Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[CabinetMaker]

Show me in the Bible where anyone even hints that a husband can rape his wife.

Show us in the bible where a man can force his wife to have sex when she doesn't want to.

What exactly are you willing to stand up and say is wrong?

That forcing a person to have sex against their will is an absolute wrong.

Are you opposed to the act of a husband forcing a wife to have sex?

Yes. Because it is not at all a Christian thing to do. Look at this verse

1 Corinthians 7:4New International Version (NIV)
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

This verse is used by been to justify forcing their wives to have sex. Yet the verse says that the husband does not have authority over his own body, his wife does. So if a wife exercises her God given authority to tell her husband no and he ignores her and forces her to have sex, what would you call it?

Or are you opposed to the act of charging a husband with a criminal offense because his wife claims she did not consent to having sex with him (clearly a he said/she said no evidence to support either one and no force is needed scenario)?

If a crime has truly been committed, then I support charging the husband, or wife, with a crime.

What in God's name does that have to do with anything we have been discussing on this thread?

Everything. You and OD and others keep claiming that there is no rape in a Christian marriage because the woman has no authority of her own body. Scripture says that. But in the very same sentence is says the husband yields authority of his body to his wife. That means that they must both say yes to sex or its no for the night. If one of them forces the other to have sex anyway then that is certainly not a Christian act.

The part where you claim that ok doser should be prosecuted for a criminal offense for stating that the sex he had with his wife while intoxicated meets the DoJ definition for rape.

OD's exact words were that he raped his wife. He claimed to rape her. That is an actionable claim.

 

[ok doser]

..OD ... keep(s) claiming that there is no rape in a Christian marriage because the woman has no authority of her own body. Scripture says that.

right! :thumb:

But in the very same sentence (it) says the husband yields authority of his body to his wife.

right! :thumb:

That means that they must both say yes to sex

right! :thumb:

neither has the right to refuse the other

OD's exact words were that he raped his wife. He claimed to rape her. That is an actionable claim.

so quit whining about it like a retard and take action :idunno:

 

[CabinetMaker]

right! :thumb:



right! :thumb:



right! :thumb:

neither has the right to refuse the other This is where you go dreadfully wrong.



so quit whining about it like a retard and take action :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

This is where you go dreadfully wrong.

the next verse (in 1Cor 7) makes it clear:

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

"Defraud ye not one the other" - do you understand what it means?

 

[ok doser]

but this has already been covered extensively in anna's retarded thread

 

[glorydaz]

OD's exact words were that he raped his wife. He claimed to rape her. That is an actionable claim.

So, you missed his point because you failed to see it was said satirically? :chew:

 

[ok doser]

So, you missed his point ...

that happens a lot around here :think:

 

[elohiym]

so quit whining about it like a retard and take action :idunno:

I wouldn't fault anyone for reporting you to the Department of Justice or the New York Attorney General's office. They could send them the links to the statements you have made in a number of threads. There is no statute of limitations for first degree rape in New York. How old will you be when you get out in twenty-five years, eighty?

 

[ok doser]

I wouldn't fault anyone for reporting you to the Department of Justice or the New York Attorney General's office. They could send them the links to the statements you have made in a number of threads.

so what's stopping you from doing it, retard?

 

[glorydaz]

Genesis 19:5 "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

What does it mean to "know them?"

It's impossible to "know" an angel. :doh:

Genesis 19
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;​

 

[elohiym]

So, you missed his point because you failed to see it was said satirically? :chew:

Explain the satire.

 

[elohiym]

so what's stopping you from doing it, retard?

I know you are a liar, and wouldn't want to unnecessarily burden Knight.

 

[ok doser]

I know you are a liar, and wouldn't want to unnecessarily burden Knight.

ahh, i see

you're a coward

 

[elohiym]

It's impossible to "know" an angel. :doh:

They thought they were men according to the passage, but here is an example where men seek to "know" a man.

Judges 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

Does to know him mean to have carnal knowledge of him?

 

[glorydaz]

so what's stopping you from doing it, retard?

It certainly wouldn't take long for anyone with half a brain to see how many "retards" there are on this site. This failure to recognize one of the oldest forms of humor reminds me of a famous work from yesteryear by James Beresford.


Mr. Samuel Sensitive and Mr. Timothy Testy have been brought back to life right here on this thread. Along with the "supplementary sighs" from the females on board, it's been quite entertaining. :chuckle:

The Miseries of Human Life was written by James Beresford (1764–1840) and published in 1806, first as a single volume and then as an expanded two-volume edition later that year. Illustrated by George Cruikshank, it catalogued "in excruciating detail" the "petty outrages, minor humiliations, and tiny discomforts that make up everyday human existence". The Miseries were written as a series of discussions between Mr Samuel Sensitive and Mr Timothy Testy, in which they catalogue the daily "injuries, insults, disappointments and treacheries" of everyday life. Mrs Testy makes occasional appearances to offer "Supplementary Sighs" from a feminine perspective.[1]

The Gentleman's Magazine of May 1841 described The Miseries as "an extraordinary success".[2] English poet Richard Henry Horne noted that the book sold "like wildfire".[3] Profits for the book exceeded £5000.[4]

 

[elohiym]

ahh, i see

you're a coward

Actually, I'm being merciful to a coward.

 

[ok doser]

Actually, I'm being a retard .

yes, we know

 

[glorydaz]

They thought they were men according to the passage,

Yeah, and you folks think you know what you're talking about....

 

[ok doser]

It certainly wouldn't take long for anyone with half a brain to see how many "retards" there are on this site. This failure to recognize one of the oldest forms of humor reminds me of a famous work from yesteryear by James Beresford.


Mr. Samuel Sensitive and Mr. Timothy Testy have been brought back to life right here on this thread. Along with the "supplementary sighs" from the females on board, it's been quite entertaining. :chuckle:

mrs testy

i'l have to remember that :thumb:

 

[CabinetMaker]

the next verse (in 1Cor 7) makes it clear:

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

"Defraud ye not one the other" - do you understand what it means?

Yes, it means do not maliciously withhold sex from each other. It DOES NOT mean that one is allowed to force the other into having sex.