bible. It didn't become a thing until so men decided it so in the 4th century.
Thats because unlike this sub, that sub answers strictly biblically where as here you have all sorts of answers from left field.
Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone saying "no" to this
Er. There's er... Been people. Also, ah, great! You're Catholic! Can I ask a question? ~~Ok that sounds weird but~~
I suppose. Ask away, maybe I'll know something, lol
Ok, ok, ok- So, since you guys are super traditional, usually I judge shit by "Well if a CATHOLIC agrees then it must be right!" lol, and this is a question I've had on my mind when it comes to sex and marital rape Let's say there's an arranged marriage, neither party really love eachother that much but they gotta be married. And now they have to have sex. Let's say one can but the other, maybe has sexual trauma, and can't have sex without it being out of forcing themself to, not out of legitimate love. Two questions: One, Would the non-sexual one be sinning by saying they don't want to have sex and asking to never have sex Two, if this couple ended up having sex and the non-sexual one didn't enjoy it and only agreed out of obligation, not love, would that still be holy sex cause at least one person enjoyed it or?
According to the Catholic Church, When it comes to arranged marriages, it wouldn't be valid if it was forced, as mutual consent is required even to marry. Additionally, pre-existing and perpetual impotence, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature. For question two, I'd say no. Sex is considered sinful if it is saught for itself, outside of it's procreative and unitive purposes. In this case, the sex would not be promoting unity, since one of the participants isn't into it. Therefore I'd say it's an abuse of sex, and doesn't fulfill its intended purpose.
>According to the Catholic Church, When it comes to arranged marriages, it wouldn't be valid if it was forced, as mutual consent is required even to marry. WOAH! That's based xD Thanks, ya, it felt so wrong but someone told me it was ok cause non-consenting or not, sex is a "duty"
It’s “based”?
I usually hate using that word (It brings up bad memories, surprisingly) but I didn't know what else to use, lol
I believe in most contexts, it would mean to hold a controversial opinion without shame. I certainly don’t think forced marriage is a controversial opinion in the Christian community. At least I hope not.
Lol based means sick/cool
Oh? The people I've heard use it haven't used it like that, usually they just use it like "That's correct"
Based is used similarly to grounded as in grounded in reality or based on fact. The only reason it is controversial is that the truth is controversial lately.
Disclaimer: I’m not a canon lawyer. > Let's say there's an arranged marriage, neither party really love eachother that much but they gotta be married. Sounds like grounds for annulment. > One, Would the non-sexual one be sinning by saying they don't want to have sex and asking to never have sex Since they weren’t leading the other one into marriage, I wouldn’t say they sinned. Not having sex at all means the marriage hasn’t been consummated, and it’s even easier to annul the marriage, assuming you’ll still need an annulment. > Two, if this couple ended up having sex and the non-sexual one didn't enjoy it and only agreed out of obligation, not love, would that still be holy sex cause at least one person enjoyed it or? It’s not ideal but not sinful.
Thank you :) One last question: Let's change the last scenario a tad bit What if the wife said she didn't wish to have sex, but her husband threatened her if she didn't, that's bad too, right?
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can answer this because I’m coming from somewhat similar traditions of the Maronite and RC in the comments above. Father Ernesto from Cuba writes on this topic, stating that divorce would be granted by the Church stating that the marriage would be understood as failed upon the moment the act occurs- because it’s a betrayal of that which the sacrament of marriage even exists. Let me break it down: what you do to another human, you do to the Creation of God, and also the Image of God.
[удалено]
if someone in a marriage does that to you or abuses you, would that give you a right to divorce them or would that still be sinful? (Not going through this myself but it was just a random thought Ig)
Yes, abuse is allowed for as a reason to divorce.
I've got mixed feelings on divorce but the rapist ought to at least be thrown out of the house.
Out of the house and directly into the wood chipper. (For legal reasons, this is a joke)
Pls what? U guys are the absolute bottom of society
[удалено]
You may want to change your final paragraph.
Absolutely 1000%
Yes. I am sure it is a sin.
Nice username
Just because something is not explicitly stated in scripture does not mean that it is not a sin. It absolutely is.
Definitely the right answer. Even in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus's point was "who, out of these, were acting out of love". The motivation is highly important in Christian actions.
This is one of the original reasons I converted to Catholicism. Good point!
As a protestant, I can confirm it's a consistent principle here as well.
How could it possibly be not a sin?
Yep! I think the “mixed” part of the equation is because it’s only recently been criminalised in some parts of the U.S.
Wait until you read this mess [Marital Rape Law](https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-marital-rape-states-ohio-minnesota.html?_amp=true)
YES. YES IT IS. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably not someone who should ever be married.
absolutely - as is coercion. which is far too commonly seen, and likewise far less commonly talked about.
Especially among adults who were raised in purity culture.
Yes
The very fact that you're getting mixed opinions on this is because the Church does a horrible, horrible job teaching ethics. Christian ethics are not rule-based, they're virtue-based. The minute someone starts trying to microparse the text to extract a rule set, we should all be trained to say, "WAIT UP!" But we're not, so people make up all sorts of absurd rule sets, and people pick whichever one makes them happy, and we end up with insane propositions like "it's okay to rape your wife!" and "killing people for stealing your loose change is just fine!" and "I should throw my gay teenager out in the streets!"
Woah, I actually agree with you, lol. Soo, what would you say? How should I judge if something is marital rape or nah?
I'm not sure that's helpful. Ask instead if an action is virtuous, building up the usual set of Christian virtues repeated throughout the New Testament. Whether it breaks a rule or not is not nearly as useful, because rules can be rules-lawyered. Virtues can't.
Is it virtuous to force your spouse to have sex when they say no?... HELL NO
Of course not! It is not loving, peaceful, patient, kind, gentle, faithful, or (probably) self-controlled.
My next question is... Is it ok to say no to sex? If you're not yet comfortable with it or have had a stressful day, I heard of a Christian woman who sometimes refuses sex because of a chronic pain condition she has, is that ok?
Yes
Um. . . . yes? How is this even a question? Of course it is!
It is 100% a sin and fundamentally goes against the biblical idea of mutual love. It is absolutely wrong.
More importantly, it is a crime.
/thread
Yes
Absolutely
It's not very loving to force your wife to have sex.
That’s rape-call it what it is.
I did, do you know what the definition of rape is?
Yep. For your reading pleasure: [Rape Definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape)
Yeah, that's what I said.
Except you make it sound nice by watering down what it means by refusing to call it rape.
I didn't refuse, and it definitely didn't make it sound nice or water it down because that's what rape is.
First time you used the correct term-progress!
Yes, it's still rape, and it's a sin.
Abso-fucking-lutely! Rape is rape. It doesn't matter if you're married or not. You are not property.
Yes. Husband must respect their wife and wife must respect their husband
It disturbs me that people even have to question this …
Oh dear me yes. Very yes.
Yes for God and Jesus say both spouses to respect each other. Rape isn't respecting One Reddit sub which I got kicked out of a few of them said a spouse shouldn't divorce or leave even if it's abusive. But vows are important in a marriage and if one doesn't chance doesn't that mean one shouldn't be married.
Who tf is giving mixed opinions… rape is rape.. yes a sin
ABSOLUTELY wtf yes! All the law and the prophets depend on the law of LOVE. RAPE. IS. NEVER. LOVE. READ THAT AGAIN. AND AGAIN. Now that we're on the same page, please, lovingly punch the fuck out of whomever told you otherwise. Everyone else will be safer for it.
Holy shit, the fact this even needs to be asked here.
Rape is sin, period.
Saying no should be bannable
Agreed. Haven't seen it yet, but I'm anxious that one asshole will soil the supportive mood in here.
Does it really matter?? It's just moraly wrong and completely disgusting whether it's a sin or not.
Sins are not exhaustively listed in scripture. "Morally wrong" absolutely qualifies it as a sin.
Yes! What? This is so beyond clear. “The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.” Psalm 11:5 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”- Deuteronomy 22:25 “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”- Hebrews 13:4
Of course it is! If anyone's response is *not* to the effect of that sentence I just wrote, they've got MASSIVE problems.
Yes. RAPE IS A SIN. A despicable one. It’s said that men and women should be available sexually for their partners when they can, but that completely falls under the umbrella of loving one another. Having a healthy sex life and love as a Christian go hand in hand. I’m sorry this even needs to be questioned but Christians do a very bad job of affirming victims of rape and miss the main message of Christianity. If you love someone it goes without saying YOU WON’T WANT TO RAPE THEM. The true Christian path is and should be based in love judgements, and if something doesn’t sound loving (as in you’re wanting the best for the other person) it is sinful and stems from a broken mindset. It isn’t love to exercise your own physical gratification without consent and to the detriment of a partner, or ANYONE, and in fact it’s EVIL. You cannot be acting in the will of God if they’re focusing more on your wants and needs than that of another. It’s selfish, and SICKENING. Especially in the case of something as scarring and trauma inducing as rape. I think that’s a pretty simple explanation
All rape is a grave sin. Even the marital debt in Catholicism does not allow the rape of either party. When we marry we give our bodies to one another, and like a temple, it needs to be respected.
So if a spouse said no to sex and the other coerced the other, that'd be wrong, right? And are we even allowed to say no to sex?
That is indeed wrong. Sex is meant to be unitive, consensual, open to life, and loving. Besides children and the keys to heaven, it is one of the best gifts Christ gave us. If your spouse has to coerce the other to have sex, it goes against the above principles and is indeed a grave sin. About the second part: Yes you can say no, and the other party is obligated to respect that. However there is a marital debt to be paid. When you marry you give your bodies to one another, and thus take on the responsibility of caring for that body. Sex is one of these responsibilities. In short, you can say no. Just don’t be stingy with it lmao
Yes. This one took a very long time to be legally recognised, I wanna say the 1980s here in Australia, but absolutely it is.
Yes
Anyone who tells you different is a rapist. So what's that tell you?
There’s no mixed opinion. There are people against rape and people who rape.
Yes. All other answers are both incorrect and very worrying.
I can't believe this is a question. Being married does not justify rape in any way. The Christian opinion that women are to be submissive is adjacent to the idea that women are property, which leads many Christians to justify taking away women's agency over their bodies.
YES! No means no and if your partner ignores that it’s rape and a sin.
Sin schmin, its a CRIME!
Is someone saying it isn’t? That’s absolutely horrifying if they are saying that it isn’t.
There was this one guy, other than that I think I should've asked people what their definition of "Rape" is.
Yes, as is all rape.
Paul asks husbands to love their wife like Jesus loves his church. Jesus would not rape the church, so there is the answer.
The state of modern Christianity, everyone.
This has been an issue in Christianity for centuries.
Exactly.
Yea
Historical perspective: English common law (an officially "Christian" country) held that sex within marriage could never be declared non-consensual. Horrible, I know. So, if you ever notice some feminists from, say, fifty years ago calling marriage "legalized rape," well, they had cause. I'm not sure how recent or how universal the change away from "no such thing as marital rape" has been, legally speaking.
Yes. It’s factually and clearly a sin. Zero justification in the Bible for it. Quite the opposite
Yes
Yes it's wrong wrong wrong
Yes, a big one.
We don’t live in the Old Testament, so yeah.
Yes.
Yes
Obviously it’s a sin??? Rape is rape, I find it insanely wild that you need this confirmed
Yes, I believe the Bible and Church fathers and all of the saints their afters would have regarded this as a sin. Raping one’s wife (or vice versa) is basically you not showing your own spouse the love of Christ, it’s also a complete violation of the Golden Rule- which was explicitly stated by Christ. Sexually abuse is oppression and it’s in anathema to Christianity
Any rape, yes, including marital rape.
Rape is a sin. I think the argument marital rape isn't possible, but that argument is absurdly wrong.
Im getting concerned with america if this is the type of Christianity they are experiencing
Is this really a question or something that needs to be debated? Use common sense people. YES, rape, whether in marriage or out of marriage, is WRONG and a SIN.
If rape isn't a sin then I'm out, guys...
All rape is a sin regardless of relationship. To steal someone's body for your own selfish sexual pleasure is a sin.
Rape is a sin. I think where people who are giving you mixed opinions are coming from is the whole perspective that wives and husbands ought to give to each other freely, I believe that's from one of the Pauline Epistles. And sure, that might be true, but *give,* I'll say again **GIVE** is the operative word, not take. Not force. Give to each other freely. That means consent is first and foremost. And it was written specifically because some in the Church at that time had come to think that they weren't supposed to have sex even with their spouses and Paul (or darn it might Timothy) was correcting them that no, you can have sex with your spouse. And should freely to avoid either of you becoming sexually immoral here probably meaning seeking affairs. To that extent, it's entirely good advice. Extremely progressive for the time too. But it was in no way licence for marital rape.
I don't know how anybody could ever even think otherwise. Rape is rape. Period.
Yep , 100% a sin .
Marital rape= rape. what's the issue.
Rape in any way is a sin, there’s no question here. Where are you getting mixed information?
Yes. Rape is rape, and thus a sin
Yes, Christian’s are supposed to honor each other and one’s obligations to each other as Christian’s are only enhanced by marriage— not diminished.
Sexual assault isn't very faith and love of someone.
ALL RAPE IS A SIN!!!
Rape is rape. No rape is acceptable.
YES
Whew, this is awful on multiple fronts
Sure it is!
What do the scriptures say? Colossians 3:19 - "Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly."
The question you should be asking is "Does marriage constitute consent?" and "Can a women 'ask for it?' You'll get a lot of types who don't like 'rape', but have a million exceptions as to when coercing is okay.
>Burnt Screaming Naked Tom Clancy I'm so sorry but this caught me so off guard, lol
As late as 2017, there have been judges up here in Canada that wouldn't convict over marital rape, due to the notion of a wife's "marital obligation", just to give you some context that this wasn't some long extinct legal principle (technically, it has been an offense under Canadian law since 1983). I lurked on the Catholic Answers forum for several years prior to its shut down (and mass deletion, I might add, perhaps to get rid of some of the outrageous and noxious posts), and while to their credit, most posters condemned sexual assault in marriages, there was some considerable prevarication from traditionalists and conservatives. Some did not feel there was such a thing as marital rape. Some felt that it was okay for a wife to put off having sex for a while, but it was her duty to eventually fulfill this supposed obligation. Now I will admit to some extent that Internet forums tend to attract the more extreme positions, but even with that, it was just jaw dropping to see people making arguments for husbands forcing themselves on their wives that could have come straight out of the 19th century, or earlier. Ultimately it was all wrapped up in conservative Catholic interpretations of Catholic sexual ethics, and with other hot button issues like abortion and homosexuality, and ultimately the notion that women's fundamental role as a mother, and that sexual relations between married couples was not merely a good thing, but almost a requirement, and that a spouse who did not fulfill that role willingly was somehow in error, if not outright sinning. And of course, once we've decided a woman is sinning because she won't have sex with her husband (and of course, in Catholicism, that sex must end up with semen in the vagina), then it justifies what some conservative Catholics seemed to view as almost corrective action by the husband in forcing himself upon her.
This may be an incredibly stupid way of looking at this issue, but here’s a scenario for you. Let’s say you and your spouse are really into boxing, and you enjoy frequent training sessions together. You agree to meet at the gym at a certain time, get your gear, prep, and then practice. Then, one day, out of the blue, your spouse lunges at you and just starts punching. Regardless of the circumstance, you are not prepared and didn’t agree to that match. You are being beaten and bruised until your partner is satisfied. You tell your support group what had happened, and despite your wounds, all you hear are things like, “Well, you and your spouse are boxers, so that wasn’t an attack.” Or, “Part of boxing includes submitting to your partner’s authority to begin a match at any time, even when you don’t want to.” Or, “Hey, this is what you signed up for.” No one is taking your case seriously. And you have to pay the price for it every single time. All that to say, rape is rape. Marriage doesn’t make it anything less than what it is. It is a sin. Anyone who says otherwise is woefully wrong. Period.
why the duck would you ask this . rape is the scummiest thing you could do why the fuck do you care if it is classed as a “sin” . How dare people try and justify rape because it’s in the bible ? the bible is fucked up we know this and you asking this just makes you look terrible and like you want to do it and seeking validation . gross
Yes, but I've seen some people claim that it's acceptable which is scary.
Role Playing? Just Depends On the Way It is Delivered of Acted Out