Search results

According to you, o great lawgiver.

In a loving relationship there is no need to use force, because neither party is unrighteously holding back what belongs to the other.

Yes...over my body, at least in regard to sex.

Why would you assume I'd do that?

By whose decision? Yours? Since when do you make the rules? You say I can't give myself to my wife?

Explain what about it?

The forcing isn't the "right"--the sex is the "right", for either partner. 1 Corinthians 7:4 (KJV) 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. If I have power over her body, and she over mine, force isn't...

Which is exactly what I said quite a few posts back.

That's what most people say. Matthew 7:14 (KJV) Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

But if you reject God's loving offer, death is your reward--which he has every right to do.

I'll tell you how it's loving. God has every right to force us to do exactly as he wants. Instead, he allows us to do what he doesn't want (all have sinned and come short of the glory of God), at a penalty of death (the wages of sin is death). But he sent his own begotten son, who never did...

Isn't a command a "forcing"? If someone in authority says, "Do this," and you are obliged to obey under threat of punishment of some sort, is that not forced? Like stopping at a stop sign, for instance.

First let's apply it as written, to abstaining from sex. If there's no agreement to abstain, then there should be no abstaining. As long as that's followed, there is no occasion for forcing. Now I'll let you find the Bible verse for your position--that both partners have to agree before sex...

1Cor 7:5 Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it's for the purposes of prayer and fasting - but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it.

Well, there you go, then. All males should just be ignored, which actually proves my point--for justice, a single witness isn't sufficient. Your examples might be valid cases of lack of sufficient proof, but they don't negate the need for sufficient proof before convicting someone of what we...

I'm not sure I understand the difference, but I agree with your premise. The other thing the old laws relied on was a criminalization of adultery, most fornication, or any sex outside of marriage.

Physical violence should leave evidence, and therefore would be prosecutable. Bullying is usually something others might witness. Rape that includes penetration against an unmarried person leaves sexual residue (semen, or tearing of the hymen if a virgin), but sexual residue is expected for a...

Disagree Agree except where the "rapist" is her husband--with no proof of non-consent, except just her word after the fact, it's a single witness case. Marriage is consent, at least to some level, so semen is expected.

Yes, but if the only evidence is semen (no bruises, for example), you're back to one. And "consensual" seems to come and go in some circles, like if a girl doesn't want to keep her baby in a state where "rape and incest" are excuses to kill the baby.

So you would take the word of one spouse against the other, and apply the death penalty, all based on one person's testimony? (I'm a bit surprised you would call God's Old and New Testament standard of multiple witnesses a satanic thing.)