Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
No, I wrote it myself, last week. Well, it was last week for me. I have a time machine where I can go back do cool stuff like that.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, okay. Paul doesn't condone a husband forcing himself on his wife or even allude to that being okay in a loving marriage. Got that straight now?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He wouldn't, not if he's a loving and cherishing one. If he entertains the notion of raping his spouse then he obviously isn't.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
We are 29 pages into this. I think it's worth reiterating that the original question was "Is marital rape scripturally defensible?"
Rape is defined as sex without consent.
1 Corinthians 7:4-5 expressly forbids denial of consent.
If there's no denial of consent, then there's no rape.
So I'm uncertain why rusha is dithering on about the DP
False premise. I Corinthians does not expressly forbid any such thing.
The bible does not teach a defacto permission to rape one's wife! It is NOT the fault of the wife if the husband forces himself on her!
This is perhaps the most foolishly evil position I've ever seen you take.
Derf
Well-known member
Show me with scripture.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time ..
I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room in there
Of course it doesn't
It is the fault of the wife if she withdraws consent unilaterally, ie "defrauds" her partner
Right.
That shouldn't happen.
That shouldn't have to happen.
Perhaps that's because you're misunderstanding the position I'm taking.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Corinthians is not written to the man, it's written to either partner in a marriage. It applies equally to the man as to the woman. Predictably the feminists here see it as a unidirectional phenomenon, the brutish ape of a man violently raping his wife in rusha's fevered imagination.
I have known marriages in which the wife's libido was stronger than the husband's, and there was discord in the marriage because her physical needs were not being met. In the one case with which I was most familiar, the husband's denial of intimacy was unilateral and frustrating to the wife and ultimately a cause of the dissolution of the marriage.
I have known marriages in which the wife's libido was stronger than the husband's, and there was discord in the marriage because her physical needs were not being met. In the one case with which I was most familiar, the husband's denial of intimacy was unilateral and frustrating to the wife and ultimately a cause of the dissolution of the marriage.
What you see or don't see is not relevant. The FACT is that there is nothing there that "expressly forbids" anything!
Thank you for conceding the debate.
Forbidding a spouse to withdraw consent would be a de-facto permission to rape, by definition.
No it IS NOT!!!
Good grief man! Listen to what you're saying here! You cannot possibly believe that it is EVER a woman's fault when a man, ANY MAN, forces himself on her sexually!
To suggest that God would teach such a thing is BLASPHEMY!
Ok, then explain it to me!
Under what conditions do you say that God sanctions that man can force himself on his wife and it be her fault for having "unilaterally" (whatever is meant by that term) withdrawn her consent?
Clete
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, unless you want to in which case it's all good
Same to you big guy
Unilaterally
If the husband forced himself on her, yes.
but at that point she has already defrauded him and the marriage is a sham
If the wife defrauds her husband, defrauds the marriage, she is at fault.
I'm not saying she's at fault for what he chooses to do past that, I'm saying that she is at fault for defrauding her husband, for defrauding the marriage.
In a Christian marriage? A woman is at fault if she denies consent unilaterally, if she defrauds her husband, if she defrauds the marriage. Her fault is in the defrauding.
His fault is in the forcing if he proceeds.
Outside of a Christian marriage? This was beaten to death when I had a flurry of Rape threads a few years ago. Not interested in revisiting it now.
Hopefully that makes it more clear
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I know about situations like this and to a man there's always pornography involved, iow the husband is not being chaste. He's getting his fix from the ethical (as opposed to chemical) hard drugs of pornography and self-gratification.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Read what Paul says yourself, you've got a Bible haven't ya? Good luck finding him saying that it's okay for a husband to force himself on his wife dingbat.
Hmm.
"Gratification" may be a key component of the argument.
That one gets gratification and the other doesn't should be a concern to both.
If it's about nothing more than physical gratification then a spouse is not needed for that, as one can physical gratify themself.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It is.
It's usually only a concern for the one not getting gratification. The other one not so much.
Not chastely.
Woke culture censorship lives on.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It is about so much more than physical gratification, in a sound Christian loving relationship. But it's impossible to convey that to non-Christians.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This is a concept that is almost impossible for young people to understand, as immersed in the electronic world as they are. They swim in a soup of sexual perversion, and know no other environment.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Don't discount the (bio)chemical effect of pornography and self-gratification.
And I'm sure that you appreciate this, others do here as well - we're in the middle of an unprecedented experiment in which generations of kids are being raised with a universe of pornography available at the swipe of a finger.