Why men won't marry you

[1PeaceMaker]

Interestingly enough, this does not answer the question I actually asked.

I started the interrogatory. You started dodging.

This was the question I asked. I will highlight for you the part you ignored that needs an answer from you.

"to stop the abuse" is an important qualifier I noted this time. Did you note what I said?

Even if stuck in a situation requiring lethal force, there is no need to be hateful.

Do you always associate lethal force with hate/hard heartedness?

Do you assume that a woman divorcing her husband could not do so because she's forced to by HIS hard heart?

In other words, if (big if) God puts her in a position of being forced to use a gun to protect the innocent, there is no hard heart on her part required to act. It would be the sinner's hard heart responsible for the response.

 

[elohiym]

Is a woman who shoots her abusive husband to stop the abuse of herself and a family acting because she has a hard heart towards her husband or a soft heart towards her children?

Not enough information. The Lord (leader) you are supposed to be following allowed people to abuse and murder him, and he forgave his abusers while they were abusing him. He taught forgiveness, turning the cheek, and also taught a duty to retreat. Furthermore, there is a duty to retreat under the laws of the society you live in.

 

[Rusha]

At most you could accuse me of hyperboly.

I'm not currently a paid-for member so am unaware of any woodshed posts.

Well, I am ... and you claiming lack of awareness doesn't change that.

Your assumption is reasonable? Why do you think it's reasonable to assume a non-Christian is a person who was a totally theologically different person?

:chuckle: Seriously? For the very point you brought up. He and you are making the claim "but he was a Christian, this new ID is not". Checking a box is easy ... changing a POV and personality is more difficult. The person would have to possess self-control. It's the same tired arguments and hostilities that made it so obvious.

I don't know a Christian who would openly deny Christ and the Bible just to get under the skin of a few unbelievers. It's such a crazy idea.

That would just be an indication of how little their Christian beliefs and deity meant to that person ...

It should offend anyone who claims to be a Christian.

If it was Voltaire, I'd be really disappointed, to say the least. But it's not his style; he's come back in a number of forms, always with the same basic theology.

The only thing that changed was the label. Coming back in a number of forms (your acknowledgment) IS deceitful ... so why would doing something else deceitful surprise you?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I started the interrogatory. You started dodging.




"to stop the abuse" is an important qualifier I noted this time. Did you note what I said?



Do you always associate lethal force with hate/hard heartedness?

Do you assume that a woman divorcing her husband could not do so because she's forced to by HIS hard heart?

In other words, if (big if) God puts her in a position of being forced to use a gun to protect the innocent, there is no hard heart on her part required to act. It would be the sinner's hard heart responsible for the response.

Well, I suppose that is the best answer I can expect from you. We will leave it at that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not enough information. The Lord (leader) you are supposed to be following allowed people to abuse and murder him, and he forgave his abusers while they were abusing him. He taught forgiveness, turning the cheek, and also taught a duty to retreat. Furthermore, there is a duty to retreat under the laws of the society you live in.

There was plenty of information there to answer the question. I am guessing that your response is also the best answer we can expect from you.

 

[elohiym]

You were able to have children. Lots of them. It's a blessing, not a race, status symbol or accomplishment.

It's a blessing according to the Bible. Where are you getting your idea it's a blessing? What do you mean by blessing?

The verse in the Bible that proves children are a blessing also proves children are a status symbol and accomplishment. "Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; he shall not be ashamed."

Having children is a race because of women's "biological clocks" and other reasons, some related to the survival and improvement of the species.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Well, I suppose that is the best answer I can expect from you. We will leave it at that.

So you won't answer the original question?

 

[bybee]

Okay. Is this better?

Bybee.... such a sweet little old lady. Says all kinds of nice things....

You are free to speak your heart.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

There was plenty of information there to answer the question. I am guessing that your response is also the best answer we can expect from you.

You don't even understand how my question relates to the hard heart debate.

You gave a stupid scenario instead of answering yes or no that wouldn't happen in real life, and if it did wouldn't require a murderous, hard heart to deal with.

If you have to leave a marriage or be murdered, your spouse has a hard heart causing your divorce.

It's that simple.

If you use divorce for another reason than hard heartedness, you are perverting the use of it, which was to prevent hard hearted people being goaded into murder to get out of marriage with someone they hated.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So you won't answer the original question?

I answered it at least as well as you answered mine.

 

[Rusha]

Having children is a race because of women's "biological clocks" and other reasons,

Children should be considered more than the prize from a race ...

 

[CabinetMaker]

You don't even understand how my question relates to the hard heart debate.

You gave a stupid scenario that wouldn't happen in real life, and if it did wouldn't require a murderous, hard heart to deal with.

It has happened. Google for stories about wives shooting abusive husbands.

If you have to leave a marriage or be murdered, your spouse has a hard heart causing your divorce.

It's that simple.

In your world, yes it is.

If you use divorce for another reason than hard heartedness, you are perverting the use of it, which was to prevent hard hearted people being goaded into murder to get out of marriage with someone they hated.

In my example, I don't think the wife was acting out of a hard heart, I think she was acting out of fear of her husband and love for her children. Is fear a sign of a hard heart?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

You are free to speak your heart.

Oh. I thought you wanted me to edit out the "sweet" and "nice" part.

 

[elohiym]

Children should be considered more than the prize from a race ...

That's a worthless, vague platitude, and you will never quantify what you mean by "more." The fact remains, it's a race on a number of levels. Your claim that it's not a race is bogus.

 

[Rusha]

That's a worthless, vague platitude, and you will never quantify what you mean by "more." The fact remains, it's a race on a number of levels. Your claim that it's not a race is bogus.

Uh huh. Your *opinion* has been noted.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It has happened. Google for stories about wives shooting abusive husbands.

Wives have shot abusive husbands. Have wives done so out of a soft heart? That is up to God to judge, but I bet a lot of those wives were hard hearted. By the numbers.

There are many options to take that don't involve shooting or dying. Retreat. But you can't take as much bank that way.

The love of money might cause a wife to murder an abusive husband, rather than leave for safety and divorce him over his hard heart.

In your world, yes it is.

But what? In your world a murderer can have a soft heart? LOL

And divorcing to prevent murder has nothing to do with a hard heart being in the picture, right?

In my example, I don't think the wife was acting out of a hard heart, I think she was acting out of fear of her husband and love for her children. Is fear a sign of a hard heart?

Then she wasn't sinning, or murdering. Fear for her children's safety is not malice or hard-heartedness.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's a worthless, vague platitude, and you will never quantify what you mean by "more." The fact remains, it's a race on a number of levels. Your claim that it's not a race is bogus.

My wife and I weren't in any race. We had two wonderful daughters in the fullness of our lives together and never once worried about a "race".

 

[CabinetMaker]

Wives have shot abusive husbands. Have wives done so out of a soft heart? That is up to God to judge, but I bet a lot of those wives were hard hearted. By the numbers.

There are many options to take that don't involve shooting or dying. Retreat. But you can't take as much bank that way.

There are stories about women who retreated, who ran away from the abuse. They frequently end with the wife being killed by her husband.

The love of money might cause a wife to murder an abusive husband, rather than leave for safety and divorce him over his hard heart.

Fear of getting the stuffing beat out of her once again might also cause her to murder her husband.

But what? In your world a murderer can have a soft heart? LOL

You would murder children by refusing them vaccinations and yet you claim to have a soft heart.

And divorcing to prevent murder has nothing to do with a hard heart being in the picture, right?

I was asking about the woman's heart. The heart of an abusive man is pretty well dead in my estimation.

Then she wasn't sinning, or murdering. Fear for her children's safety is not malice or hard-heartedness.

You have constructed a neat little true-false model that you will fit any response into. Its rather impressive really. And hard hearted as well as you use it to claim moral superiority.

If you care to define a hard heart in terms of greed and selfishness and sloth and drunkenness and rage then I will agree that everybody in the world has a heart that is hard to some degree. I will agree that these things lead to divorce. A couple that divorces simply because they grew apart from each is not victim of a particularly hard heart.

 

[BOLCATS]

Well, I am ... and you claiming lack of awareness doesn't change that.



:chuckle: Seriously? For the very point you brought up. He and you are making the claim "but he was a Christian, this new ID is not". Checking a box is easy ... changing a POV and personality is more difficult. The person would have to possess self-control. It's the same tired arguments and hostilities that made it so obvious.



That would just be an indication of how little their Christian beliefs and deity meant to that person ...

It should offend anyone who claims to be a Christian.



The only thing that changed was the label. Coming back in a number of forms (your acknowledgment) IS deceitful ... so why would doing something else deceitful surprise you?

So same arguments and hostilities makes it obvious? There are many more people than me who find your fascist positions disgusting. Not very many people are willing to confront you on them and my not backing off in the face of your blistering hostility is more a sign that people deem that you are not worth the trouble. I could privately interview any number of people based on guaranteed anonymity and find an enormous amount of agreement with my assessment of you. As for my hostility being an indicator of being your favorite boogeyman, you show greater hostility toward the men on this board who have not been metaphorically castrated by the feminism so prevelant in this society. My supposed hostility is no greater than many on here and the only time I am " hostile" is when I am confronting you.....hardly a consistent behavior. I am assuming by your use of that description as some sort of evidence that Voltaire was consistently hostile. That is hardly the case for me. Me and your bogeyman have one thing in common, namely our need to expose and confront you and hopefully make you "repent" so to speak. Beyond that, you are seeing what you want to see.


I am not faking any POV. I went to church as a child and even pretended to be a Christian but I never took any of it seriously.

Why are you obsessed with this dude anyway? If I were him why would it matter to you? Deal with my arguments or ignore me, its that simple. The reason is that you cannot debate without removing credibility from your opponent. It is your crutch. Your abuse of the word child is also your crutch. You try to put yourself in a position of invulnerability by saying child in your arguments. Its use is intended to shut down debate by trying to make people feel like monsters if they dare reply.,..only monsters are against children. You make them into monsters if they challenge you after you use that word deceitfully. Which reminds me......of your deceitfulness. You have so much of it that you project it onto me and feed your paranoia about Voltaire.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So same arguments and hostilities makes it obvious? There are many more people than me who find your fascist positions disgusting. Not very many people are willing to confront you on them and my not backing off in the face of your blistering hostility is more a sign that people deem that you are not worth the trouble. I could privately interview any number of people based on guaranteed anonymity and find an enormous amount of agreement with my assessment of you. As for my hostility being an indicator of being your favorite boogeyman, you show greater hostility toward the men on this board who have not been metaphorically castrated by the feminism so prevelant in this society. My supposed hostility is no greater than many on here and the only time I am " hostile" is when I am confronting you.....hardly a consistent behavior. I am assuming by your use of that description as some sort of evidence that Voltaire was consistently hostile. That is hardly the case for me. Me and your bogeyman have one thing in common, namely our need to expose and confront you and hopefully make you "repent" so to speak. Beyond that, you are seeing what you want to see.


I am not faking any POV. I

The only other person I have seen call Rusha a Fascist is 1PeaceMaker. DOLO/VOL/DOORMAT is 1Peacemakers brother, if memory serves me well (which is iffy). Now BOLOCATS is calling Rusha Fascist. Does tend to make one wonder of BOLO is another sock puppet.