Randal Martin on the CAM/Jeriah Debacle

[Neto]

I'm not sure that this John 8 passage is a good one to illustrate your point. If you read what Jesus actually said then she was not an innocent victim.

No, she was not totally innocent. But the Law required that BOTH the man & the woman be stoned. They said that she was "caught in the act". Well, then, why did they let the man go free? I hope this is not offensive to women here, because I do not mean it in that way. But because of how God created woman, the man is the more responsible participant. It was an affront to the Law that the man was not also brought out and publicly disgraced, and, if she was to be stoned that day, he also. I would maintain that in that sense she was a victim.

I'm pretty sure that I understood that. And who is to say that what Jesus did was not also an intended encouragement for her at least as guilty partner to step forward and take his appropriate place by her side. But that was adultery.
As far as sexual assault goes though, just because the female victim made poor choices does not lessen the blame put on the one who raped her.

Agreed. I was only responding to the somewhat off-topic discussion of that case of adultery. I think that the admission that a victim "made poor choices" is acknowledgement of some "responsibility", but I wouldn't call it "blame". (Because these "poor choices" are "irresponsible actions", "asking for" something other than what they received). I am not qualified to speak to the question of whether "poor choices" such as degree or type of dress directly results in a higher rate of victimhood of rape or abuse. I suspect that this particular behavior is often accompanied by other more self-endangering behaviors that result in more opportunity for a rapist to act (public drunkenness, for example), but it seems to me that in the case of abuse there is little if any responsibility to be placed on the victim, many of them being very young children. So I think that it would be better to confine this topic discussion entirely to situations of abuse, and not get into the wider classification of rape, which includes single episode violent aggression (or where "poor choices" are involved). (Please note that I am NOT saying that abuse is not rape.) I'm quickly getting in over my head in a subject I know very little about (nothing at all professionally), but I just think that the primary case in focus here involves none of that; that is, responsibility on the part of the victims.

[temporal1]

No, she was not totally innocent. But the Law required that BOTH the man & the woman be stoned. They said that she was "caught in the act". Well, then, why did they let the man go free? I hope this is not offensive to women here, because I do not mean it in that way. But because of how God created woman, the man is the more responsible participant. It was an affront to the Law that the man was not also brought out and publicly disgraced, and, if she was to be stoned that day, he also. I would maintain that in that sense she was a victim.

I'm pretty sure that I understood that. And who is to say that what Jesus did was not also an intended encouragement for her at least as guilty partner to step forward and take his appropriate place by her side. But that was adultery.
As far as sexual assault goes though, just because the female victim made poor choices does not lessen the blame put on the one who raped her.

Agreed. I was only responding to the somewhat off-topic discussion of that case of adultery.
I think that the admission that a victim "made poor choices" is acknowledgement of some "responsibility", but I wouldn't call it "blame". (Because these "poor choices" are "irresponsible actions", "asking for" something other than what they received).

I am not qualified to speak to the question of whether "poor choices" such as degree or type of dress directly results in a higher rate of victimhood of rape or abuse. I suspect that this particular behavior is often accompanied by other more self-endangering behaviors that result in more opportunity for a rapist to act (public drunkenness, for example),

but it seems to me that in the case of abuse there is little if any responsibility to be placed on the victim, many of them being very young children.

So I think that it would be better to confine this topic discussion entirely to situations of abuse, and not get into the wider classification of rape, which includes single episode violent aggression (or where "poor choices" are involved). (Please note that I am NOT saying that abuse is not rape.)

I'm quickly getting in over my head in a subject I know very little about (nothing at all professionally), but I just think that the primary case in focus here involves none of that; that is, responsibility on the part of the victims.

Neto, also as a nonprofessional, i agree, using these words:

These discussions are specific to serial predatory adults abusing positions of authority, in homes, churches, church based organizations, preying on children+teens who are captive and vulnerable.

i’d like to add, i agree with those who who say rape is violence. rape is not some “natural” act of life.
it is particularly violent+damaging against the defenseless, such as children/teens. the disabled.

for those who say “but, the physical body was not damaged,” that’s only part of it.
souls+spirits are damaged, if not killed.
in scriptures, souls+spirits are even more valued than physical bodies, which are highly valued.

[steve-in-kville]

If rape is 100% the blame of the rapist then no one has any business blaming CAM or anyone else for that matter.

That's not an apples to apples comparison. CAM knew these guys had problems and continued to use them. That is the issue at the foundation of all these threads. They knew about histories but looked the other way.

Also, as I understand it, JM and HH preyed on children (and apparently the occasional chicken). Not adults. I take issue there.

[Josh]

If rape is 100% the blame of the rapist then no one has any business blaming CAM or anyone else for that matter.

That's not an apples to apples comparison. CAM knew these guys had problems and continued to use them. That is the issue at the foundation of all these threads. They knew about histories but looked the other way.

Also, as I understand it, JM and HH preyed on children (and apparently the occasional chicken). Not adults. I take issue there.

I think Wade was disagreeing with Aurien’s chart.

[steve-in-kville]

I think Wade was disagreeing with Aurien’s chart.

This page jumped 4+ pages in 24 hours. Thought I was up to speed with what was happening.

[Wade]

If rape is 100% the blame of the rapist then no one has any business blaming CAM or anyone else for that matter.

That's not an apples to apples comparison. CAM knew these guys had problems and continued to use them. That is the issue at the foundation of all these threads. They knew about histories but looked the other way.

Also, as I understand it, JM and HH preyed on children (and apparently the occasional chicken). Not adults. I take issue there.

I think Wade was disagreeing with Aurien’s chart.

That's right. I like to recognize process of thought and perspective. If a perspective contains an inconsistency it leads people to more pain because it isn't truth. If the process of thought in the graph is accurate then it can be applied in anyway - and since it cannot this graph is just untruth and causes more pain to victims. Like I said earlier the more appropriate language when dealing with victims would be to tell them that the sexual assault was not their responsibility. People need to come to terms with their own false guilt and again by focusing on the responsibility of the perpetrator doesn't necessarily accomplish that for the victim and also the responsibility of others that could have help protect the victim - and in this case that would be CAM.

[steve-in-kville]

We need to be tactful that we don't make the victim, a victim (again). Comment like "well, that's what happens when...." can be quite painful for a victim of assault to hear.

[Wade]

We need to be tactful that we don't make the victim, a victim (again). Comment like "well, that's what happens when...." can be quite painful for a victim of assault to hear.

Well, sexual assault is what happens when you grow up in the world. Every woman I've ever been close to has experienced sexual assault except maybe my mom, she said one time she was able to get away from her brother when he tried to force her. This is just the norm for those growing up in the world and so when people who grew up in the "Christian sphere" have experience and so now think they are experts and continue to hold their card of knowledge up because they are a victim it becomes self destructive to themselves and again is hard for us to help with and relate to unfortunately. The victim mentality becomes ineffecting in listen to others being able to help them when they continue thinking none of us knows what they are going through and how to relate. In the world not only do we know almost every woman has been sexual assaulted but we also have close relatives and friends we know have had abortions and multiple other thing they don't know how to deal with too.

[Dan Z]

Isn't there a difference between assigning "responsibility" for sexual assault on the one hand (which lies with the perpetrator, as Aurian's chart asserts), and seeking to understand "contributing causes" of sexual assault on the other? Can't we explore causes and context without undercutting responsibility or blaming victims?

What I'm thinking is that anyone who commits an act of sexual violence against another is solely responsible for their actions. There can be no environmental excuse that absolves a person of this responsibility of having willfully harmed another human being. That being said, when seeking to understand why an assailant commits an act of violence, it seems reasonable to examine the environmental and experiential factors that may contribute to the likelihood of violent acts occurring - not to excuse the wrong behavior, or shift blame, but to understand what factors are behind it, and how to treat and limit this type of violence from occurring to others.

I was briefly abused as a child, and I hold my (now deceased & forgiven) abuser fully responsible for what he did, but I also wish that those adults in contact with him would have intervened at some point in his life to limit the likelihood that he would have, or could have developed and acted upon his twisted impulses.

[Wade]

Isn't there a difference between assigning "responsibility" for sexual assault on the one hand (which lies with the perpetrator, as Aurian's chart asserts), and seeking to understand "contributing causes" of sexual assault on the other? Can't we explore causes and context without undercutting responsibility or blaming victims?

What I'm thinking is that anyone who commits an act of sexual violence against another is solely responsible for their actions. There can be no environmental excuse that absolves a person of this responsibility of having willfully harmed another human being. That being said, when seeking to understand why an assailant commits an act of violence, it seems reasonable to examine the environmental and experiential factors that may contribute to the likelihood of violent acts occurring - not to excuse the wrong behavior, or shift blame, but to understand what factors are behind it, and how to treat and limit this type of violence from occurring to others.

I was briefly abused as a child, and I hold my (now deceased & forgiven) abuser fully responsible for what he did, but I also wish that those adults in contact with him would have intervened at some point in his life to limit the likelihood that he would have, or could have developed and acted upon his twisted impulses.

Your the one twisting things. Her chart says "cause" not responsibility and then you turn it around about "contributing causes" is okay to look at?... Your contradicting yourself...