Why men won't marry you

[annabenedetti]

It wasn't about anyone specific, it was a call out to those as yourself who don't like those who do not dwell in your fantasy world.

I made mention that I'm one of them :idunno:
There you go making up weird things again.

Right... :chuckle:

Okay, I used up my daily allotment of interest in anything you have to say.

 

[elohiym]

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again:

I'll leave grace, mercy, forgiveness and all of that jazz to theologians. From the viewpoint of the State, all that matters is justice.

Then leave justice to the State, else when discussing justice as a Christian be sure to remember the dispensation you are under.

And you've already admitted, Elo., that the sole just punishment for adultery is death.

If you ever think to commit adultery, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin. The wages of any sin is spiritual death. Do you need a government to stop you from committing adultery when God's punishment is instant and more severe? Hopefully you don't think eternal death is a lighter punishment than execution or a beating.

 

[glorydaz]

Then leave justice to the State, else when discussing justice as a Christian be sure to remember the dispensation you are under.



If you ever think to commit adultery, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin. The wages of any sin is spiritual death. Do you need a government to stop you from committing adultery when God's punishment is instant and more severe? Hopefully you don't think eternal death is a lighter punishment than execution or a beating.

You're still under the Law. I've never seen you admit it that boldly. How interesting. :think:

 

[patrick jane]

No, not any other time frame. We are under the dispensation of grace, not law. You can show mercy to people who don't deserve mercy. Has anyone ever done that for you?



In the case of adultery, yes.
In the case of loosing her "husband's money" to gambling, no.

Losing - not loosing

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're the one appealing to public opinion. My question is simply this: why appeal only to current public opinion, and only a subsection of it at that?

Because it just so happens to be the subsection that you agree with?

Because it happens to be the only one that makes sense and isn't completely abhorrent. The fact that you can't see how sickening your advocating brutal violence actually is renders you irrelevant in any sort of rational conversation.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:rotfl:
Modern women are naturally narcissistic.
Vanities and expectations that women enjoy are a rolled out carpet into their glass house of narcissism.

You don't see the irony of your own puffed up narcissistic "view" here?

No, of course you don't. Silly question...

:freak:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Wisdom. Honoring God's gift.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

You're still under the Law. I've never seen you admit it that boldly. How interesting. :think:

So you think you can lustfully look without committing adultery because you claim you are not under the law? How interesting. :think:

That's what you just implied.

 

[ClimateSanity]

So you think you can lustfully look without committing adultery because you claim you are not under the law? How interesting. :think:

That's what you just implied.

That isn't what she said or implied.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

That isn't what she said or implied.

Do you still sin from time to time?

If you do sin, do you pay the wages of sin?

 

[elohiym]

If you ever think to commit adultery, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin. The wages of any sin is spiritual death. Do you need a government to stop you from committing adultery when God's punishment is instant and more severe? Hopefully you don't think eternal death is a lighter punishment than execution or a beating.

You're still under the Law. I've never seen you admit it that boldly. How interesting. :think:

Matthew 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In other words, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin because you are already an adulterer.

 

[Traditio]

Because it happens to be the only one that makes sense and isn't completely abhorrent. The fact that you can't see how sickening your advocating brutal violence actually is renders you irrelevant in any sort of rational conversation.

You're the one who refuses to offer any sort of argument in favor of your position. Offer me a non-fallacious argument that your views are correct.

I'm sorry, but "Booooooo, I disagree you" isn't a "rational conversation," nor is it evidence that a worldview "makes sense."

Without appealing to public opinion (which, again, actually probably is in my favor, if we include the public opinion of the whole human race, including the dead) or your own personal sensibilities, what evidence do you have in favor of your opinion?

 

[ok doser]

you're looking for rationality from artie?

half the time he's posting drunk

the other half he's posting retarded



his "reasoning" is ruled by his emotion

 

[elohiym]

Losing - not loosing

Thanks. Hit double o by mistake.

 

[Traditio]

Then leave justice to the State, else when discussing justice as a Christian be sure to remember the dispensation you are under.

1. "Dispensation" talk is almost meaningless to me.

2. You've misunderstood my point. This is perhaps my fault. My point when I say: "I'll leave mercy, etc. to the theologians,"
is this: the State is not a giant church. The body politic, i.e., the political society is not a congregation of church-goers.

It very well might be the case that the citizens of a given country are religious, and their conduct is religiously inspired, but the operations of the State are not in and of themselves religious acts. They are political, secular acts.

The State simply does not, cannot and should not concern itself with these other-worldly religious questions. It does, can only and should only concern itself with matters of justice in this world "here below," so to speak.

Thus, if you insist on talking about religious matters, I'll simply have to wave them off and say: "I'm sorry, but I'm talking about politics, not theology."

If you ever think to commit adultery, the moment you think it, before you even act on the thought, you will be dead in sin. The wages of any sin is spiritual death. Do you need a government to stop you from committing adultery when God's punishment is instant and more severe? Hopefully you don't think eternal death is a lighter punishment than execution or a beating.

Again, these considerations, whether true or not, are irrelevant to the question of how the State should operate, what laws would be just, etc.

At any rate, you have denied one of my premises: "When dealing with a crime, if the more severe is permissible, then the less severe is permissible." You deny that Moses could have prescribed a less severe penalty than death by stoning for adultery.

Anything else, you say, would have been unjust. And yet you insist that it's perfectly just for other societies not only not to punish adulterers in the same way, but to impose no penalty at all ("no penalty" being much, much less severe than "death by stoning")?

But you must understand if I find this utterly incoherent.

 

[Crucible]

Because it happens to be the only one that makes sense and isn't completely abhorrent. The fact that you can't see how sickening your advocating brutal violence actually is renders you irrelevant in any sort of rational conversation.

Coming from someone who can't let a rational conversation begin without immediately jumping to irrational or emotional statements.

But
That's liberals and feminists for you. Not just yall, but ALL YALL

 

[Traditio]

you're looking for rationality from artie?

half the time he's posting drunk

the other half he's posting retarded



his "reasoning" is ruled by his emotion

This seems to be a tendency with liberals on this site.

 

[elohiym]

1. "Dispensation" talk is almost meaningless to me.

That's unfortunate because it will keep you from understanding my point.

2. You've misunderstood my point. This is perhaps my fault. My point when I say: "I'll leave mercy, etc. to the theologians," my point is this: the State is not a giant church. The body politic, i.e., the political society is not a congregation of church-goers.

No, I understood your point. You must have missed mine.

Thus, if you insist on talking about religious matters, I'll simply have to wave them off and say: "I'm sorry, but I'm talking about politics, not theology."

Then remove the Mosaic Law from the argument you were making. :duh:

Still don't get my point?

But you must understand if I find this utterly incoherent.

Philosopher punk. :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

Then remove the Mosaic Law from the argument you were making. :duh:

I half expected this answer.

My answer to this is that I wasn't appealing to the Mosaic Law for theological purposes. My assumption is that if the Law of Moses says x, then x is accord with natural justice.

Thus, if Moses commands that kidnappers be executed, this law was indeed just, and it was just not because God commanded it, but because that was what justice required for the given people for whom Moses was legislating.

Or do you disagree with this?

Basically, when I read the Law, I see, with St. Thomas Aquinas, three sets of precepts:

1. Moral precepts
2. Juridical precepts
3. Ceremonial precepts

The moral precepts simply express the Natural Law.

The juridical precepts are determinations of justice for the concrete political conditions of ancient Israel/Judea.

The ceremonial precepts foreshadowed the Christ who was to come; it is the ceremonial precepts which are specifically "religious."

I think that we can safely divorce the former two kinds of precepts, however, from any theological context.

Granted, in order for you to accept the premise that the Law of Moses was entirely just, you'll likely have to accept that on theological faith. But once the premise is granted, I don't think that further theological discussion or consideration is necessary.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I half expected this answer.

My answer to this is that I wasn't appealing to the Mosaic Law for theological purposes. My assumption is that if the Law of Moses says x, then x is accord with natural justice.

Thus, if Moses commands that kidnappers be executed, this law was indeed just, and it was just not because God commanded it, but because that was what justice required for the given people for whom Moses was legislating.

Or do you disagree with this?

Basically, when I read the Law, I see, with St. Thomas Aquinas, three sets of precepts:

1. Moral precepts
2. Juridical precepts
3. Ceremonial precepts

The moral precepts simply express the Natural Law.

The juridical precepts are determinations of justice for the concrete political conditions of ancient Israel/Judea.

The ceremonial precepts foreshadowed the Christ who was to come; it is the ceremonial precepts which are specifically "religious."

I think that we can safely divorce the former two kinds of precepts, however, from any theological context.

Granted, in order for you to accept the premise that the Law of Moses was entirely just, you'll likely have to accept that on theological faith. But once the premise is granted, I don't think that further theological discussion or consideration is necessary.

That makes a lot of sense and its not nuanced platonic mumbo jumbo from an inexperienced precocious kid either.