On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:04:24 -0500, Randy
<pulpitfire@gmail.com> you decided to say:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:31:26 -0700,
in article <12ibn13mvc20t85@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:

That one partner can refuse his/her consent to abstain
(for a time of fasting and prayer) and then force sex
on the other is a perversion of the Natural Husband
and wife relationship -- and this lie is from Satan.

Thanks for admitting that the perverted "lie" *you*
brought up, is "from Satan". Having the right to sex
isn't one and the same with forcing the right against
the persons' will. Otherwise, you are calling God a
Satanic liar, since he gave both spouses the right for
"due" benevolence.

You have the right to get paid for work you did. If your
boss says "no", does that mean you no longer have a
right to the money you earned? No, it does not. It's still
"due". Does that automatically mean that you are endorsing
assault, and will take your money by force? No, it does not.
*You* are the only one trying to imply that the right to have
sex is equivalent to an endorsement of rape. Neither the Bible,
nor we who hold it to be true, ever suggested such an idea
of forcing sex against someone's will.

If you go to a restaurant, and refuse to pay your bill, does
that mean the restaurant no longer has a right to be paid?
No it does not. Does that automatically mean they endorse
the right to assault you in order to get their money? No it
does not. Having the right to what is "due" doesn't necessitate
that you or anybody else will necessarily force their right,
or that they endorse such a thing. *You* are the one who
draws that sick conclusion.

And in all of this flap, let's not forget who is "defrauding",
or sinning. It isn't the person who has a right to due
benevolence, but who is being deprived of it, but the one
who "defrauds" his or her spouse by refusing to render it.
Trying to make the defrauded party out as the villain is
twisted lying from Satan, as *you* admit.

Thank you for admitting the lie you've been trying to
impose on the Bible and those who hold it to be true,
is "from Satan".

I post this to help this along, with what I feel is a more
appropriate analogy and to show the hypocrisy of those
who have falsely Randy and I of being actual rapists, even
though both Randy and I have both denounced the use
of physical force over one's spouse to have sex with them.

Allow me to give you what may be a better analogy that
may be more palatable to the women here and apparently,
a couple of the men. :)

But before doing so, let me state that all that we have been
saying, is that according to 1 Cor 7:1-6, *both* spouses
have the God ordained right to sexual relations with their
spouse, since the Scriptures there say that each spouse
has power/authority over the others' body and that neither
is supposed to deny the other, except it be by consent of
both parties and then, only for a time dedicated to fasting
and prayer. And it is not a long time, since no one fasts
for months, or years at a time and it says prayer AND
fasting and not prayer OR fasting. :)

What we have also been saying, is that even though we
have this right, we do not endorse using physical force
to use this right. That would be to assault our spouses
and that would be sin, just as the spouse who said no
also violated God's word and sinned.

And no, do not bother responding with garbage about
being sick, or disabled. This is and always has been
about marriage in general, even though many have tried
to twist it into saying that we endorse forcing the disabled,
etc., given their sick minds and tendency toward denial
of God's word.

Anyway, on with the analogy...

The husband is supposed to love his wife. Now this love
also translates into action. Let us also assume that in a
particular marriage, that the wife is a black belt and can
kick the husband's butt for him. Now let us also assume
that the husband is not doing the things that translate
into love. He is not treating her kindly, for example.
And by that, I do not mean physical abuse.

Thus, we have the scenario for our analogy.

The question becomes; Does the wife have the "right"
to be treated with love? Does she have this, "God given
right" to be treated with love?

I say yes. More importantly, God says yes.

However, is it appropriate for her to beat him into submission
and force him to show her this "love in action", if he isn't?

I say no. More importantly, God says no.

Now let us assume that the wife states this right to someone,
but also says that she does not endorse the idea of getting
him to do what he should do, by the use of physical force.

Does this mean that she advocates the use of physical force
on her husband?

I say no. You say no. And all of the objectors here would
also say no. More importantly, God says no. God does not
say that merely repeating what the Bible says, means that
someone endorses the use of physical force over their spouse.

So the reality is, that the wife saying that she has the right
to be loved in this way, is not the same thing as her saying
that she condones the use of force to make him do the
things that he should be doing, to express this love to her.

But, given the response of the women in this group and
a couple of the men, she is saying that she endorses
using physical force, because she brings the subject up
and simply states that she has this right to this love.

Thus, according to the logic of the people here and the
accusations that they have made against us for merely
stating that we have a right, she not only does endorse
the use of physical force in this case, but is also guilty
of using said physical force and furthermore, according
to Glenn, has confessed to it by saying that she does
*not* endorse using physical force and according to Diana
(and others) is guilty of actually using this physical force.

Thus, since they would agree (see earlier in message)
that she is not guilty before the above paragraph, they
are hypocrites of the highest order and are operating
from their own hatred and personal, unGodly biases.

Translation: If Randy and I are rapists, as we have been
falsely accused of being and falsely accused of confessing
to, then this woman is a spouse beater and has confessed
to it, simply because she did exactly what we did. She
stated that she has the right, but also denounced using
physical force to enforce the right.

And do you know what? It means that if you are right
about us, that all of you who have been talking about
how a husband is supposed to love his wife in action,
are spouse beaters and have confessed to it.

Now how many of you have ever talked about that?

C'mon, raise your hands!

What's that? No hands went up? Hmmm...

Wanna guess what that means?

It means that either you are guilty, or we are not.

Wanna know what that means?

It means that you are false accusers, who have accused us
of very serious crimes!

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
- Exodus 20:16

Shame on you! (:

--

Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:04:24 -0500, Randy
<pulpitfire@gmail.com> you decided to say:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:31:26 -0700,
in article <12ibn13mvc20t85@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aedhealic@yahoo.com> wrote:

That one partner can refuse his/her consent to abstain
(for a time of fasting and prayer) and then force sex
on the other is a perversion of the Natural Husband
and wife relationship -- and this lie is from Satan.

Thanks for admitting that the perverted "lie" *you*
brought up, is "from Satan". Having the right to sex
isn't one and the same with forcing the right against
the persons' will. Otherwise, you are calling God a
Satanic liar, since he gave both spouses the right for
"due" benevolence.

You have the right to get paid for work you did. If your
boss says "no", does that mean you no longer have a
right to the money you earned? No, it does not. It's still
"due". Does that automatically mean that you are endorsing
assault, and will take your money by force? No, it does not.
*You* are the only one trying to imply that the right to have
sex is equivalent to an endorsement of rape. Neither the Bible,
nor we who hold it to be true, ever suggested such an idea
of forcing sex against someone's will.

If you go to a restaurant, and refuse to pay your bill, does
that mean the restaurant no longer has a right to be paid?
No it does not. Does that automatically mean they endorse
the right to assault you in order to get their money? No it
does not. Having the right to what is "due" doesn't necessitate
that you or anybody else will necessarily force their right,
or that they endorse such a thing. *You* are the one who
draws that sick conclusion.

And in all of this flap, let's not forget who is "defrauding",
or sinning. It isn't the person who has a right to due
benevolence, but who is being deprived of it, but the one
who "defrauds" his or her spouse by refusing to render it.
Trying to make the defrauded party out as the villain is
twisted lying from Satan, as *you* admit.

Thank you for admitting the lie you've been trying to
impose on the Bible and those who hold it to be true,
is "from Satan".

I post this to help this along, with what I feel is a more
appropriate analogy and to show the hypocrisy of those
who have falsely Randy and I of being actual rapists, even
though both Randy and I have both denounced the use
of physical force over one's spouse to have sex with them.

Allow me to give you what may be a better analogy that
may be more palatable to the women here and apparently,
a couple of the men. :)

But before doing so, let me state that all that we have been
saying, is that according to 1 Cor 7:1-6, *both* spouses
have the God ordained right to sexual relations with their
spouse, since the Scriptures there say that each spouse
has power/authority over the others' body and that neither
is supposed to deny the other, except it be by consent of
both parties and then, only for a time dedicated to fasting
and prayer. And it is not a long time, since no one fasts
for months, or years at a time and it says prayer AND
fasting and not prayer OR fasting. :)

What we have also been saying, is that even though we
have this right, we do not endorse using physical force
to use this right. That would be to assault our spouses
and that would be sin, just as the spouse who said no
also violated God's word and sinned.

And no, do not bother responding with garbage about
being sick, or disabled. This is and always has been
about marriage in general, even though many have tried
to twist it into saying that we endorse forcing the disabled,
etc., given their sick minds and tendency toward denial
of God's word.

Anyway, on with the analogy...

The husband is supposed to love his wife. Now this love
also translates into action. Let us also assume that in a
particular marriage, that the wife is a black belt and can
kick the husband's butt for him. Now let us also assume
that the husband is not doing the things that translate
into love. He is not treating her kindly, for example.
And by that, I do not mean physical abuse.

Thus, we have the scenario for our analogy.

The question becomes; Does the wife have the "right"
to be treated with love? Does she have this, "God given
right" to be treated with love?

I say yes. More importantly, God says yes.

However, is it appropriate for her to beat him into submission
and force him to show her this "love in action", if he isn't?

I say no. More importantly, God says no.

Now let us assume that the wife states this right to someone,
but also says that she does not endorse the idea of getting
him to do what he should do, by the use of physical force.

Does this mean that she advocates the use of physical force
on her husband?

I say no. You say no. And all of the objectors here would
also say no. More importantly, God says no. God does not
say that merely repeating what the Bible says, means that
someone endorses the use of physical force over their spouse.

So the reality is, that the wife saying that she has the right
to be loved in this way, is not the same thing as her saying
that she condones the use of force to make him do the
things that he should be doing, to express this love to her.

But, given the response of the women in this group and
a couple of the men, she is saying that she endorses
using physical force, because she brings the subject up
and simply states that she has this right to this love.

Thus, according to the logic of the people here and the
accusations that they have made against us for merely
stating that we have a right, she not only does endorse
the use of physical force in this case, but is also guilty
of using said physical force and furthermore, according
to Glenn, has confessed to it by saying that she does
*not* endorse using physical force and according to Diana
(and others) is guilty of actually using this physical force.

Thus, since they would agree (see earlier in message)
that she is not guilty before the above paragraph, they
are hypocrites of the highest order and are operating
from their own hatred and personal, unGodly biases.

Translation: If Randy and I are rapists, as we have been
falsely accused of being and falsely accused of confessing
to, then this woman is a spouse beater and has confessed
to it, simply because she did exactly what we did. She
stated that she has the right, but also denounced using
physical force to enforce the right.

And do you know what? It means that if you are right
about us, that all of you who have been talking about
how a husband is supposed to love his wife in action,
are spouse beaters and have confessed to it.

Now how many of you have ever talked about that?

C'mon, raise your hands!

What's that? No hands went up? Hmmm...

Wanna guess what that means?

It means that either you are guilty, or we are not.

Wanna know what that means?

It means that you are false accusers, who have accused us
of very serious crimes!

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
- Exodus 20:16

Shame on you! (:

__

Giant Waffle

If you wish to be rude, or to play games, go find a mirror
and see if the person you see there would appreciate it.
And if the person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then
you know why I have ended my conversation with you.
Rather, I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least
until you learn some common decency and respect.