On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:07:03 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:


Sorry about the subject line, Randy. But I knew it would
gather more readers, if they thought I was attacking you.
After all, they do love the bad feelings flowing against
anyone who doesn't agree with their worldly ways, right?

Btw, have you noticed recently, the following passages?

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world,
and the world heareth them." - 1 John 4:5

<LOL!> Just kidding! I know you have posted that one! :)

Anyway... :)

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:33:26 -0000,
in article <huSdnZvPwvJKYMnYRVnygQ@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <someone@home.co.uk> wrote:

Is to 'Render' what is 'Due' and act of giving,
or an act of taking?

This is where *you*, not we, are confused. *You* are the
ones who take the plain statement of 1 Corinthians 7:1-9,
and our agreement that this passage teaches the responsibility
to *give* your spouse what is "due", and try to impute
the false idea that we are out to get something for our
own selfishness. It is, and we have repeatedly stated,
*both* spouses *responsibility* to give due benevolence
to their spouse. This is to prevent fornication, and promote
holiness,in this context, and is not, as you claim, some
immature, carnal desire to gratify one's self.

And so, Vic keeps making this claim, yet has been unable
as of yet, to provide any exegesis of Scripture which verifies
his own claim and he has not given us one reason to believe
his claims.

And when he claims that both spouses have a responsibility
to give due benevolence, which we have proved again and
again means "conjugal duty" in 1 Cor 7:3, he automatically
agrees with us that neither spouse can deny the other.

Furthermore, when he argues that it is an act of giving that
each spouse has the responsibility to do, then he admits
that each spouse has a responsibility to give each other
this conjugal duty and therefore, admits that it is a duty
and that this "giving" is not always a matter of what one
"feels like" at the moment.

Now Vic will act the fool here, but the bottom line is that
when one has a *responsibility* to give, "feelings" are not
the important issue and responsibility is not about "consent".
It is about what is due, which is why the Scripture uses
the word *due*. Hello??? :)

Now how often do we sit there in church when the preacher
is telling us how we do what we do based on our responsibility
to God and say, "AMEN!!!". Yet, when it comes to this subject
Vic wishes to tell us how our a woman's feelings are all
important and are all that matters (yet *never*, *ever* sees
fit to mention a man's feelings about having sex that night)
and that the wives don't have to "give" if they just don't,
"feel like it" and he tries to convince us that we are
rapists, simply because we speak of the responsibility
that *BOTH* spouses have, to *GIVE* to each other
and not deprive each other, which Vic seems to support
(depriving each other). (:

Tell me (rhetorical question), how is it "a responsibility
to give", if one is not required to give???

So the bottom line is that Vic sits there in church and says,
"Amen!", when the preacher tells us how we do what we're
supposed to do, whether we feel like it or not, and yet,
Vic wants us to believe that *ONLY* when it comes to sex
and only for the wife, is it no longer a *RESPONSIBILITY*,
even though Vic says it is a *RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE*
and only here, does Vic say that our feelings override
God's word, while claiming that he's fighting against people
who say not to adhere to God's word. (:

<Azaliah shakes his head quickly side to side, while music
tones from getting killed in Pacman play>

And again (I cannot stress this enough), notice that Vic
doesn't say both spouses, because he wishes to polarize
the issue and make it about us raping our wives and has
even claimed to know what happens in our bedrooms.

And when I pointed out that this amounts to him confessing
that he is a "Peeping Tom", he claims that I have confessed
to raping my wife (shades of Glenn (OWD) here)! What?!?

And he claims that we are raping our wives, even if they strip
without us saying a word and jump our bones! More "shades
of Glenn" here. (:

So like Glenn, Vic claims that even if we walk in the door
after work and our wives take their clothes off and tackle
us and demand sex from us, that we are raping them.

<chuckle>

Now Randy, are you ready for the biggest piece of hypocrisy
you've seen in a long while?

Are you?

Oh, okay, here it is. Don't have a cow, man! :)

WE KNOW that if we said that when we got home yesterday
and our wives jumped us and we said no to sex, that both
Vic and Glenn would be claiming that we are violating God's
word by saying no and that God told husbands and wives
not to deny each other sex! <chuckle>

Wait, never mind the "chuckle". I'm sorry. I can't help it.
I have to do it! :)

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<Azaliah wipes the tears that are streaming down his face
after he gets up from falling on the floor from laughing
so hard!>

Btw, I love to laugh, but that hurt my back! :)

Side note: I was on the phone with my son the other night
and he has a cordless phone and he said...

"Okay Dad, I'm going into the other room and I'm going
to take you with me."

I responded by saying...

"Okay, but don't walk too fast. You know I have a back injury
and it will hurt if you do."

Btw, my wife wants to ask you...

"Why do they call the volume up and down, when it is left
and right on the TV?"

Anyway, back at the ranch... :)

Vic also argues that if a spouse allows the other to give
due benevolence, that the receiving spouse is a rapist
for receiving said "due benevolence", since they would
be a "taker" which he has repeatedly said makes us rapists.

So I wonder how Vic is going to try to convince us that he
is following Scripture, when he says that if a wife says no,
that this is the way it is supposed to be, but if a husband
says no, then it is denying his wife what he is supposed
to give her?

And why would Vic say that each spouse has a responsibility
to give the other due benevolence and yet, claim that the
other spouse is a rapist for receiving it, which is what he
has been arguing all along, each time he calls you and I
rapists, because we said that each spouse has a responsibility
to give due benevolence, which is all we have ever said
and is the very same thing that Vic has said?

Vic has said that it is a matter of giving and calls it...
"a responsibility". So why are, according to him, women
exempt from his claim that we have "a responsibility to give"
this "due benevolence", which again, as we repeatedly proved
to him, means "conjugal duty" in 1 Cor 7:3, even though
he falsely tries to claim that it's about "feelings of love",
which contradicts his other claim?

And how is it that a spouse does not have power over
their own body, but their spouse does and yet, Vic argues
that this is not so and that women have the "right" to
say no and yet, says that we have "a responsibility to give"
this to our spouses?

This is what Vic knows; that he will always end up
contradicting himself, which those who try to fight against
God's word always end up doing and so, he stupidly tries
to bury what is happening *IN THE SAME MESSAGE* by
making contradictory claims! How does a message with
contradictory claims in it, hide contradictory claims that
are made in the same message? Huh?!? What?!? <LOL!>

And how is it that the Scripture tells us that we have
the right to expect what is *DUE* us (1 Cor 7:3) and
yet, Vic argues that...

"Due = You have no right to claim what is due you"?

This shows that Vic is a hypocrite of the highest order!

If it is an act of giving, then we are to give to each other.

"Render" *is* in the imperative voice, and both spouses
should render "due" benevolence to their spouse.

Agreed, but don't miss the big picture here, my friend.

So what is that "big picture", you ask? "Oh, c'mon, tell me
you torturing *****!", you say? :)

Oh, alright, calm down man! Don't blow a gasket! :)

The big picture is that Vic just argued that "We *ARE*
to give to each other", yet also argues that this "giving"
is not to be expected and that this is a good thing! (:

And as you know (but for the benefit of others),
the "imperative voice" means...

Imperative Voice = The voice of a command

In fact, God used this "command voice", when He said;
"Glorify Me!". How much more evidence do we need,
my brother in Christ?

So how can a spouse be accused of saying 'no', unless
it is to say no thanks, I have not need nor want.

"Defraud ye not" is what God said, through Paul.

Vic did not even make sense here. He is now saying,
as I noted above, that it is okay to say no and yet,
claims that we have *A RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE*.

How can we "have a responsibility to give" according
to God's word, if it is okay to say "No, I won't give."?

Vic is so self contradictory and he is so willingly ignorant,
that he doesn't realize that by saying this, that he is saying
that we are violating God's command, when He inspired
Paul to write that we must render *DUE* benevolence to
our spouses. If it is optional, then why is it called "due"?
And why would God tell us not to *DEFRAUD" each other
by saying no, if it is okay to say no?!

That phrase is also in the imperative voice, and is not
the "concession" which Paul spoke by permission.
God, then, is the one who says you can't defraud
your spouse of what is due.

It is basically equivalent to saying; "You *must* give this!".

Yet Vic argues that it means; "I, as a wife, which is the only
person that matters here, will not give this, because I do not
give my consent, even though the consent issue is about not
saying no to each other, unless *both* husband and wife
do consent!

Even in English, it is easy to see that this is a command!

Think about it... "It is *imperative* that you do this!

I am not saying that the English is more important than
the Greek, of course! But it is interesting to note the idea
that "the imperative voice" means in the Greek and to show
that it even bled through into the English.


***************************************************
Imperative:

1. Absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable:
It is imperative that we leave.
2. Of the nature of or expressing a command; commanding.
3. Grammar. Noting or pertaining to the mood of the verb
used in commands, requests, etc., as in Listen! Go!
4. A command.
5. Something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable
obligation or requirement; necessity: It is an imperative
that we help defend friendly nations.
6. Grammar.
a. the imperative mood.
b. a verb in this mood.
7. An obligatory statement, principle, or the like.
***************************************************

For one spouse to say no, means that the other spouse
wants to take and not give.

That is a perfect contradiction to what the passage says
and means.

It is a contradiction to what Vic himself said! <lol> :)

By Vic's logic, both spouses must say no every time.
Because to say yes, means that it is rape, according
to Vic and if the other spouse says yes, then again,
according to Vic, the spouse that says yes is just a taker,
not a giver and is sinning.

Huh??? :)

Dave and Randy, say that benevolence is 'conjugal rights',
and is nothing to do with love, kindness and goodwill,
but an act of obedience.

No we do not.

What we have said, is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT
SECTION OF SCRIPTURE, it means, "conjugal duty".
Vic's argument is so weak, that he knows that he has
to resort to claiming that we are saying that every time
the Bible uses that phrase, that it means conjugal duty.

And when they start searching the Bible for this Phrase
and come up empty and are stuck with just the word
"benevolence", they are only proving that they cannot
deal with the phrase in the passage being discussed.

It *is* an act of love, kindness, and goodwill, to render
your conjugal duties, as this helps prevent fornication,
and promote holiness in your marriage.

Yes, this is true, but let us note that Paul did not bring
this issue up in 1 Cor 7:!-9. There, it is about the sex act,
plain and simple. While we hope it is centered in love
and kindness, even if it wasn't, that does not mean that
someone has the right to say no. This is why it says,
*DUE* benevolence and not, "FEEL LIKE IT benevolence".

but both he and Dave have the audacity to say that
their exegesis are God inspired truths.

You're the one who has the audacity to pretend your Bible
contradicting ideas came from the text of 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.

The truth is, that Vic is upset that he cannot produce any
commentaries, or any such type of thing, that agrees with
his twisted view of Scripture. If he could have, he surely
would have. It's not like he hasn't had time to. <lol>