| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"oldwetdog" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2006 05:27:29 PM |
| Object: |
THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
.
|
|
| User: "Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
11 Oct 2006 06:38:51 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
In support, I think it is worth also considering 1Cor 7:3a "Let the".
1Cor 7:3 *Let the* husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
likewise also the wife unto the husband.
*Let the*, seems more of a permission, then a command.
In other places, we find:
Husbands love your wife's (no sign of a 'let the') this is more of a
command, then a permission.
Wives submit to your husbands, as in the Lord. Again, (no sign of a 'let
the')
1Cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, *let them* ask their husbands
at home:
"if they will", *let them*
Although this is not an absolute, it is a possibility, and a good
probability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Giant Waffle" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
12 Oct 2006 12:55:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
How can anyone be so stupid as to think that which consummates
the marriage in the first place, is not to be expected? (:
And why is it, that Paul compared this most intimate
expression of love between a husband and wife, to
the church, if it is not to be expected?
And why is it that you think that the most intimate form
of expressing love to a spouse, is what no one should
care about, if it is eliminated?
--
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: "Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
13 Oct 2006 06:31:08 PM |
|
|
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy
and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience
(to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
He had already given "permission" in verse 2 about getting married. (please
keep up)
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own wife**,
and **let each woman have her own husband**
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 05:38:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:31:08 +0100,
in article <V4GdnTyjstryvK3YRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <someone@home.co.uk> wrote:
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy
and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience
(to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
He had already given "permission" in verse 2 about getting married. (please
keep up)
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own wife**,
and **let each woman have her own husband**
And what does he say immediately after calling it "concession? He
says he wishes all men were as he (single), nevertheless, each man has
his own gift, and that it is better to marry than to burn. Paul is
not making due benevolence a concession, when he instructs them to
render it, in the imperative voice, but marriage, in such a difficult
time, and/or abstaining by mutual consent, for the purpose of prayer.
--
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: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 11:15:57 AM |
|
|
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:31:08 +0100,
in article <V4GdnTyjstryvK3YRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <someone@home.co.uk> wrote:
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy
and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience
(to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
He had already given "permission" in verse 2 about getting married. (please
keep up)
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own wife**,
and **let each woman have her own husband**
And what does he say immediately after calling it "concession? He
says he wishes all men were as he (single), nevertheless, each man has
his own gift, and that it is better to marry than to burn.
Again you make Paul's words and marriage about physical sexual lust,
rather than Love and the God-given marital relationship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 01:21:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:15:57 -0700,
in article <12j239uffjv8bb4@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:31:08 +0100,
in article <V4GdnTyjstryvK3YRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <someone@home.co.uk> wrote:
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy
and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience
(to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
He had already given "permission" in verse 2 about getting married. (please
keep up)
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own wife**,
and **let each woman have her own husband**
And what does he say immediately after calling it "concession? He
says he wishes all men were as he (single), nevertheless, each man has
his own gift, and that it is better to marry than to burn.
Again you make Paul's words and marriage about physical sexual lust,
rather than Love and the God-given marital relationship.
And again, while I demonstrate my position from Scripture, you do not.
--
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: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 03:18:11 PM |
|
|
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:15:57 -0700,
in article <12j239uffjv8bb4@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:31:08 +0100,
in article <V4GdnTyjstryvK3YRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <someone@home.co.uk> wrote:
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy
and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience
(to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
He had already given "permission" in verse 2 about getting married. (please
keep up)
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own wife**,
and **let each woman have her own husband**
And what does he say immediately after calling it "concession? He
says he wishes all men were as he (single), nevertheless, each man has
his own gift, and that it is better to marry than to burn.
Again you make Paul's words and marriage about physical sexual lust,
rather than Love and the God-given marital relationship.
And again, while I demonstrate my position from Scripture, you do not.
No, what you demonstrated was your distortion of Paul's words with
contemptible disregard for truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 06:03:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:18:11 -0700,
in article <12j2hg3m1hvg8d5@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:15:57 -0700,
in article <12j239uffjv8bb4@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:31:08 +0100,
in article <V4GdnTyjstryvK3YRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <someone@home.co.uk> wrote:
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy
and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience
(to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Hi Glen!
I also agree that this is not a command from Paul, but a permission!
The "permission" was regarding getting married. But once
married, sex was the right of each spouse.
He had already given "permission" in verse 2 about getting married. (please
keep up)
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own wife**,
and **let each woman have her own husband**
And what does he say immediately after calling it "concession? He
says he wishes all men were as he (single), nevertheless, each man has
his own gift, and that it is better to marry than to burn.
Again you make Paul's words and marriage about physical sexual lust,
rather than Love and the God-given marital relationship.
And again, while I demonstrate my position from Scripture, you do not.
No, what you demonstrated was your distortion of Paul's words with
contemptible disregard for truth.
Thanks for proving the point:
1 Corinthians 7
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for
a man not to touch a woman.
[The subject of the chapter starts off with a reference to a question
the Corinthians wrote to Paul about. The question was concerning
whether or not to get married. Paul said it is good if they don't
need to marry. From the outset, we see that this is referring to
"due" benevolence that occurs in the context of a relationship between
a man and woman, in marriage, and is not referring to the relationship
between parents and children, or our relationship to other believers
or the world in general. The relationship in which due benevolence is
here described is consistent with the sexual relationship between a
husband and wife, otherwise, if it were merely a general reference to
kindness, it would apply to all relationships with everyone, and not
just the relationship between husband and wife]
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[1) But to avoid "fornication", Paul says to go ahead and get married.
The NIV says that because there is so much immorality, they should get
married. Thus, the reason for marriage, is to avoid the fornication
or immorality in society. This is a reference to sexual fornication
and immorality, so marriage, here, is shown to be God's provision for
avoiding the fornication or immorality in society. Thus, again, the
context is talking about due benevolence, in reference to a need for
sexual purity, and not just for general daily living, as you suggest
with your interpretation of the word.
2) It says let every man and woman "have" their spouse. Have
literally means to hold, or own. Holding is consistent with the
interpretation that "due" benevolence refers to sex. Husbands and
wives don't "have" their children, or "have" their cousins, or "have"
people in the world in general, or "have" people in the church, in
general. Again, the context supports the interpretation "due"
benevolence is talking about sex in marriage, and not a general
kindness that we show to everyone.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise
also the wife unto the husband.
Notice here, this isn't about the man getting his thing, but it is
about both the husband and wife, and they are instructed to render due
benevolence. The context shows this is a benevolence between husband
and wife, and not a general benevolence of kindness towards others in
general. The context continues to support the interpretation of sex
between husband and wife, and not a general kindness that would apply
to all people.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and
likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the
wife.
[Now it specifically shows it's referring to the "body". The husband
and wife do not have "power" over their own body, but their spouse
does. Thus, the due benevolence is the kind of benevolence that
pertains to the "body". This is consistent with the interpretation it
is talking about sex, and it is not consistent with the interpretation
of a general kindness.
Further, notice who is supposed to have power over the husband and
wife's body. It has been argued that a spouse has the right or power
to say "no" to the their spouse. But is that what this passage says?
The person who says "no" is saying that they have "power" over their
own body, but this passage says just the opposite. Your spouse has
power over your body, but you do not. So when you say "no", you are
exercising "power" over something that you are not authorized to use
it over (i.e. your own body). Your spouse is the one who has "power"
over your body, not you, so when you say "no", *you* are the one who
is misusing "power" in relation to sex!
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.
[1) Defraud means "rob". When you fail to render due benevolence, you
are robbing your spouse of something that belongs to them (i.e. your
body). So then, the person who says "no", both misuses power in
relation to sex, by exercising power over a body that does not belong
to them (i.e. their own), as well as robs the other person of a body
that belongs to them. That is rape! When you say no, you are raping
your spouse!
2) The fact that both parties have to get consent from the other to
stop rendering due benevolence supports the interpretation it's
talking about sex. You don't have to stop being kind, in general, to
your spouse, just to pray. You do have to stop having sex if you want
to devote yourself to prayer.
3) It says to "come together again" after the time during which you
avoid, by mutual consent, "due benevolence" for the purpose of prayer.
This shows that the due benevolence is one of "coming together", and
supports the interpretation it is talking about sex, not just general
kindness.
4) The reason you're supposed to "come together" is so that Satan
won't tempt you because of your lack of self control. This supports
the interpretation it's talking about sex, and not general kindness.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath
his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if
they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
marry than to burn.
[The fact you have to have a gift for remaining single like Paul, and
that it's better to marry than to "burn" (or glow with passion),
supports the interpretation that it's talking about sex, not general
kindness, when it says "due benevolence".
Anyone care to dispute this based on an exegesis of the 1 Corinthians
7:1-9?
--
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: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 03:45:08 PM |
|
|
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12j2hg3m1hvg8d5@corp.supernews.com:
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:15:57 -0700,
in article <12j239uffjv8bb4@corp.supernews.com>, oldwetdog
<g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:31:08 +0100,
in article <V4GdnTyjstryvK3YRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk>, "Vic"
<someone@home.co.uk> wrote:
"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2mri2pein1d9a33471nncbgkqci4arll2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:38:51 +0100, "Vic" <someone@home.co.uk>
spake thusly:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com...
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, **let each man have his own
wife**, and **let each woman have her own husband**
And what does he say immediately after calling it "concession? He
says he wishes all men were as he (single), nevertheless, each man
has his own gift, and that it is better to marry than to burn.
Again you make Paul's words and marriage about physical sexual lust,
rather than Love and the God-given marital relationship.
And again, while I demonstrate my position from Scripture, you do
not.
No, what you demonstrated was your distortion of Paul's words with
contemptible disregard for truth.
OWD, although you choose to do so and I am sure know it, you are wasting
your time.
An abuser as Randy seems to be cannot let go of his position. He is
wrong; he knows he is wrong; to admit he is wrong would be to admit a
terrible sin on his part. He is incapable of doing this.
Whether he has abused his wife in this way I do not know; whether he
has "counseled" other men with his errant and illegal interpretation of
scripture I do not know. I do know this man is a creature who has lost
his soul, who displays none of the love and compassion his religion
advocates, and who is beneath contempt. He is no more than the pristine
white walls which surround the corruption of the tomb.
Pangur
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
12 Oct 2006 01:46:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
--
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: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
12 Oct 2006 01:51:56 PM |
|
|
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
13 Oct 2006 04:50:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700,
in article <12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
--
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: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
13 Oct 2006 11:47:33 AM |
|
|
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700,
in article <12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
Again, Randy, your own words convict you of your lies.
You, Randy say that a wife has no right to say "no."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 05:40:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:33 -0700,
in article <12ivgp9l53hacb@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700,
in article <12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
Again, Randy, your own words convict you of your lies.
You, Randy say that a wife has no right to say "no."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
No, your words convict you of your lies:
1) Here's the part of my response Owd keeps trying to separate from
the word "Yes".
(see: da26i2l34ksar6klmtcds9gs07b2p42a0j@pulpitfire.org)
Randy:
Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
one sinning (defrauding), not me, but I would not force it either.
See how Owd tries to make it look like I'm agreeing with rape, while
he separates the part where I say I do not endorse forced sex, then
publishes I agree with forced sex (which is his definition of the word
"rape")?
2) Notice how Owd pretends your spouse doesn't have a right to have
"due" benevolence (sex), unless you agree to render it? Further, he
has the audacity to imply that if your spouse even claims to have a
right to "due" benevolence, when you don't agree render it, then that
means your spouse is endorsing and promoting "rape"!
Now, what does 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 say about this? It says if you
refuse to render "due" benevolence, you are guilty of "defrauding"
your spouse. That means you are robbing them of that is "due". You
can't be guilty of robbing your spouse of something that is "due", if
it isn't still "due"! Thus, your spouse has a right to "due"
benevolence, even if you don't want to render it! Otherwise, it
wouldn't be called "due" benevolence, and you wouldn't be guilty of
defrauding them, if you refused to render it!
But what does Owd claim? He claims that if your spouse even claims
the right to "due" benevolence, when you don't agree to render it,
then your spouse is endorsing rape, and it can't be any other way! See
his twisted lie?!
--
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: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 11:13:25 AM |
|
|
Randy wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:33 -0700,
in article <12ivgp9l53hacb@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700,
in article <12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
Again, Randy, your own words convict you of your lies.
You, Randy say that a wife has no right to say "no."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
1) Here's the part of my response
Randy, What makes you a liar?
First: When you say a wife has no "right" to say "No," then you have
deprived her of CONSENT -- IF and WHEN you engage in sex with her and
she can not or does not give consent THAT IS RAPE!
Rape *IS* having sex without consent. THAT is what rape *IS* When YOU
(Randy) deprive your wife of the right of saying "no" you are engaging
in a sick relationship of victimization and rape.
Second:
When you say a husband has the God-given "right" to have sex with his
wife when she does not give consent YOU ARE ADVOCATING AND PROMOTING
Spousal Rape!
Everything and Anything you say after that is shabby window dressing and
unmitigated Bovine Excrement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 01:23:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:13:25 -0700,
in article <12j2357mvtg3u1d@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:33 -0700,
in article <12ivgp9l53hacb@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700,
in article <12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
Again, Randy, your own words convict you of your lies.
You, Randy say that a wife has no right to say "no."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
1) Here's the part of my response
Randy, What makes you a liar?
First: When you say a wife has no "right" to say "No," then you have
deprived her of CONSENT -- IF and WHEN you engage in sex with her and
she can not or does not give consent THAT IS RAPE!
Rape *IS* having sex without consent. THAT is what rape *IS* When YOU
(Randy) deprive your wife of the right of saying "no" you are engaging
in a sick relationship of victimization and rape.
Second:
When you say a husband has the God-given "right" to have sex with his
wife when she does not give consent YOU ARE ADVOCATING AND PROMOTING
Spousal Rape!
Everything and Anything you say after that is shabby window dressing and
unmitigated Bovine Excrement.
And again, Owd tries to separate what I actually said, from his
misrepresentation:
1) Here's the part of my response Owd keeps trying to separate from
the word "Yes".
(see: da26i2l34ksar6klmtcds9gs07b2p42a0j@pulpitfire.org)
Randy:
Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
one sinning (defrauding), not me, but I would not force it either.
See how Owd tries to make it look like I'm agreeing with rape, while
he separates the part where I say I do not endorse forced sex, then
publishes I agree with forced sex (which is his definition of the word
"rape")?
2) Notice how Owd pretends your spouse doesn't have a right to have
"due" benevolence (sex), unless you agree to render it? Further, he
has the audacity to imply that if your spouse even claims to have a
right to "due" benevolence, when you don't agree render it, then that
means your spouse is endorsing and promoting "rape"!
Now, what does 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 say about this? It says if you
refuse to render "due" benevolence, you are guilty of "defrauding"
your spouse. That means you are robbing them of that is "due". You
can't be guilty of robbing your spouse of something that is "due", if
it isn't still "due"! Thus, your spouse has a right to "due"
benevolence, even if you don't want to render it! Otherwise, it
wouldn't be called "due" benevolence, and you wouldn't be guilty of
defrauding them, if you refused to render it!
But what does Owd claim? He claims that if your spouse even claims
the right to "due" benevolence, when you don't agree to render it,
then your spouse is endorsing rape, and it can't be any other way! See
his twisted lie?!
--
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: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 03:35:44 PM |
|
|
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:13:25 -0700,
in article <12j2357mvtg3u1d@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:33 -0700,
in article <12ivgp9l53hacb@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700,
in article <12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700,
in article <12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that for a
wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason is a
violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul's
words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both Randy and
Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim disobedience (to
this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying "No"
then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to convince, as
strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or threat of the use of
force or compulsion, or the fear of any force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault," but
he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is no
rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse, advocate and
promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found in
God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter the
Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage relationship
known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or "Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do not use
it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or excuse
its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that some men do
abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible accessory to their
crime. The blood of their victims is on your hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is worse
than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school kids
does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy, giving
twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for selfish
sexual gratification without her willing participation *IS* advocating
spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love and
affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love and
affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command and
demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God or the
relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
Again, Randy, your own words convict you of your lies.
You, Randy say that a wife has no right to say "no."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
1) Here's the part of my response
Randy, What makes you a liar?
First: When you say a wife has no "right" to say "No," then you have
deprived her of CONSENT -- IF and WHEN you engage in sex with her and
she can not or does not give consent THAT IS RAPE!
Rape *IS* having sex without consent. THAT is what rape *IS* When YOU
(Randy) deprive your wife of the right of saying "no" you are engaging
in a sick relationship of victimization and rape.
Second:
When you say a husband has the God-given "right" to have sex with his
wife when she does not give consent YOU ARE ADVOCATING AND PROMOTING
Spousal Rape!
Everything and Anything you say after that is shabby window dressing and
unmitigated Bovine Excrement.
And again, Owd tries to separate what I actually said, from his
misrepresentation:
I did not "misrepresent" your word "Yes."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
1) Here's the part of my response Owd keeps trying to separate from
the word "Yes".
What you say /after/ you say you have the "right" to sex without consent
and your wife has no right of consent is just pure unmitigated Bovine
Excrement.
(see: da26i2l34ksar6klmtcds9gs07b2p42a0j@pulpitfire.org)
Randy:
Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
one sinning (defrauding),
pure unmitigated Bovine Excrement.
You have the "Right" to _demand_ sex and she has the Due to comply by
force of Command...
not me, but I would not force it either.
See how Owd tries
I don't need to /try/ anything.
All anyone need to do is understand marriage is based on consent, mutual
respect and trust, love and affection, and that YOU defraud your wife of
any "right" to consent.
When you engage in sex without her consent, that is rape.
to make it look like I'm agreeing with rape,
I don't "try" to make it look like you agree with rape, I openly state
that you excuse, condone and promote spousal rape, and that when a man
follows your misinterpretation and takes his wife without her consent,
then you are equally guilty of rape.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jani" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 04:51:35 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12j2ih3qr6l5ka4@corp.supernews.com...
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:13:25 -0700, in article
<12j2357mvtg3u1d@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:33 -0700, in article
<12ivgp9l53hacb@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700, in article
<12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:27:29 -0700, in article
<12iqrujlumg1h76@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy and Dave's advocacy of spousal rape:
FIRST:
Both say that a wife has no right to say "no." They contend that
for a wife to say "no" under any circumstances or for any reason
is a violation of a command given by God -- sin.
This lie is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of
Paul's words.
Paul said he was not giving a command, (1 Co 7:6) and yet Both
Randy and Dave convert Paul's CONCESSION into a command and claim
disobedience (to this nonexistent command) is sin.
Dave:
However, if she said no and then I took her by force,
then we both have sinned. Her for saying no and me
for assaulting my wife.
This is the part of our words that you have ignored
each and every time Randy and I have posted them.
You also ignore the fact that the wife has sinned by
saying no. This is because you openly reject what
Scripture says about it.
http://tinyurl.com/gse8t
owd:
Note that if one or both partners do not have the option of saying
"No" then by definition "CONSENT" is Non-existent.
SECOND:
"Force" is defined as the use of physical strength, coercion or
violence; the force of circumstances, persuasive power to
convince, as strength of argument, mental or moral; duress or
threat of the use of force or compulsion, or the fear of any
force.
Note that Dave is willing to admit that sex by force is "assault,"
but he refuses to acknowledge that "sex by assault" is in fact
Rape.
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE
GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
owd:
By claiming you have the God-given "Right," by asserting there is
no rape in marriage, you (Randy and Dave) excuse, endorse,
advocate and promote spousal rape.
THIRD:
Both Randy and Dave are preaching a doctrine that can not be found
in God's Word, except for the misinterpretation of Paul's letter
the Corinthians. They attempt to tell Christians that the Marital
Relationship COMMANDED by Paul is a change of the Marriage
relationship known to the Jews since the writings of Moses.
Paul did NOT give a command; nor did he define any "Right" or
"Authority."
To claim a "right" is to both use and promote the use of that
right.
For Randy and Dave to claim the right and yet state that they do
not use it is self contradictory -- a lie.
To say that the "right" exists and then deny that you advocate or
excuse its use is an obvious act of illogic (aka, a lie) and that
some men do abuse the right you advocate makes you a contemptible
accessory to their crime. The blood of their victims is on your
hands.
Your (Randy) statement "unless it is abused in the worst way" is
ludicrously ignorant! To be "abused" at all is abuse in the worst
possible way (unless you can suggest some marital sex act which is
worse than spousal rape?)
Do you also say that the government passing out rubbers to school
kids does not promote adolescent sexual conduct.... Sure, Randy,
giving twelve year old kids free rubbers is not suggesting they
use them...
Telling men that they have the "right" to use their wife for
selfish sexual gratification without her willing participation
*IS* advocating spousal rape.
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
This stuff has already been refuted, with Scripture.
You tell yet another lie.
Your lying doctrine of Spousal Rape is a contemptible distortion of
Paul's words and the God-given marital relationship of consent, love
and affection described in God's Word.
By turning a loving relationship of mutual respect and trust, love
and affection given in consent into something ugly, based on command
and demand, you reveal that you do not comprehend the nature of God
or the relationship of Christ and His Church.
No, *your* doctrine of "spousal rape" is a vulgar distortion of
Paul's
and our words which adulterates the God given loving marital
relationship and turns it into something ugly based on command and
demand. You don't argue against what the Bible or we say, you argue
against the perverted imaginations of your heart, then pretend that's
what we're claiming.
Again, Randy, your own words convict you of your lies.
You, Randy say that a wife has no right to say "no."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
1) Here's the part of my response
Randy, What makes you a liar?
First: When you say a wife has no "right" to say "No," then you have
deprived her of CONSENT -- IF and WHEN you engage in sex with her and
she can not or does not give consent THAT IS RAPE!
Rape *IS* having sex without consent. THAT is what rape *IS* When YOU
(Randy) deprive your wife of the right of saying "no" you are engaging
in a sick relationship of victimization and rape.
Second:
When you say a husband has the God-given "right" to have sex with his
wife when she does not give consent YOU ARE ADVOCATING AND PROMOTING
Spousal Rape!
Everything and Anything you say after that is shabby window dressing and
unmitigated Bovine Excrement.
And again, Owd tries to separate what I actually said, from his
misrepresentation:
I did not "misrepresent" your word "Yes."
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
Yes,
http://tinyurl.com/z2wnk
1) Here's the part of my response Owd keeps trying to separate from
the word "Yes".
What you say /after/ you say you have the "right" to sex without consent
and your wife has no right of consent is just pure unmitigated Bovine
Excrement.
(see: da26i2l34ksar6klmtcds9gs07b2p42a0j@pulpitfire.org)
Randy:
Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
one sinning (defrauding),
pure unmitigated Bovine Excrement.
You have the "Right" to _demand_ sex and she has the Due to comply by
force of Command...
not me, but I would not force it either. See how Owd tries
I don't need to /try/ anything.
All anyone need to do is understand marriage is based on consent, mutual
respect and trust, love and affection, and that YOU defraud your wife of
any "right" to consent.
When you engage in sex without her consent, that is rape.
to make it look like I'm agreeing with rape,
I don't "try" to make it look like you agree with rape, I openly state
that you excuse, condone and promote spousal rape, and that when a man
follows your misinterpretation and takes his wife without her consent,
then you are equally guilty of rape.
Guilty of incitement would be more accurate, owd.
Jani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: THE ADVOCACY OF SPOUSAL RAPE |
14 Oct 2006 08:20:09 PM |
|
|
"Jani" <jani@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:wdmdncuRtPlxxqzYRVnytg@pipex.net:
"oldwetdog" <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12j2ih3qr6l5ka4@corp.supernews.com...
Randy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:13:25 -0700, in article
<12j2357mvtg3u1d@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:33 -0700, in article
<12ivgp9l53hacb@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:51:56 -0700, in article
<12it3mg2hnqt357@corp.supernews. | | | | | | | | | | |
