"Don't Raise a Dinah:" Thoughts?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

What is your initial reaction to this video?

  • He is totally wrong.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,163
1,791
113
#61
Or what if in a nudist colony?

I would suggest back to Genesis where the principle 2 = 1 was violated. And mankind lost the glow of being in the presence of God's glory. His Glory departed and left their dead flesh open to the public. Dying flesh and blood will not enter the new order. In the new order his glory will again be the source of concealment.
Genesis does not come out and say that Adam was covered with a glow of His glory that I am aware of. Maybe there is an argument from some double meaning in Hebrew that I am not aware of. But I have just heard this as a theory, not as something explicitly taught in scripture. If you know of scripture that teaches this, please share it.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,163
1,791
113
#62
Now I am getting a bunch of disagreements from Christians -- who should know better. As though I have not spoken the truth. Well there is an old proverb that is still applicable -- "If you play with fire, you will get burnt".
Someone could say if you walk around without a pistol to defend yourself and without a bullet-proof vest, you are asking to get shot. Is it your fault if someone shoots you if you go out without a sidearm and without a bullet-proof vest?
 
Sep 15, 2019
9,991
5,546
113
#63
Nehemiah, do you know how toxic that statement is? I agree women should not dress like prey. I will give you that. Modesty is a virtue that I too value.

HOWEVER...

Many women have been on the receiving end of rape, some were dressed skimpy, others fully clothed. In all situations, holding the female responsible is like saying that if someone makes you angry, you have a right to hurt them. They made you do it.

I call that shameful to shame the victim for the actions of another. I love my Lord, and for years blamed myself for what happened to me (most who have experienced, if not all, share that deep shame, regardless how they were dressed or any of the circumstances) and the last people I would think would consider a survivor of rape guilty would be a brother or sister in Christ.
On a less emotive topic, why do you think the police in most civilised countries are prevented from setting up nice cars with keys in and doors unlocked, in areas frequented by thieves? Such setups are known as entrapment, and are designed to prey on the weaker in society who may be swayed by the opportunity to steal a car, where they would not have, if the opportunity were not presented.

I believe the same holds true for rape. Neither car theft nor rape is acceptable (whether via entrapment or not). But if someone has played a role in the entrapment of the criminal, either by leaving the car unattended where it is known it will entice, or by a female wearing skimpy clothing in places she knows she could entice, don't you believe such people are accessories to the crime?

Another example might be a Ku Klux Klan protest in the middle of a Black Lives Matter protest. Common sense dictates that the two groups just can't mix without a criminal outcome.

In Dinah's case, it was a daughter of the covenant people spending too much time around pagan men. While Shechem was guilty of the greater crime of rape (and later paid for it), Dinah did a disgraceful thing by liaising with uncircumcised heathens, and she paid for that for the rest of her life.

Although spoken in the context of believers, Jesus warns against those who cause His children to sin.

Matthew 18:6

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
 
Sep 15, 2019
9,991
5,546
113
#64
Someone could say if you walk around without a pistol to defend yourself and without a bullet-proof vest, you are asking to get shot. Is it your fault if someone shoots you if you go out without a sidearm and without a bullet-proof vest?
If you go to one of those Black Lives Riots in Minnesota that are currently being celebrated, I would argue to a degree, yes. The rioter would be guilty of murdering you, but you did a silly thing by going to the riot. Unless you were acting in the line of duty, which is different.
 
L

lenna

Guest
#65
No, what I am saying is that women who expose themselves are INVITING rapists. So they both should be held accountable.

If you happen to live in a neighborhood where break-ins are common and you leave your doors and windows unlocked, you are as much responsible as the burglars who took advantage of your stupidity. Provocative clothing in this day and age is also stupidity.
Provocative clothing in this day and age is actually the norm. I have never invited any man to touch me any way I would find unacceptable and that goes whether married or not. However, that never assured me of being properly accommodated with regards to my own chastity.

You have really crossed a line and obviously believe women must want unacceptable sexual advances and enjoy being whistled at or touched by someone they do not know or followed or stared at. Clothing is not the instigator.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#66
Genesis does not come out and say that Adam was covered with a glow of His glory that I am aware of. Maybe there is an argument from some double meaning in Hebrew that I am not aware of. But I have just heard this as a theory, not as something explicitly taught in scripture. If you know of scripture that teaches this, please share it.
It works the best for me today. .

Another theory is he killed a lamb and they covered themselves with it. But that begs the question .What were they covered with prior to seeing something with their eyes that caused shame. A Bikini and Speedo ?

Rather than exposing corrupted flesh causing shame. Having been separated from God

I would think nakedness' with shame was in respect the glory of God. It had departed. Moses had to put a veil on to hide the glory .
 

maryjohanna

Active member
May 24, 2020
106
75
28
#67
That is total nonsense. When someone dresses provocatively, they are asking for undue attention and any consequences which follow. That is why the Bible directs Christian women to dress modestly and soberly.
I think her point is that you can't fully blame the woman because ultimately, if a man chooses to rape or sexually assault her, he sinned out of the human nature of his own heart. That was HISE choice that HE made to SIN against her. I am not fully disagreeing with you, because I agree to a certain degree; I am just saying I think people who say it isn't entirely based upon the woman's clothing are just trying to reiterate that the person who carried out the heinous act of raping someone is the one who ultimately did the deed and committed the true sin.
 

maryjohanna

Active member
May 24, 2020
106
75
28
#68
Now I am getting a bunch of disagreements from Christians -- who should know better. As though I have not spoken the truth. Well there is an old proverb that is still applicable -- "If you play with fire, you will get burnt".
Alright ~ If I am being quite honest, I don't think its fair for you to say everyone should know better considering they just have a differing opinion than you. This is just my observation and personal outlook, but I don't think your stance on this issue is truth, because it is not strictly stated in Scripture anywhere that women's choice of dress will invite potential rapists and assaulters. I think it is your opinion that women invite rapists, as you said; that is it. And everyone is entitled to one that differs from yours. Nobody is playing with fire; I just think people are saying that you cannot entirely blame a woman and the way she is dressed for someone's personal choice to rape or assault somebody. I GUARANTEE YOU that there have been PLENTY of women dressed conservatively and modestly enough for you & many other Christians that have been raped and sexually assaulted. But when a woman is suddenly dressed in a way that is "provocative," it becomes her fault?
I don't want to argue, nor am I trying to instigate. I am just trying to explain why I think people are persistent on disagreeing with you.
 

maryjohanna

Active member
May 24, 2020
106
75
28
#69
“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. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." [Deuteronomy 22:25-27]
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,163
1,791
113
#70
It works the best for me today. .

Another theory is he killed a lamb and they covered themselves with it. But that begs the question .What were they covered with prior to seeing something with their eyes that caused shame. A Bikini and Speedo ?

Rather than exposing corrupted flesh causing shame. Having been separated from God

I would think nakedness' with shame was in respect the glory of God. It had departed. Moses had to put a veil on to hide the glory .
The Bible says they were naked and they were not ashamed. it does not say that they were clothed with glory.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,163
1,791
113
#71
You have really crossed a line and obviously believe women must want unacceptable sexual advances and enjoy being whistled at or touched by someone they do not know or followed or stared at. Clothing is not the instigator.
It doesn't make sense for a woman to show cleavage if she doesn't want it stared at. I'm not saying men should stare, but what is the point of a woman dressing in skimpy clothes if not to invite attention? And why would women who wear such clothes complain if they are whistled at?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#72
The Bible says they were naked and they were not ashamed. it does not say that they were clothed with glory.
I agree that is what it say. But how to we define ?

Three things are used to describe God who is not a man.

God is Spirit, God is Love, God is Light. . . . And He also can create light .

There would be more support with the glory theory . Nothing to do with clothing corrupted mankind as wolves in sheep's clothing. The corruptible does not put on the incorruptible. Nakedness' begins in the heart.

What kind of flesh it was prior to the condemnation, (corruption body of death) no one knows Just as no one know what form the serpent was before its lost its ability to walk . Some say the most beautiful of all .

I say mankind lost the glow of the presence of God.

Glory, Glory, Glory, it will be restored in the new heaven .

There will be no night .The Sun and Moon the two corruption time keepers had served it purpose.
 

maryjohanna

Active member
May 24, 2020
106
75
28
#73
It doesn't make sense for a woman to show cleavage if she doesn't want it stared at. I'm not saying men should stare, but what is the point of a woman dressing in skimpy clothes if not to invite attention? And why would women who wear such clothes complain if they are whistled at?
Okay, even if this were the definitive case (because I cant deny that some women do dress provocatively to attract attention, but we also cannot generalize that as the one and only reason a female has ever dressed revealingly), and the woman was trying to "invite attention" like multiple people are claiming, I don't think she has a sign attached to her saying "I'm dressed like this so that you could potentially rape me or assault me." NO. No. No. Even if a woman is dressed "skimpy" or whatever word people wanna call it, this doesn't mean they are INVIITNG and ALLOWING someone to assault, harass, or rape them. The very ACTION and SIN of raping somebody is ultimately committed by the SINNER. It is the SINNER who will ultimately take it up with God, not the person who was the victim. It is like two little kids throwing a ball in the house and knocking over a vase and the one who actually did broke it, points the finger at their sibling and saying "well, they didn't catch it so it's their fault." Accusing a woman is practically making up excuses for why rape and sexual assault could be justified ~ and if that isnt what people mean, that is how it comes off to me.

My own thoughts now:
I feel like some people are talking on here like women ask for it, and that is a very very VERY serious and paralyzing accusation to make. Rape is a very emotionally and psychologically damaging event for an individual. It is extremely violating. To look at a woman, who has experienced that trauma, in the eye and tell her it is HER OWN PERSONAL FAULT that the trauma happened to because her "dress was too short" and her "cleavage was showing" is...despicable. Should women dress that way? No, they should not. But, by no means, in any way shape or form, does that mean anybody has the right to use that as an excuse for why someone CHOSE THEMSELVES WILLINGLY IN THEIR OWN HEARTS to go and take advantage of her and rape her. I am close friends with a girl whose younger sister was raped while studying abroad. She was in Spain ~ she went out one evening, was with a group of girls, went to the bathroom, and males surrounded her and took advantage of her right then and there. She flew home devastated, it tore their family apart, and they went through years of a lawsuit and trial. I had no clue how the poor girl was dressed, but I do know one thing: I DONT NEED TO KNOW. All I need to know is that someone did wrong to her. The pain that I witnessed my friend go through from her sister's rape was so awful and sad. And I think it is easy for a lot of people on here to make these claims, because if anyone here had a daughter, mother, sister, niece who was raped, I don't believe for a second you'd be telling them it was their fault. Going out, dressing up, and drinking some ~ are they good, wholesome things to do? No, they arent. But do they shout "hey, rape me"? NO, they don't.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#74
I dont as a rule watch random you tube videos so sorry not gonna take the bait.

But just want to say as regarding Dinah in the Bible.
She was the only daughter out of TWELVE brothers. She has my sympathy. who else was she going to hang out with in that family with no sisters? and four squabbling mothers pretty much. Her brothers didnt end up being paragons of virtue either.... but at least they had an inheritance, which she, being female did not.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#75
Dinah wasnt raped
It was Tamar that was raped in the Bible by her own half brother.
 
Sep 15, 2019
9,991
5,546
113
#76
Dinah wasnt raped
It was Tamar that was raped in the Bible by her own half brother.
The NIV says she was raped, but I agree the description doesn't sound exactly like rape. In more reliable translations, it doesn't say she was raped.

"Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. 2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl as my wife.”

Okay, even if this were the definitive case (because I cant deny that some women do dress provocatively to attract attention, but we also cannot generalize that as the one and only reason a female has ever dressed revealingly), and the woman was trying to "invite attention" like multiple people are claiming, I don't think she has a sign attached to her saying "I'm dressed like this so that you could potentially rape me or assault me."
I think there are two standards here, and that is causing the conflict. There are God's standards, and the world's standards. The world's standards say that it's okay for women to dress skimpily, and although it might cause some men to lust or even trigger them to rape, both the dressing skimpily and the rape are part of nature. God's standards say that neither is okay. The conflict comes when some judge the skimpily dressed woman by the world's standards ("it's okay, every girl goes drinking or showing cleavage"), but the rapist by God's standards ("he should have never done that, he deserves to be severely punished").

I certainly think rape is a more severe crime than lewdness. Just as physical assault is more severe than verbal assault. But I also believe that due to man's fallen state, the one can cause escalation into the other.
 
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
#77
Hello, all! I recently came across this video on YouTube by a man named Pastor Anderson. I have seen some of his other videos before, and quite frankly, they've disturbed me. This thread is not so much about him personally; I am curious to know what people's responses, reactions, and thoughts are on the video, the story of Dinah [Genesis 34], and what it means. To me, though, his take on Dinah was much more than just an interpretation of the story; it incorporated more his thoughts on women's roles. Do you agree with his statements? If so, can you provide Scripture to justify your argument?

I am SO SO curious to know what you all think about this. Maybe I am crazy, but I this really shook me to my core that he was preaching this on a pulpit. Let me know your thoughts, brothers and sisters. God bless!


P.S. ~ the topic at hand could get controversial, so please please please KEEP IT NICE. it is completely okay to have differing opinions. please don't bash or insult the pastor; that is not what my intention was in striating this thread.
I would not be surprised if he’s an abusive husband and father. When it comes to “lording over your family” I think it creates a strong urge to push back. If he’s doing it in the name of the Lord then his children will probably not like God either. He is accurate however about the Bible having a double standard. I have to call it like I see it. We don’t have to like it but we do need to accept it.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,159
2,174
113
#78
Lets define 'rape,' shall we? Perhaps it would be helpful in finding the missing linchpin that would better support an consensus of understanding. Okay? Okay, good. Since we know that sexual harassment is defined as any sort of unwanted attention, then no woman showing cleavage can say she does not want any sort attention whatsoever with any credibility. However, a low cut neckline does not in anyway imply that she is saying, "I would not mind if you had your way with me. Please, do as you will. I'm just begging you..." Mkay? Kay.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,159
2,174
113
#79
Gosh. How many unsatisfied wives must there be before men get a better grip on the more intimate of cues....
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,159
2,174
113
#80
Alright, I broke character and will answer the poll sincerely, checking, "He is totally wrong, and it disrespects women," which most closely represents the lesson of Dinah's ordeal, or Shechem's example, whichever may apply. The resulting disappointment resulting from expecting those such as Shechem, having no previous instruction toward biblical recommendations of love honor and respect (i.e., the essence of the establishment of marriage) in spite of his proclaiming of it 'tenderly' which, was notably only after the more obvious brute behavior he exhibited that was, at the least, grossly lacking in any semblance of 'tenderness.'