07 Oct 15
Originally posted by divegeesterFirst of all i don't need your permission to discuss legitimate religious debate. Do you understand? Good, please keep your egotistical nonsense to yourself.
Robbie I have apologised for making a certain personal view of mine public. That does not mean I am going to let you off of the hook for what you have been posting about marital rape over two threads and dozens and dozens of posts. Nor will I excuse you for blatantly and deliberately lying in this thread.
The fact of the matter is the debate centers around a Christian principle that others who have looked at the Bible have also considered and questioned whether a matter can be construed as rape if consent has been given through marital vows. The issue is not about the morality of rape and it never was about the morality of rape and if you are unable to look at the issue objectively without attempts to make the issue a personal one (as you are attempting to do here and have done throughout your entire RHP posting history) then this is not the thread for you.
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat kind of "consent" that is "already given" would allow a man to have sex with his wife at a time when it is against her will? You need to clarify this notion of consent already given as it appears to be the only argument you have to offer.
First of all i don't need your permission to discuss legitimate religious debate. Do you understand? Good, please keep your egotistical nonsense to yourself.
The fact of the matter is the debate centers around a Christian principle that others who have looked at the Bible have also considered and questioned whether a matter can be construed as ra ...[text shortened]... e and have done throughout your entire RHP posting history) then this is not the thread for you.
07 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWow reduced to scavenging about and making claims on the basis of someone having no knowledge of a wikipedia article. Thats how lame your argument have become. Classic desperadoism.
ThinkOfOne posted [b]1 Corinthians 7:3-5 on 7th October and you immediately declared that you were "unaware" of it.
And yet on 4th October, three days before, you posted this:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband ...[text shortened]... ncy caused by you claiming you were "unaware" of it three days after you had posted it yourself?
07 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have made my position clear you may make reference to that and if i ever stoop as low as to attempt to call people out for being unaware of wikipedia articles ill let you know, cause you da man for it. Now if you have anything other than some rather vain and desperate attempts to make the debate a personal one ill be happy to consider those.
What kind of "consent" that is [b]"already given" would allow a man to have sex with his wife at a time when it is against her will? You need to clarify this notion of consent already given as it appears to be the only argument you have to offer.[/b]
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow could you truthfully claim to be "unaware" of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 on 7th October when you yourself had posted the same 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 on 4th October?
Wow reduced to scavenging about and making claims on the basis of someone having no knowledge of a wikipedia article. Thats how lame your argument have become. Classic desperadoism.
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour notion of consent already given meaning "no so called 'marital rape' can therefore take place", even if the sex is against the wife's will, appears to be absolutely central to your argument and yet it is not clear at all. Simply declaring, evasively, "I have made my position clear" does not mean you have made your position clear.
I have made my position clear you may make reference to that and if i ever stoop as low as to attempt to call people out for being unaware of wikipedia articles ill let you know, cause you da man for it. Now if you have anything other than some rather vain and desperate attempts to make the debate a personal one ill be happy to consider those.
07 Oct 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI have not stated that I was unaware of the scripture, I have stated that I was unaware of the wikipedia article posted by thinkofone. Do you think I should know about every wikipedia article? Do you think i should be held accountable for not knowing every wikipedia article? Do you think therefore your question here to be a reasonable one? and your assertions of contradiction, sound?
How could you truthfully claim to be "unaware" of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 on 7th October when you yourself had posted the same 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 on 4th October?
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFI have made my position clear you may make reference to that.
Your notion of [b]consent already given meaning "no so called 'marital rape' can therefore take place", even if the sex is against the wife's will, appears to be absolutely central to your argument and yet it is not clear at all. Simply declaring, evasively, "I have made my position clear" does not mean you have made your position clear.[/b]
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are claiming you were "unaware" of how ' 1 Corinthians 7:3-5' was interpreted?
I have not stated that I was unaware of the scripture, I have stated that I was unaware of the wikipedia article posted by thinkofone. Do you think I should know about every wikipedia article? Do you think i should be held accountable for not knowing every wikipedia article? Do you think therefore your question here to be a reasonable one? and your assertions of contradiction, sound?
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are claiming you were "unaware" of the interpretation of '1 Corinthians 7:3-5' that was mentioned in that wikipedia article and which happens to coincide with your own? You were unaware of that interpretation?
what is it about I was unaware of the wikipedia article cited by thinkofone that yet evades you
07 Oct 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFno i have claimed for the third time that I was unaware of the wikipedia article cited by thinkofone. That is its existence and its content especially with regard to Christianity.
So you are claiming you were "unaware" of the interpretation of '1 Corinthians 7:3-5' that was mentioned in that wikipedia article and which happens to coincide with your own? You were unaware of that interpretation?
07 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut since a few pages ago when you changed your position, you are now certain that marital rape is possible, correct?
no i have claimed for the third time that I was unaware of the wikipedia article cited by thinkofone. That is its existence and its content especially with regard to Christianity.