Why men won't marry you

[Traditio]

First, nothing would be forcing the husband's hand. If he beats her that's his own choice.

Justice, Kmo, justice. Justice would be forcing his hand.

Second, yes I deny that any justice is done by beating her, possibly to death.

Because she doesn't deserve it? Because he wouldn't have the authority to carry out the penalty?

Do you think that the public interest was served by her NOT being beaten to death?

I wish to remind you, if I recall correctly, that she and her lover ended up murdering the husband.

Your scenario was about ongoing actions so that would exclude a momentary lapse.

I am inclined to agree with you.

However, vice isn't incurable. If you doubt that then read about Paul in your bible.

I fully admit that vice is curable by grace. Again, however, the State cannot and should not concern itself with grace or what could happen by divine action. It should concern itself with what it can know and do naturally and with what usually happens.

And naturally speaking, vice is generally incurable.

Simply look at social liberals and what they say about homosexual conduct, abortion, condoms, etc. You think, naturally speaking, there's any curing that?

I have serious doubts about that.

I don't have an answer for that right now.

Well do feel free to think about it and come back to me later on it. :e4e:

Violence can solve some problems. I don't think it's true in this case.

Dead women don't bring lovers into their husband's household. Just saying.

Just answer this. Do you think that a husband beating his wife is compatible with loving her as Christ loved the church?

The part where Paul says we should love our wives like Christ loved the church. If you think a husband beating his wife, possibly to death, fits that bill then I'd say you have a pretty warped idea of what Jesus did for us.

In some cases? I don't see why not.

Kmo, I could just as well ask you the same question about any public official carrying out his duties in the administration of justice. Are the actions of an executioner with respect to a convicted murderer compatible with Christian charity? What about the actions of prison guards? What about soldiers at war?

Contra your protestations, Christianity is not, nor has it ever been, a pacifist religion. There is such a thing as a just use of force, even lethal force.

I further wish to ask you, Kmo, whether you think that the precepts of the Law of Moses (the ultimate author of which was God) were contrary to charity (which is nothing but a participation of divine love).

 

[Crucible]

Who is doing that?

Feminist men.

 

[elohiym]

well, i see corporal correction as an acceptable means of correcting wayward behavior, just as with a child

Do you see corporal correction as an acceptable means of correcting wayward behavior of husbands by wives?

 

[elohiym]

If you ever think to commit adultery, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin. The wages of any sin is spiritual death. Do you need a government to stop you from committing adultery when God's punishment is instant and more severe? Hopefully you don't think eternal death is a lighter punishment than execution or a beating.

You're still under the Law. I've never seen you admit it that boldly. How interesting. :think:

Matthew 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In other words, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin because you are already an adulterer.

Yep...

:doh: Then you can't claim I'm still under the law based on that statement since you agree ("Yep") with my interpretation. Flip flop ... again.

 

[kmoney]

Justice, Kmo, justice. Justice would be forcing his hand.

I guess that's part of the question at hand.

Because she doesn't deserve it? Because he wouldn't have the authority to carry out the penalty?

Your hypothetical includes the State delegating so it's not the latter. If anything it would be the former. If asked what this woman does deserve from the criminal system I'd say I don't know exactly. Mostly I'd say that it wouldn't warrant the death penalty. Regarding corporal punishment, it would depend on the goal of the punishment. As a corrective measure I don't think corporal punishment is the way to go. As a deterrent, perhaps it would work.

Do you think that the public interest was served by her NOT being beaten to death?

:idunno: I don't think the public has as much interest in what happens with this couple as you.

I wish to remind you, if I recall correctly, that she and her lover ended up murdering the husband.

Irrelevant.

I fully admit that vice is curable by grace. Again, however, the State cannot and should not concern itself with grace or what could happen by divine action. It should concern itself with what it can know and do naturally and with what usually happens.

And naturally speaking, vice is generally incurable.

What makes you say that vice is generally incurable?

But ultimately, you and I disagree on the severity of the offense.

Simply look at social liberals and what they say about homosexual conduct, abortion, condoms, etc. You think, naturally speaking, there's any curing that?

I have serious doubts about that.

Curing 'that' as in curing social liberalism? Or curing homosexuals, women who abort children, and people who use condoms? I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

Dead women don't bring lovers into their husband's household. Just saying.

By that logic you could justify death for all crimes.

In some cases? I don't see why not.

Well I obviously disagree.

Kmo, I could just as well ask you the same question about any public official carrying out his duties in the administration of justice. Are the actions of an executioner with respect to a convicted murderer compatible with Christian charity? What about the actions of prison guards? What about soldiers at war?

Contra your protestations, Christianity is not, nor has it ever been, a pacifist religion. There is such a thing as a just use of force, even lethal force.

I'm not advocating pacifism.

I think there are two sides. First, how the State deals with criminals (and warring nations etc) and second, how Christians deal with people who offend them. I think Christians are called to forgive and show mercy rather than try to punish. The State may very well have an interest in punishing this woman to maintain order in society but I would question if the husband should press for any punishment.

 

[Rusha]

Of course not. You seem to have mistaken my position as saying the husband should let his wife do whatever she wants.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that your are referring to communicating verbally (not physically) in a manner which states "this is not okay and further discussion may be merited."

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that your are referring to communicating verbally (not physically) in a manner which states "this is not okay and further discussion may be merited."

You ARE going out on a limb!!! :devil:

 

[kmoney]

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that your are referring to communicating verbally (not physically) in a manner which states "this is not okay and further discussion may be merited."

Yep. And if that leads nowhere then he can leave her. Beating her will accomplish nothing.

 

[Rusha]

You ARE going out on a limb!!! :devil:

I KNOW ... who'd of thunk that there are others actions which are superior to violence?

 

[Rusha]

Yep. And if that leads nowhere then he can leave her. Beating her will accomplish nothing.

Well, it does accomplish ONE thing. It leaves an obvious wimp with the feeling he is manly.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

And your proposal about letting the husband beat his wife would only further destroy the marriage instead of doing anything to help.

Bottom line for what's wrong with the beating. If she's too hard-hearted to reach with words of love, that's what divorce is for.

Excellent point, kmo.

 

[OCTOBER23]

Give her lots of Hugs and Kisses and listen and talk to her about your future lives together.

:straight:

 

[truthjourney]

Well, it does accomplish ONE thing. It leaves an obvious wimp with with the feeling he is manly.

They only feel manly when it comes to women and children not when it comes to other men, somebody their own size.

 

[Rusha]

They only feel manly when it comes to women and children not when it comes to other men, somebody their own size.

Indeed ... it's so easy for whimps to physically attack children, women, the elderly or disabled ... as long as they believe they have the physical advantage. They can even talk back to real men when it's done over the safety of the internet. :shocked:

 

[Crucible]

Indeed ... it's so easy for whimps to physically attack children, women, the elderly or disabled ... as long as they believe they have the physical advantage. They can even talk back to real men when it's done over the safety of the internet. :shocked:

It's easy for wimps to get bold with another person thinking that they can't harm them because of what they are :idunno:

The bottom line is, a woman has no business pointing out who and who is not 'wimp'. Yall do a whole lot of trying to break people down into whatever component you figure they should be, but are nothing but big mouths yelling into the wind. In a sense, you sort of do it to yourselves- you can't get involved with such things and expect that it should be wrong for a man to hit you.

But for some reason, men are supposed to abandon this logic and reasoning for your sake- hitting a woman is deemed as bad as hitting a child. I wonder why :think:
Couldn't be a correlation there, huh?

 

[Rusha]

Indeed ... it's so easy for whimps to physically attack children, women, the elderly or disabled ... as long as they believe they have the physical advantage. They can even talk back to real men when it's done over the safety of the internet. :shocked:

It's easy for wimps

We know. That's been established. Why aren't you doing your happy dance?

 

[Rusha]

Give her lots of Hugs and Kisses and listen and talk to her about your future lives together.

:straight:

:thumb:

 

[annabenedetti]

Well, I would still disagree with your original post in our exchange. In that post you were talking about beating the sense into the wife and if she doesn't get that sense then you can keep beating her until she dies. If your goal is to get the woman to understand the wrongness of her actions and how it's hurting her husband and her marriage then beating her seems like one of the worst things you could do. And if she doesn't die because the husband decides not to take it that far then it seems like a sure way to completely destroy the marriage. Your proposal isn't reasonable to me at all, leaving aside that it's completely against the faith you espouse.

I respect you a lot, kmo. You're one of the good men here, and I appreciate you.

I also appreciate your reasoning with someone who thinks it's okay to beat a wife until she's dead, but I absolutely will not reason with someone of his ilk. The more I read from this group (doloTradSumsod), the more I realize how important it is for women to have autonomy from them. And the more I understand why they're here.

 

[Rusha]

 

[truthjourney]

It's easy for wimps to get bold with another person thinking that they can't harm them because of what they are :idunno:

The bottom line is, a woman has no business pointing out who and who is not 'wimp'. Yall do a whole lot of trying to break people down into whatever component you figure they should be, but are nothing but big mouths yelling into the wind. In a sense, you sort of do it to yourselves- you can't get involved with such things and expect that it should be wrong for a man to hit you.

But for some reason, men are supposed to abandon this logic and reasoning for your sake.

It's not your place to tell us what our business is. We know a wimp when we see one.