Why men won't marry you

[elohiym]

Whether you choose to accept it or not, in most cases, the responsibility falls the harshest on men.

That's how it should be if they are the leaders. :duh:

Biblical patriarchy is harshest on men.

 

[elohiym]

The bible is nonsense too....get with the times. Tongue in cheek, but Augustine is just saying what the Bible says.

"God became man, so that man might become God" -- St. Augustine.

Do you believe St. Augustine?

 

[elohiym]

feel free to tell him he's a sad creature :idunno:

If he beats his wife, I would tell him that to his face, no hesitation.

You wouldn't? What's to fear? If he hits you he's going to be jailed for assault and then lose a lot of money, and you'll have taken a shot for a good cause. Plus you'll look more "manly" than Chuck Norris!

 

[elohiym]

And yet, men are in part responsible for women's abortions. AKA their actions

Everyone involved as a willing participant in the process is guilty of murder.

The force is strong with these shenanigans.

The farce is strong in your words, sense I do.

 

[Crucible]

:doh: The thread was intended to be a discussion about male right's issues, not a manifesto. You didn't care enough to join the discussion when it was active: her point.

This thread is from May of last year and was only reincarnated because somebody out of that little group of women wanted to dig up some old bones on someone else.

 

[Rusha]

This thread is from May of last year and was only reincarnated because somebody out of that little group of women wanted to dig up some old bones on someone else.

He is speaking of a different thread. New Guy.

 

[elohiym]

This thread is from May of last year and was only reincarnated because somebody out of that little group of women wanted to dig up some old bones on someone else.

No, don't blame them. I bumped the thread, by mistake actually. A man did it, yes! I wanted to quote something from this thread and cut and paste it to the other thread we were on but posted instead. It's entirely my fault, whether or not you believe it was by mistake.

 

[Crucible]

Everyone involved as a willing participant in the process is guilty of murder.

Actually, the Bible does not consider abortion murder. They were more treated as property, and the penalty was a fine for harming them.
That's why you don't see too many Jews worried too much about abortion. Christians just like to be overly grand and make stuff up.

 

[elohiym]

Actually, the Bible does not consider abortion murder.

Killing a fetus was considered murder and had the penalty of life for life.

Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life ..."

 

[Crucible]

Killing a fetus was considered murder and had the penalty of life for life.

Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life ..."

It's talking about harm to the woman.

So, you really just proved my point. Good job.

 

[elohiym]

It's talking about harm to the woman.

No, it's not.

 

[Crucible]

No, it's not.

..yes it is.

That's why in Rome, the penalty for abortion was and still is excommunication. If the Bible gave a green light for execution, they would have done it. In Israel, they have conditions for it, but it is legal there- it's because the Law doesn't call for it being 'murder'.

As I said, many Christians in this era got overzealous and, predictably, started making things up.

Stop making things up

 

[elohiym]

Stop making things up

I quoted the Bible. lain:

Gill's exposition:

...and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort:​

Not made up. Common sense when you consider there were already laws to cover the woman's death. :duh:

 

[Crucible]

I quoted the Bible. lain:

Gill's exposition:

...and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort:​

Not made up. Common sense when you consider there were already laws to cover the woman's death. :duh:

Keyword 'may'.

In tradition, there has never been a notion that eye for eye be met for abortion. It never existed among the Jews, and the Church never gave the death penalty for it.

So, you don't really have anything. The fact that the Bible is otherwise silent on the matter doesn't help you either.
Calling abortion 'murder' is a made up conviction by contemporary Christians.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know better than to share any experiences with you- so you can run off and make a judgmental comedy out of it.



Yes they are. That is why 99% of mankind's civilization has been a patriarchy.

Even in the early 5th century, St. Augustine flat out said that the only real practical purpose of a woman is to birth children.
:rotfl:

What's the matter dude, you have a female boss or something?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Another obvious example in which it should be perfectly permissible, and, in fact, legally encouraged, to beat one's wife:

I was watching a murder documentary a while back. A man's wife takes a younger lover. She even moves him into their house and permanently kicks the husband out of their bedroom, consigning him...either to the couch or to another bedroom. I forget which. She then permits the young man's friends to hang over at their house, drink alcohol, etc.

They ultimately ended up murdering the husband, if I recall correctly.

In my view, the State should delegate its right of violence in such cases to the offended party.

The husband should have been legally permitted and encouraged to beat his wife until either:

1. She saw reason

or

2. She died.

It should have been a perfectly legitimate legal defense for the husband to have walked into court, pointed to his wife's dead body and said: "Your honor, I tried to beat some sense into my wife, but the thing just could not be done. No matter how hard I punched her in the face, she just didn't seem to 'get it.'"

Had he done so, and had it been legal for him to do so, I assure you, everyone would be better off now.

[And yes, Rusha, I'll gladly say the same thing in the case of a male offender. The wife's relatives should be able to give the same legal defense in such a case, were the husband to move a lover into their household, etc.]

So, Trad thinks it would be justifiable, encouraged even for a husband to beat his wife to death if she didn't "see reason".

I would feign shock and bewilderment but it sadly enough ain't that surprising.

 

[Rusha]

So, Trad thinks it would be justifiable, encouraged even for a husband to beat his wife to death if she didn't "see reason".

I would feign shock and bewilderment but it sadly enough ain't that surprising.

Nope, not surprising at all.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Keyword 'may'.

The word "may" isn't in the Bible and you "may" be making things up in your own mind. lain:

The scripture is clear, and there are plenty of supporting verses that indicate the humanity of the fetus. God is not ageist.

 

[Crucible]

The word "may" isn't in the Bible and you "may" be making things up in your own mind. lain:

The scripture is clear, and there are plenty of supporting verses that indicate the humanity of the fetus. God is not ageist.

The only thing the exposition could be clear about was on the harm of the woman.
It's clear that 'it may be speaking of the fetus and mother' was added in to suffice the bias such as yours that exists.

There is no historical support for your assertion that it is 'murder'. It makes what murder is frivolous, and you know it-
if you had a child in the womb and you had to choose between it and your already born son, you would choose your already born son.

It's just that simple. It's something that contemporary Christians started calling it out of frustration of liberals going around impressing 'pro-choice' on people.

 

[elohiym]

In tradition ...

There is a gap of time when the Jews essentially lost the law and subsequently had to rediscover it. We don't know what happened before that time other than from the writing that existed from before that time. It's obvious from the wording of the Exodus passage that the injury of the prematurely born child is in view.

As for tradition, you probably would not like traditional Jewish patriarchy. For example, traditionally, sex is the right of the wife not the husband. So there goes your whole argument that a husband can take it by force and it's only an inconvenience for the wife, crushed by Jewish tradition. Squash!