| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2006 05:57:01 PM |
| Object: |
Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/7be06ade23517d10?
Jani tries to replace
God's word with secular law.
Actually, secular law is waffling on this issue.
This is why GOD, having foreseen this discussion, had compelled you to
use the handle Giant Waffle.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to repent,
dear neighbor Dave whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
.
|
|
| User: "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
10 Oct 2006 08:13:22 PM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
12 Oct 2006 12:07:53 AM |
|
|
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
It's plain enough here in the UK. The landmark case of R vs R (HoL
1991) established clearly that spousal rape was a crime. Why do you
support a criminal organisation?
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
13 Oct 2006 07:40:20 AM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160611673.794642.50150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape
within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right
as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for
her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband
no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
It's plain enough here in the UK. The landmark case of R vs R (HoL
1991) established clearly that spousal rape was a crime.
Well. for 6,000 years is wasn't.....including NT times.
And umpteen other countries it still isn't.
Spousal rape isn't even mentioned in the NT, and as a Chrisitan wife is
commanded to obey her husband in "Everything", it is thus a mindless notion
endorsed by loony men and women libber freaks.
Men can make up all the unscriptural laws they wish, but in the end only
God's Law wins out.
" 4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again."
Amen!
Jeff...
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the God the
things that are God's"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
14 Oct 2006 03:28:12 PM |
|
|
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It's plain enough here in the UK. The landmark case of R vs R (HoL
1991) established clearly that spousal rape was a crime.
Well. for 6,000 years is wasn't.....including NT times.
And umpteen other countries it still isn't.
Humanity evolves. Some don't want to learn and evolve.
Spousal rape isn't even mentioned in the NT, and as a Chrisitan wife is
commanded to obey her husband in "Everything", it is thus a mindless notion
endorsed by loony men and women libber freaks.
Men can make up all the unscriptural laws they wish, but in the end only
God's Law wins out.
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
What makes you so sure that this is the Law of God?
What makes you so sure that your interpretation of that law is correct?
" 4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again."
That is the private opinion of the writer of that letter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 04:08:00 AM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians? I am one, and I am not
sure I agree with you. Why is this message cross posted? Who is the OP?
Sorry, just joined. Didn't lurk for long.
OK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 06:31:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians?
I didn't, I said "Christians claim". We've seen their claims that the
Bible never changes posted in alt.atheism.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 07:06:04 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:vhv4j25no588ifo9v6nhp5rphrvmgtn90r@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians?
I didn't, I said "Christians claim". We've seen their claims that the
Bible never changes posted in alt.atheism.
The Bible does not change...but God makes changes to His declared Will when
He deems it to be right.
Jeff...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 09:47:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:06:04 GMT, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <nospamatall@add.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:vhv4j25no588ifo9v6nhp5rphrvmgtn90r@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians?
I didn't, I said "Christians claim". We've seen their claims that the
Bible never changes posted in alt.atheism.
The Bible does not change.
Argue with , who said, "Evidence shows that laws
in the Bible did change over time."
..but God makes changes to His declared Will when
He deems it to be right.
So he was wrong before? Or is he wrong now? Or is he just no longer
omniscient and omnipotent?
Your claim contradicts yourself if you follow where it leads. You're
not preaching to a congregation of the brain-dead here, Chuckles - if
you say it, we'll hold you to it, even when it contradicts itself. We
don't accept it just because you claim it comes from your non-existent
god.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Giant Waffle" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 01:46:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 GMT, while bungee jumping, OK
<OK@nospamsnet.net> shouted thusly:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians? I am one, and I am not
sure I agree with you. Why is this message cross posted? Who is the OP?
Sorry, just joined. Didn't lurk for long.
OK
The Bible does not change. If it did, you might as well throw
it out. What's the point in reading it and claiming that it's
the word of God?
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever."
- Hebrews 13:8
--
Giant Waffle
<{{{><
My heart rejoices in the Lord; My horn is exalted in the Lord.
I smile at my enemies, because I rejoice in Your salvation.
- 1 Samuel 2:1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T gimmed@tsting8755430989858632654" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? JESUS CHANGES!!!! |
17 Oct 2006 03:56:45 AM |
|
|
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8
Is that cute little G-rated Baby Jesus in the manger filling his diapers or
X-rated Manly Jesus hanging from the cross with lots of blood, gore and
guts?????
Ooops! Jesus changed from baby to a man!!!!!
The Bible does not change. If it did, you might as well throw it out.
What's the point in
reading it and claiming that it's the word of God?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Peter Cameron "Necessary Heresies" (NSW Uni Press: 1993)
Whenever you lock God up in the past ... , and treat the Bible as a book of
rules, to be applied indiscriminately in any age, you turn God into an idol.
p.69
The Bible is a record of how people responded to God over the course of a
thousand years or more, and particularly a record of how people responded to
what happened in Jesus. It is not the end of that response, nor should it
control all future responses to God and to Christ, in the sense of limiting
either God's freedom to approach us or our freedom to respond. p. 84
.... each gospel is conditioned by the theological reflection of its author,
and those authors are all human beings, of the same status as ourselves, so
that we are at liberty both to make our own equivalent response, and if
necessary to reject any particular aspect of their response in favour of a
different one - just a Luther felt impelled to reject the response embodied
in the epistle of James. p.88 *[Luther called it "an epistle of straw"]
.... biblical evidence is human evidence. The Bible is not a book of magic
spells, which makes any further mental effort superfluous; nor is it a sort
of child's pop-up book, from which Jesus springs up as he was when he walked
the earth; nor is it a statute-book, which precludes us from making free
inquiry and arriving at our own responses. .... We tend in the protestant
tradition to inflate the Bible and deflate ourselves, and then we do justice
to neither. ... acknowledge both the humanity in the Bible and the divinity
in yourself. p. 90
.... Caesarea Philippi. ... Jesus asked the disciples 'Whom do you say that I
am?' the disciples replied in the words of the fourth century Nicene Creed:
'You are the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of
your Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light Very God of Very
God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all
things were made, who for us men and our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man
....' And Jesus said: 'WHAT???!!!' p. 156
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Of The Dead)
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 04:07:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:46:38 GMT, Giant Waffle
<_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 GMT, while bungee jumping, OK
<OK@nospamsnet.net> shouted thusly:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians? I am one, and I am not
sure I agree with you. Why is this message cross posted? Who is the OP?
Sorry, just joined. Didn't lurk for long.
OK
The Bible does not change. If it did, you might as well throw
it out. What's the point in reading it and claiming that it's
the word of God?
See? I'm not trying to speak for all Christians (since there's no
single universal Christian opinion, as hard as Helen and Constantine
tried), but there's a Christian saying exactly what I said some
Christians claim.
Waffle, if you read Bibles from various periods in various languages,
you'll SEE the changes. Especially if you read the pre-Nicene
writings.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 03:22:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:46:38 GMT, in alt.atheism
Giant Waffle <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in
<mcd8j2tlv45mjo5b7o0te11mecmctgbs0e@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:10:37 GMT, while bungee jumping, OK
<OK@nospamsnet.net> shouted thusly:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
Hi Al,
How can you claim to speak for all Christians? I am one, and I am not
sure I agree with you. Why is this message cross posted? Who is the OP?
Sorry, just joined. Didn't lurk for long.
OK
The Bible does not change. If it did, you might as well throw
it out. What's the point in reading it and claiming that it's
the word of God?
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change, but the culture around
them and the meaning that people take from them do. We cannot say with
certainty exactly what the original writers of the the various books of
the Bible really intended -- the language they wrote in is dead.
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever."
- Hebrews 13:8
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 04:43:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500,
in article <o1j8j21iv4mfcoafn1d7mf13tn2puvmvr3@4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change, but the culture around
them and the meaning that people take from them do. We cannot say with
certainty exactly what the original writers of the the various books of
the Bible really intended -- the language they wrote in is dead.
Which is a convenient way to do whatever you want, despite what you
know the Bible says.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 04:10:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've changed
quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you wouldn't
recognize some of them from first copy to last.
, but the culture around
them and the meaning that people take from them do. We cannot say with
certainty exactly what the original writers of the the various books of
the Bible really intended -- the language they wrote in is dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't read
it as easily as you read your daily paper.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 12:23:33 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:tol8j250thdr4pm8df9llth3fd4fue5pg1@4ax.com:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've changed
quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you wouldn't
recognize some of them from first copy to last.
, but the culture around them and the meaning that people take from
them do. We cannot say with certainty exactly what the original
writers of the the various books of the Bible really intended -- the
language they wrote in is dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't read
it as easily as you read your daily paper.
Think of Latin. Dead language - used for centuries for science and
religion for exactly that reason.
Pangur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 10:58:56 PM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2006 12:23:33 GMT, in alt.atheism
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<Xns985F431547117PangurBan.worldnetat@63.218.45.20>:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:tol8j250thdr4pm8df9llth3fd4fue5pg1@4ax.com:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've changed
quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you wouldn't
recognize some of them from first copy to last.
, but the culture around them and the meaning that people take from
them do. We cannot say with certainty exactly what the original
writers of the the various books of the Bible really intended -- the
language they wrote in is dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't read
it as easily as you read your daily paper.
Think of Latin. Dead language - used for centuries for science and
religion for exactly that reason.
Have you read the footnotes in new translations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
18 Oct 2006 12:16:56 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:31oaj25opoqbv4t71h3jucrueb811mmkr3@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 12:23:33 GMT, in alt.atheism Pangur Ban
<Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<Xns985F431547117PangurBan.worldnetat@63.218.45.20>:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:tol8j250thdr4pm8df9llth3fd4fue5pg1@4ax.com:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've
changed quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you
wouldn't recognize some of them from first copy to last.
, but the culture around them and the meaning that people take from
them do. We cannot say with certainty exactly what the original
writers of the the various books of the Bible really intended -- the
language they wrote in is dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't
read it as easily as you read your daily paper.
Think of Latin. Dead language - used for centuries for science and
religion for exactly that reason.
Have you read the footnotes in new translations?
Translations of the bible? Why should I? I am not a christian.
*smile* Just remembering what I was told about the language as a latin
student.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 12:11:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:10:00 -0400, in alt.atheism
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
<tol8j250thdr4pm8df9llth3fd4fue5pg1@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've changed
quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you wouldn't
recognize some of them from first copy to last.
I agree that much of the New Testament was tuned up to fit the theology,
just as the Old Testament had been previously, but at some point, there
were enough people who knew it that changes could not be made. The words
had become too important to the religion.
, but the culture around
them and the meaning that people take from them do. We cannot say with
certainty exactly what the original writers of the the various books of
the Bible really intended -- the language they wrote in is dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't read
it as easily as you read your daily paper.
The Greek/Aramaic thing is probably true. The Hebrew still relies on
modern understanding of a language that died out. Are there many who
generally understand it? Yes. What confidence do we have that the
implications of all of the words are perfectly understood? Less so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 10:04:23 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:10:00 -0400, in alt.atheism
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
<tol8j250thdr4pm8df9llth3fd4fue5pg1@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've
changed quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you
wouldn't recognize some of them from first copy to last.
I agree that much of the New Testament was tuned up to fit the
theology, just as the Old Testament had been previously, but at some
point, there were enough people who knew it that changes could not be
made. The words had become too important to the religion.
Well, insertions and deletions were made about as long as the book was
reproduced by hand.
Changes have been made with every translation as more becomes known of the
language or people make different guesses about the 25% or so of the words
for which no meaning is known.
Books were unofficially tossed out by different protestant groups until
1865 when it was made official.
, but the culture around
them and the meaning that people take from them do. We cannot say
with certainty exactly what the original writers of the the various
books of the Bible really intended -- the language they wrote in is
dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't read
it as easily as you read your daily paper.
The Greek/Aramaic thing is probably true. The Hebrew still relies on
modern understanding of a language that died out. Are there many who
generally understand it? Yes. What confidence do we have that the
implications of all of the words are perfectly understood? Less so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
17 Oct 2006 12:50:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:11:31 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:10:00 -0400, in alt.atheism
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
<tol8j250thdr4pm8df9llth3fd4fue5pg1@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:22:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
No, the literal words of the Bible don't change
Sure they do, Lunchie. Over the course of 2,000 years they've changed
quite a bit. Over the course of the first 300 years you wouldn't
recognize some of them from first copy to last.
I agree that much of the New Testament was tuned up to fit the theology,
just as the Old Testament had been previously, but at some point, there
were enough people who knew it that changes could not be made. The words
had become too important to the religion.
That occurred around ... oh, wait - the Christian Bible is STILL being
revised every few years.
, but the culture around
them and the meaning that people take from them do. We cannot say with
certainty exactly what the original writers of the the various books of
the Bible really intended -- the language they wrote in is dead.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people alive today who can't read
it as easily as you read your daily paper.
The Greek/Aramaic thing is probably true. The Hebrew still relies on
modern understanding of a language that died out. Are there many who
generally understand it? Yes.
Are there many who understand the ancient meanings? Yes. Are there
many who understand Syriac? Yes.
What confidence do we have that the
implications of all of the words are perfectly understood? Less so.
A lot more than we have that the Christian interpretation is correct.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
26 Oct 2006 06:08:22 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 08:28:12 -0700, wrote:
Evidence shows that laws in the Bible did change over time.
Evidence also shows that Christians claim that the Bible never
changes.
what? we know the bible changed over time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
13 Oct 2006 01:44:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:40:20 GMT,
in article <EpHXg.12860$Or2.8070@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>,
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospamatall@add.com> wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160611673.794642.50150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape
within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right
as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for
her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband
no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
It's plain enough here in the UK. The landmark case of R vs R (HoL
1991) established clearly that spousal rape was a crime.
Well. for 6,000 years is wasn't.....including NT times.
And umpteen other countries it still isn't.
Spousal rape isn't even mentioned in the NT, and as a Chrisitan wife is
commanded to obey her husband in "Everything", it is thus a mindless notion
endorsed by loony men and women libber freaks.
Men can make up all the unscriptural laws they wish, but in the end only
God's Law wins out.
" 4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again."
Amen!
Jeff...
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the God the
things that are God's"
In this case, your exegesis is correct.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 07:03:43 PM |
|
|
"Randy" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c06vi2pu3mo48v6ar891ir7jvtssre8ptu@pulpitfire.org...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:40:20 GMT,
in article <EpHXg.12860$Or2.8070@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>,
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospamatall@add.com> wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160611673.794642.50150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape
within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still
believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right
as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for
her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband
no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to
this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from
the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so
that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of
self-control."
Jeff...
It's plain enough here in the UK. The landmark case of R vs R (HoL
1991) established clearly that spousal rape was a crime.
Well. for 6,000 years is wasn't.....including NT times.
And umpteen other countries it still isn't.
Spousal rape isn't even mentioned in the NT, and as a Chrisitan wife is
commanded to obey her husband in "Everything", it is thus a mindless
notion
endorsed by loony men and women libber freaks.
Men can make up all the unscriptural laws they wish, but in the end only
God's Law wins out.
" 4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for
her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband
no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again."
Amen!
Jeff...
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the God the
things that are God's"
In this case, your exegesis is correct.
Thanks! it is always my intension.
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
As long as we keep the commandments.....
1 John 2: 3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,
and the truth is not in him."
Jeff...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
13 Oct 2006 05:38:13 PM |
|
|
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c06vi2pu3mo48v6ar891ir7jvtssre8ptu@pulpitfire.org:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:40:20 GMT,
in article <EpHXg.12860$Or2.8070@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, "1st Century
Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospamatall@add.com> wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160611673.794642.50150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net>
you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be
rape within marriage but I'd have to check to be sure of that.
But regardless, I still believe that nothing in the Bible or
the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in sexual
activity against their will. That is just common sense and
common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough..... 1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his
wife all that is her right as a married woman, and the wife should
do the same for her husband: 4 for a girl who marries no longer has
full right to her own body, for her husband then has his rights to
it, too; and in the same way the husband no longer has full right
to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception
to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to
refrain from the rights of marriage for a limited time, so that
they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterwards,
they should come together >>>>again so that Satan won't be able to
tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
It's plain enough here in the UK. The landmark case of R vs R (HoL
1991) established clearly that spousal rape was a crime.
Well. for 6,000 years is wasn't.....including NT times. And umpteen
other countries it still isn't.
Spousal rape isn't even mentioned in the NT, and as a Chrisitan wife
is commanded to obey her husband in "Everything", it is thus a
mindless notion endorsed by loony men and women libber freaks. Men can
make up all the unscriptural laws they wish, but in the end only God's
Law wins out.
" 4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body,
for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the
husband no longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also
to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to
this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from
the rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give
themselves
more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again."
Amen!
Jeff... "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the
God the things that are God's"
In this case, your exegesis is correct.
Randy is always pleased to find someone (anyone) who will agree with his
errant interpretation of scripture. He ignores the sites a simple
google search provides....the sites are provided by or about christian
leaders worldwide who condemn in no uncertain terms misinterpretations
like the DRaB's which are harmful.....
Pangur
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
10 Oct 2006 11:30:42 PM |
|
|
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
Okay, so you want to be able to practice your god's laws upon another.
But what if your partner believes in the giant flying spaghetti
monster? And one of its principles is to cut incisions in the other
person's body wherever they seem fit? Then does it become the other
person's right to cut incisions into your body wherever it is seemed
fit?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Mitts" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
11 Oct 2006 12:05:51 AM |
|
|
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love6@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1160503021.191944.227740@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Jeff...
Thanks Jeff! You evidently used
a different translation which gives
the same rendering that Dave and
Randy have bee posting all along!
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."
Similarly, God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him should not
perish, but Have eternal life. Another: God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world should be saved through Him. He spoke elsewhere:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and
believes in Me shall never die. Believe you this?
Therefore we may, as many will to do so: "But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become child-
ren of God, even to those who believe in His name,"
(John 1:12)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
10 Oct 2006 09:45:44 PM |
|
|
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe
that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in
sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/7be06ade23517d10?
It's plain enough.....
1 Corinthians 7: 3 "The man should give his wife all that is her right as a
married woman, and the wife should do the same for her husband:
4 for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her
husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no
longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife.
5 So do not refuse these rights to each other. The only exception to this
rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from the
rights of marriage for a limited time, so that they can give themselves more
completely to prayer. Afterwards, they should come together again so that
Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control."
Yes, it is clear to the discerning that Dave and Randy in their lack of
control belong to satan. For this, they and you will be in my prayers,
in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
15 Oct 2006 10:17:02 PM |
|
|
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
Sharia Law allow not the wife to say NO
, under what God's word says.
You and Randy have both misinterpreted GOD's word:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/7be06ade23517d10?
Jani tries to replace
God's word with secular law.
Actually, secular law is waffling on this issue.
This is why GOD, having foreseen this discussion, had compelled you to
use the handle Giant Waffle.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to repent,
dear neighbor Dave whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? |
16 Oct 2006 12:16:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Giant Waffle wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "G-Net"
<netnerve@verizon.net> you decided to say:
I believe that within the law (in some states), there can be rape within
marriage but
I'd have to check to be sure of that. But regardless, I still believe that
nothing in
the Bible or the law justifies anyone to force another to engage in sexual
activity
against their will. That is just common sense and common decency.
I agree. But that does not mean that a spouse has the right
to say no
Actually, the spouse has the right to say "no."
In two words:
Free will.
Sharia Law allow not the wife to say NO
You mean wives (plural). Such is the nature of Islamic culture.
May GOD comfort the women suffering under such oppression, in Jesus'
most precious and holy name.
Amen.
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear friend
whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
