Answering old threads thread

[Idolater]

So you should be looking at another Saul story, where he made a vow that his son Jonathan broke unwittingly. The people had to save Jonathan.

I'm going to get myself a copy of the code of canon law 1983 to see how similar your view is to Catholicism's.

Found it, Derf. Basically as soon as anyone who has taken perpetual vows marries or attempts to marry, they are 'ipso facto' dismissed from their institution. It doesn't even require anything official, sounds like, and they don't make a criminal case about it, so I guess the 'marriage loophole' is kind of 'baked in' to the Church's institutions' perpetual vows (of celibacy in this case). So AMR (of happy memory) would have simply been dismissed from the Jesuits (I believe) upon seeking to marry the love of his life. I don't know what the bishops did to religious priests like Martin Luther in the 1500s though, if they sought or attempted or got married. Maybe they did make a criminal case out of it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If your source is merely your own brain, Brain, then you have nothing to hold over anyone else. There can be all kinds of "facts" dancing around in there.

I've already explained that there can be abuse, including physical harm perpetrated by a husband on his wife. But it isn't rape.

It isn't and yeah, it is. Go waffle on about "something else".

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think you're arguing a semantic point using language that is inappropriate.

If a husband were to force himself, he would be charged with rape. I don't think it's worth trying to explain anything to Brain using that word.

Wait. Remove the final three words of that second paragraph.

He would rightfully be charged with rape because that's what he'd be guilty of. No further explanation necessary and those who try to shroud it in other terminology such as "something else" or make excuses for it have no justification for it. It generally isn't worth your time trying to explain things to me Stripe but for rather different reasons than you may like to think...

 

[Stripe]

He would rightfully be charged with rape.

Right. Now perhaps if you'd try understanding people instead of reading into their words the worst possible things, we could learn something.

As it is, once again, you generate nothing but spam.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Right. Now perhaps if you'd try understanding people instead of reading into their words the worst possible things, we could learn something.

As it is, once again, you generate nothing but spam.

Try explaining that to Derf then because there's no disagreement between us (for once) on that score so read things properly yourself. Oh, and get some new material anyway...

 

[Derf]

I think you're arguing a semantic point using language that is inappropriate.

If a husband were to force himself, he would be charged with rape. I don't think it's worth trying to explain anything to Brain using that word.

Wait. Remove the final three words of that second paragraph.

Those last 3 words are the whole point of my post. And the reason they are necessary is because of both the punishment for rape, and the evidentiary requirements. Even the liberals in this discussion, at least most of them, recognize the heinousness of the crime of rape and we're willing to apply the death penalty, as appropriate. But rape has to carry with it the consent aspect--consent to have sex until that consent is removed. If married, consent is EXPLICIT in the definition of marriage, and removal, except by agreement for a limited time, only comes through dissolution of the marriage. The whole idea of marital rape is built on a societal ideology that dismisses marriage as backward or unnecessary, and therefore assumes consent is granted and retracted on a whim, which the Bible defines as fornication (also deserving of the death penalty in most cases). Remember this is a discussion of the "biblical" view, not just the current societal trends.

 

[Idolater]

One of the conversations I used to get involved in with the hardcore extreme feminists on Facebook couple years ago revolved around the viability of a fetus / infant. In many cases the argument they made was that the fetus wasn't worthy of protection because it couldn't survive on its own, and that presumably the infant could. Of course I would mock them roundly and point out that no infant can survive on its own, no toddler, no child could realistically be expected to survive on its own before the age of six or seven.

This conversation you're having with the Skeetard reminds me of that, and reminds me of working with young Scouts, practicing wilderness survival skills, and how my development as an adult father in this regard was as important as their development as teens.

We never stop developing. The human organism that I am today is very different from the one that I was 20 years ago or 40 years ago. It is very different than the one I will be in 20 years and 20 more years past that.

I agree with you that learning to father is the one of the most important things to do. I'm doing work now for my own kids' future marriages and lives for instance, work that they can't do because they're kids and they don't know any better, and can't know any better, not until they're way, way older, if we just leave them be and learn on their own, trial and error. That's a disastrous way to learn the right way to live and think. People need a father.

 

[Derf]

Right. Now perhaps if you'd try understanding people instead of reading into their words the worst possible things, we could learn something.

As it is, once again, you generate nothing but spam.

Brain would be correct if he removed that third word.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Those last 3 words are the whole point of my post. And the reason they are necessary is because of both the punishment for rape, and the evidentiary requirements. Even the liberals in this discussion, at least most of them, recognize the heinousness of the crime of rape and we're willing to apply the death penalty, as appropriate. But rape has to carry with it the consent aspect--consent to have sex until that consent is removed. If married, consent is EXPLICIT in the definition of marriage, and removal, except by agreement for a limited time, only comes through dissolution of the marriage. The whole idea of marital rape is built on a societal ideology that dismisses marriage as backward or unnecessary, and therefore assumes consent is granted and retracted on a whim, which the Bible defines as fornication (also deserving of the death penalty in most cases). Remember this is a discussion of the "biblical" view, not just the current societal trends.

It is not "liberal" to call a spade a spade or in this case - rape. Just because a couple are married does not equate to a husband being entitled to sex as he sees fit and forcing himself on his unwilling spouse. There's no justification for that and good luck finding it Biblically as Clete already pointed out. You ain't gonna get any help from Paul on the score. This garbage about marriage being unnecessary or backward because of 'societal ideology'is just puerile distraction and nonsense. If a husband forces himself on his wife then that is rape, it's not "something else", it's rape.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Brain would be correct if he removed that third word.

I was correct as it stands. He would rightfully be charged with rape.

 

[Derf]

I was correct as it stands. He would rightfully be charged with rape.

Nope.

 

[Derf]

It is not "liberal" to call a spade a spade or in this case - rape. Just because a couple are married does not equate to a husband being entitled to sex as he sees fit and forcing himself on his unwilling spouse. There's no justification for that and good luck finding it Biblically as Clete already pointed out. You ain't gonna get any help from Paul on the score. This garbage about marriage being unnecessary or backward because of 'societal ideology'is just puerile distraction and nonsense. If a husband forces himself on his wife then that is rape, it's not "something else", it's rape.

Yet you haven't shown anything that proves you're correct. It's all in your noggin. Paul doesn't help you, as you've shown by not even attempting to quote him.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

Yeppers. He would rightfully be charged with rape. Don't like it, meh, go cry into a glass of milk "or something".

 

[Derf]

Yeppers. He would rightfully be charged with rape. Don't like it, meh, go cry into a glass of milk "or something".

Nope. You go cry in a glass of milk. You've shown us nothing except your feeble opinion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yet you haven't shown anything that proves you're correct. It's all in your noggin. Paul doesn't help you, as you've shown by not even attempting to quote him.

Nope. Then again, if you're not familiar with marriage vows or what to love and cherish actually mean in relation then no wonder you're reduced to "something else" time and again. Go read Clete's post on the score. You have no defense on this and if you truly knew what it is to love and cherish someone, you wouldn't even want to try defending this.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope. You go cry in a glass of milk. You've shown us nothing except your feeble opinion.

Don't need to thanks. Forcing sex on your wife or anyone else is rape, fact.

 

[Derf]

Don't need to thanks. Forcing sex on your wife or anyone else is rape, fact.

Brain is not a brain. Fact.

Hey this stuff grows on you. There's all kinds of things I can unilaterally decide. A man is really a woman if he believes it hard enough. See? A rapist is a rapist if I decide he is. Or not if I decide he's not. It's purely my opinion against yours, and I just have to become a judge and make it so. I can decide a baby is not a human, so it's ok to murder it--except we won't call it murder, we'll call it "family planning".

 

[Arthur Brain]

Brain is not a brain. Fact.

Hey this stuff grows on you. There's all kinds of things I can unilaterally decide. A man is really a woman if he believes it hard enough. See? A rapist is a rapist if I decide he is. Or not if I decide he's not. It's purely my opinion against yours, and I just have to become a judge and make it so. I can decide a baby is not a human, so it's ok to murder it--except we won't call it murder, we'll call it "family planning".

A rapist is a rapist if they force themselves on another, whether in or outside of marriage. Simple stuff. Fact. Still don't like it? Eh, boo hoo. Doesn't alter the fact. Of course if you had a clue as to what loving and cherishing another actually means you'd not be defending it as "something else" but as you can't even explain what that actually is then ho hum...

 

[Derf]

A rapist is a rapist if they force themselves on another, whether in or outside of marriage. Simple stuff. Fact. Still don't like it? Eh, boo hoo. Doesn't alter the fact. Of course if you had a clue as to what loving and cherishing another actually means you'd not be defending it as "something else" but as you can't even explain what that actually is then ho hum...

My name is Webster. I get to define words however I like.

 

[ok doser]

My name is Webster.

Whachootalkinabout Willis