Why men won't marry you

[Traditio]

Just to be clear: I don't universally think that people who commit adultery should be killed or even beaten. In the case I cited, the problem isn't simply that she committed adultery. There were many aggravating factors involved which, in my view, merited that she be beaten...even to death, if the husband saw fit.

 

[kmoney]

Did you hear about this?

Let the ironic male tears fall: The “make rape legal” guys cancel meetups because they don’t feel safe In hilarious news, Roosh V's "heterosexual, masculine men" will not be gathering in 43 countries this weekend It’s entirely likely that over the past few days, your social media feed has been full of outrage over proposed “pro rape” get togethers around the world for this weekend. The event was spearheaded by Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh, the guy behind “masculinity” site Return of Kings. Over the past few years, ROK has gained a degree of Internet infamy for its “Women Are the Worst/Here’s How to Get Women to Be Your Girlfriend” philosophy. They actually say things like “The key to life is for men to honor their primal nature” and “Why Facebook is emasculating and how to stop it.” I know. Much of it is pretty damn hilarious. Yet as we all know, you don’t have to be smart to be dangerous, and ROK also promotes a remarkably rape-friendly agenda. A year ago, Roosh penned an essay in which he offered a modest proposal: “Make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.” He went on to explain, “Let’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape.” Read the rest.

Return of Kings... :chuckle:

I thought this was an interesting article about that group's founder.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/6/10926872/roosh-pro-rape-rallies

 

[ok doser]

I thought this was an interesting article about that group's founder.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/6/10926872/roosh-pro-rape-rallies

i don't believe he's promoting Christian values :think:

 

[elohiym]

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.

I was appealing to the law of Christ for theological purposes, but your response was: "I'll leave grace, mercy, forgiveness and all of that jazz to theologians." And you must leave it because you cannot overcome the point.

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?

No, I agree kidnappers were put to death under the Mosaic Law. Your position is Moses could have flogged them instead, right?

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.

My position is the moral precepts were not abrogated (Mt 7:12; Ro 13:8, et seq.) but the juridical and ceremonial precepts were abrogated (Jn 8:11; Col 2:14).

Granted, in order for you to accept the premise that the Law of Moses was entirely just...

I've never denied the Mosaic Law was just, only pointed out to you the fact that God stated he gave them laws that were not good. A just law can be bad for you; an example is Catholic confessional that mimics the old testament sacrifices for sin. Always sinning and sacrificing is not good, even if it is good to confess your sins.

My point about being dead in sin when you sin relates to the Mosaic Law. Isn't that punishment enough? Assume your wife did something against you that was actually a sin; isn't the wages of sin enough? Will you still beat her after you forgive her seven times seventy?

 

[elohiym]

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

You are supporting an argument for wife beating.

 

[ok doser]

Will you still beat her after you forgive her seven times seventy?

if a pedophile molests one of your children, will you forgive him seven times seventy?


the amish up here forgave the couple who kidnapped their two girls and molested them

but they still wanted to see them subject to the lawful authorities

 

[elohiym]

if a pedophile molests one of your children, will you forgive him seven times seventy?

If you discovered your wife was a pedophile would you beat her or execute her?

 

[elohiym]

You added ...

the amish up here forgave the couple who kidnapped their two girls and molested them

but they still wanted to see them subject to the lawful authorities

My kind of folk. :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

If you discovered your wife was a pedophile would you beat her or execute her?

nice dodge

 

[Traditio]

I was appealing to the law of Christ for theological purposes, but your response was: "I'll leave grace, mercy, forgiveness and all of that jazz to theologians." And you must leave it because you cannot overcome the point.

It's irrelevant from the viewpoint of politics. :idunno:

No, I agree kidnappers were put to death under the Mosaic Law. Your position is Moses could have flogged them instead, right?

Maybe. It could well be the case that flogging is a fitting punishment for at least some cases of kidnapping. Whereas you have a univocal view of justice (exactly the same thing is just in all cases), I have an analogical view of justice (the same principles of justice always hold true, but are expressed differently in different circumstances).

Moses, perhaps could have prescribed flogging for a different people in different circumstances.

Unless, of course, you insist on a univocal view of justice: then there is one and only one just punishment for kidnapping, and this is the penalty which ALWAYS must obtain.

My position is the moral precepts were not abrogate (Mt 7:12; Ro 13:8, et seq.) but the juridical and ceremonial precepts were abrogated (Jn 8:11; Col 2:14).

The fact that the juridical precepts were abrogated doesn't indicate that they were anything less than perfectly just. The circumstances simply changed and rendered them obsolete. There's nothing amazing or even particularly theological in this.

Nobody lives under Hammurabi's code any more.

I've never denied the Mosaic Law was just, only pointed out to you the fact that God stated he gave them laws that were not good.

This is a complicated theological question which simply doesn't have political significance. Do you wish to claim that the Law of Moses was unjust? If you don't, then do you wish to insist on a univocal conception of justice (there is one and exactly one just punishment for any given crime, no matter the circumstances)? If you do, do you wish to assert that the laws should not be just?

If you say "no," to the first question, "yes" to the second question and "no," to the third question, you are stuck, bro.

My point about being dead in sin when you sin relates to the Mosaic Law. Isn't that punishment enough?

Politically speaking? No. The State shouldn't concern itself with these questions.

Assume your wife did something against you that was actually a sin; isn't the wages of sin enough? Will you still beat her after you forgive her seven times seventy?

I'm simply not concerned with sin. I'm concerned with crime. I'm not looking at adultery as a sin against God. I'm looking at it as an injustice against the husband and a crime against the State.

 

[ok doser]

You are supporting an argument for wife beating.

some wives deserve corporal punishment

 

[kmoney]

i don't believe he's promoting Christian values :think:

Nope. :think:

 

[elohiym]

nice dodge

You.

 

[elohiym]

some wives deserve corporal punishment

Your ex. :thumb:

You've claimed she committed adultery.

Would you prefer to beat her or see her executed by the state?

 

[ok doser]

Your ex. :thumb:

Would you prefer to beat her or see her executed by the state?

if the state executed adulterers regularly, swiftly and publicly, I suspect she would not have thought it worth the risk

 

[Traditio]

if the state executed adulterers regularly, swiftly and publicly, I suspect she would not have thought it worth the risk

Sociologically, I doubt this is true. I'm not particularly convinced by the "death penalty as deterrent" idea. That's generally just not how people operate. The threat is just too remote.

 

[ok doser]

Sociologically, I doubt this is true. I'm not particularly convinced by the "death penalty as deterrent" idea. That's generally just not how people operate. The threat is just too remote.

seems to work for pedophilia

 

[Traditio]

seems to work for pedophilia

How would you know? Were there studies on this?

At any rate, I may have to take back my opinion on the death penalty as a deterrent.

I just googled it, and I found conflicting views. There's a washington post article which asserts that some studies apparently found that it works as a deterrent against homicide.

Link.

 

[elohiym]

Would you prefer to beat her or see her executed by the state?

if the state executed adulterers regularly, swiftly and publicly, I suspect she would not have thought it worth the risk

Dodge. :yawn:

 

[Rusha]

lain:

So ... basically there is an argument over which of these bottom dwellers are worse:

A pervert who commits adultery ... or a little girly-man who domestically abuses his wife.

One deserves to lose their home, finances and custody of their children, the other should sit behind the bars of a jail cell OR in a zoo with the other animals.