A Chance to Comment on 1 Cor.
Ben Mitts
subject of 1 Cor on what is says about hus-
bands and wives in regards to sex between
each other in their marriages!
I will start with the below paragraph to help
you understand where I am coming from:
"I am going to try an experiment to see if I can help
this subject get back on track so it can be brought
to a sane and sensible conclusion so we can all
once again get back to business as usual. I'm go-
ing to print a message which will give all concerned
a chance see what it is they are arguing about and
try to make moves to bring everybody back on to
the same page!"
From the KJV,
I Cor 7:1-9
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 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.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and
come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incon-
tinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man
hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another
after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for
them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
marry than to burn.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Now once again the same Scripture but from The Nasb.
If you dont like this translation use another and replace
these verses with your own translation!
1 Cor 7:1-9
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good
for a man not to touch a woman.
2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife
and each woman is to have her own husband.
3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also
the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the
husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have
authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time,
so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come to-
gether again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your
lack of self-control.
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However,
each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and
another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for
them if they remain even as I.
9 But if they do not have self-control, (I)let them marry; for it
is better to marry than to burn with passion.
My challenge if you choose to partake in in it
is for all who will to study these verses and see
if you understand what they are saying, and also
see if you can pick out where and why the subject
grew into a flame war!
Now I realize there have been al lot of insults, charges
and whatever bandied about, but it seems to me that
if enough take the time to study these verses this war
will end and die out to just a memory- an ugly memory
at that.
My comment on these Verses is that both translations
say the same thing. There is no difference at all in
their meaning and intents! Also this old Preacher be-
lieves both Believer and non-believer alike can under
stand their meaning!
Why not try you hand at seeing whether you can pick
out from these verses where the war started and the
flamed out of control?
I's easy to do!
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."
Similarly, God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him should not
perish, but Have eternal life. Another: God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world should be saved through Him. He spoke elsewhere:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and
believes in Me shall never die. Believe you this?
Therefore we may, as many will to do so: "But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become child-
ren of God, even to those who believe in His name,"
(John 1:12)
Zadok
"Ben Mitts" <> wrote in message ...
> I recently post a message to Randy on the
> subject of 1 Cor on what is says about hus-
> bands and wives in regards to sex between
> each other in their marriages!
But Jesus himself says -
Matthew 15: 3 - But he answered and said unto them, why do ye also trangress
the commandment of God by your tradition?
Then in verse 9 he adds, But in vain they do worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men.
Now the whole doctrine as taught from 1 Corinthians, is a doctrine from
Saulus (Paul) the apostate.
Who never met Jesus, never knew Jesus, and never studied with Jesus.
Paul's only contact with Jesus was in his frigging dreams.
That is why no true christian, would ever take the word of Saulus the
apostate for anything. Because his is the doctrine of man!!
Let's check Paul's apostolic succession one more time -
Jesus - BIG GAP - Dream/vision/sunstroke induced hallucination - Ananais -
Paul.
Cute guys, but no sale!!
Paul is the apostate, and Jesus himself warned you about Paul.
Matthew 24: 24
Ben Mitts
Beloved I somehow missed The NKJV translation
in my other message about 1 Cor 7:1-9 so I offer
it as an addition to my other message:
1 Cor 7:1-9
1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is
good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man
have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and
likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the
husband does. And likewise the husband does not have autho-
rity over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time,
that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of
your lack of self-control.\
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one
has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in
that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for
them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For
it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version,
(Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.
Notice the difference between the KJV and the NKJV
one can see that these verses above are a bit different
but still say the same thing but in some parts wording
was changed to make it better to understand the trans
lation! This is perfectly legal and is done from time to
time to make a translation remain faithful to the oldest
original translations in existence! The NKJV is based on
the most recent translations found after the KJV was
written! This old Preacher recommends that all should
study both all three versions and also use many others
to make sure they have a most clear and concise set of
Bibles to study from and use when quoting Scripture!
Works every time when done properly- at least for me
anyway!
Giant Waffle
<benm...@sbcglobal.net> you decided to say:
As I posted previously...
1 Corinthians 7:1-9
1) Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have
his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4) 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.
5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent
for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer;
and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your
incontinency.
6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every
man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and
another after that.
8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good
for them if they abide even as I.
9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
better to marry than to burn.
To address some incorrect ideas that people have been stating
about these passages, I will offer some things that should be
considered.
Let's first look at the claims of many in this group...
Claim: "Paul said that mutual consent is required for sex."
Claim: "Paul said that the concession he made, was about
having sex."
Claim: "Paul never said that one spouse has authority over
the body of the other, for the purpose of sex."
Now let's see if these claims line up with what Scripture
actually says.
The Scripture does not say that mutual consent is required
FOR sex. It is required to abstain FROM sex and then, it is
for fasting AND prayer, not fasting OR prayer. In the Greek,
it is "and" and it is cumulative. I.e., if both wish to take
some time for fasting and prayer, then by mutual consent,
they may. But this speaks of a short time, since no one fasts
for months, or years. :) And they are told to make sure
to come together again (to have sex), to avoid lustful
temptations.
"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for
a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer;
and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your
incontinency." - 1 Corinthians 7:5
Furthermore, Paul said clearly that it was better to be single
in that time of distress that they were facing.
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
good for a man not to touch a woman." - 1 Corinthians 7:1
So the concession that he made to get married, was because
of a lack of self control and so, sex within the confines of
marriage is the way to avoid the lack of self control and
being consumed with lust.
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
- 1 Corinthians 7:2
Now how does one "avoid fornication" by getting married,
if sex is not a given? :)
As Paul also said, it was a better idea to marry, than to burn
with lust...
"But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better
to marry than to burn." - 1 Corinthians 7:9
And so, when two people marry, they are not to defraud
each other of sex. This is due the other spouse and it is
made clear that each person does not have power over
their own body, but rather, their spouse does. This power
over the body of the other, is for both the husband and
the wife. Thus, they are both commanded not to defraud
each other and Paul even goes so far as to take away
one's power over one's body, when speaking of sex
within marriage.
"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 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." - 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
And the concession made by Paul, was not "allowing people
to have sex in marriage". That's not a logical approach,
since we know that sex is already part of what marriage is
("and the two shall become one flesh") and the marriage
is actually consummated by the sex act, which is what made
a couple married, instead of betrothed (there was no wedding
ceremony) and since he just finished telling them all of the
above. No, the concession made was to marry at all in that
present distress, to give an outlet for their sexual lust with
someone they love. To say that the concession was telling
people that they may have sex in marriage, would be to
encourage the idea of getting married and not having
sex with their spouses, which would lead to adultery,
which would defeat the purpose of Paul's statement, when
he said to get married, "to avoid fornication", which would
be sex outside of marriage and so, those who take that
stance, really have Paul saying...
"Get married to avoid premarital sex (fornication), but don't
actually have sex with your spouse, because I want you to
be consumed with the idea of sex, like before you were
married, but even more so now that there is a woman in
the house, so maybe you'll commit adultery."
That is a ridiculous proposal, especially since he
specifically said to get married to avoid being consumed
with sexual lust! Yet that is what some must resort to,
to avoid admitting that Paul is teaching to observe
conjugal duty here. (:
We also know by the Scriptures themselves, that the consession
was about getting married and not sex within marriage, because
of how it reads IN CONTEXT.
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every
man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner,
and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried
and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I."
- 1 Corinthians 7:6-8
Thus, for anyone to claim that the concession was about
having sex within marriage, does not make sense, given
the context of the above passages. It was about getting
married at all, given the present distress, which is also
shown by the way that Paul starts this subject.
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless,
to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and
let every woman have her own husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Also, we must remember that Paul was saying it is better
to marry than to burn with lust and told them not to
defraud each other, except for a period of fasting and prayer
("and", not "or") and then to come together again. Paul
made the idea of getting married in that present distress
one in which to avoid being preoccupied with lust. So
how does one say that the concession was to be able to
have sex within the marriage? That makes no sense.
"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 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." - 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
__
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.
Randy
Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
1) What I believe the passage teaches
2) Where I believe things got out of control
1) What I believe the passage teaches:
1 Corinthians 7
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for
a man not to touch a woman.
[The subject of the chapter starts off with a reference to a question
the Corinthians wrote to Paul about. The question was concerning
whether or not to get married. Paul said it is good if they don't
need to marry. From the outset, we see that this is referring to
"due" benevolence that occurs in the context of a relationship between
a man and woman, in marriage, and is not referring to the relationship
between parents and children, or our relationship to other believers
or the world in general. The relationship in which due benevolence is
here described is consistent with the sexual relationship between a
husband and wife, otherwise, if it were merely a general reference to
kindness, it would apply to all relationships with everyone, and not
just the relationship between husband and wife]
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[1) But to avoid "fornication", Paul says to go ahead and get married.
The NIV says that because there is so much immorality, they should get
married. Thus, the reason for marriage, is to avoid the fornication
or immorality in society. This is a reference to sexual fornication
and immorality, so marriage, here, is shown to be God's provision for
avoiding the fornication or immorality in society. Thus, again, the
context is talking about due benevolence, in reference to a need for
sexual purity, and not just for general daily living, as you suggest
with your interpretation of the word.
2) It says let every man and woman "have" their spouse. Have
literally means to hold, or own. Holding is consistent with the
interpretation that "due" benevolence refers to sex. Husbands and
wives don't "have" their children, or "have" their cousins, or "have"
people in the world in general, or "have" people in the church, in
general. Again, the context supports the interpretation "due"
benevolence is talking about sex in marriage, and not a general
kindness that we show to everyone.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise
also the wife unto the husband.
Notice here, this isn't about the man getting his thing, but it is
about both the husband and wife, and they are instructed to render due
benevolence. The context shows this is a benevolence between husband
and wife, and not a general benevolence of kindness towards others in
general. The context continues to support the interpretation of sex
between husband and wife, and not a general kindness that would apply
to all people.
4 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.
[Now it specifically shows it's referring to the "body". The husband
and wife do not have "power" over their own body, but their spouse
does. Thus, the due benevolence is the kind of benevolence that
pertains to the "body". This is consistent with the interpretation it
is talking about sex, and it is not consistent with the interpretation
of a general kindness.
Further, notice who is supposed to have power over the husband and
wife's body. It has been argued that a spouse has the right or power
to say "no" to the their spouse. But is that what this passage says?
The person who says "no" is saying that they have "power" over their
own body, but this passage says just the opposite. Your spouse has
power over your body, but you do not. So when you say "no", you are
exercising "power" over something that you are not authorized to use
it over (i.e. your own body). Your spouse is the one who has "power"
over your body, not you, so when you say "no", *you* are the one who
is misusing "power" in relation to sex!
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together
again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[1) Defraud means "rob". When you fail to render due benevolence, you
are robbing your spouse of something that belongs to them (i.e. your
body). So then, the person who says "no", both misuses power in
relation to sex, by exercising power over a body that does not belong
to them (i.e. their own), as well as robs the other person of a body
that belongs to them. That is rape! When you say no, you are raping
your spouse!
2) The fact that both parties have to get consent from the other to
stop rendering due benevolence supports the interpretation it's
talking about sex. You don't have to stop being kind, in general, to
your spouse, just to pray. You do have to stop having sex if you want
to devote yourself to prayer.
3) It says to "come together again" after the time during which you
avoid, by mutual consent, "due benevolence" for the purpose of prayer.
This shows that the due benevolence is one of "coming together", and
supports the interpretation it is talking about sex, not just general
kindness.
4) The reason you're supposed to "come together" is so that Satan
won't tempt you because of your lack of self control. This supports
the interpretation it's talking about sex, and not general kindness.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath
his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if
they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
marry than to burn.
[The fact you have to have a gift for remaining single like Paul, and
that it's better to marry than to "burn" (or glow with passion),
supports the interpretation that it's talking about sex, not general
kindness, when it says "due benevolence".
We are talking about your responsibility (whether you are a husband or
wife) to give your *_spouse's rights_* to "due" benevolence. If you
love God and holiness, you will obey Him when he tells you to render
(imperative voice) due benevolence to your spouse. If you love your
spouse, and want to keep them from fornication, Satan's tempting, and
their own lack of self control, you will render due benevolence,
instead of defrauding (robbing) them of it.
Since God gives your spouse power over your body, and not you, you are
making a physical abuse of power against your spouse, when you rob
them of "due" benevolence! That's not "love" for your spouse or God!
2) Why I believe this got out of control
Because of the degree to which it was allowed to be argued on the
basis of feelings, past offenses & biases, strong influence from the
modern world and laws, and the goal of political empowerment, rather
than a love of and submission to the truth of God's word (a.k.a.
exegesis) as our authority.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Randy
in article <amski21j9bivbc8gf...@4ax.com>,
Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Include your other post too, where you quote what basically every
commentary says on this subject.
Ben Mitts
Do you know what the subject is about?
Why cant you stay on track and keep
with the program! Wander off and throw-
inf is various that have nothing to do with
what is being talked about only clouds
the issue! Thats what turned this subject
into a flame war! Again the subject only
concerns Christian Men and Women and
does not concern secular humanity in
any manner!
Cant you at least stay with the program
and discuss, or give an opinion as to what
your take is on 1 Cor 7:1-9/ I hope so!
Zadok
"Ben Mitts" <> wrote in message
> Cant you at least stay with the program
> and discuss, or give an opinion as to what
> your take is on 1 Cor 7:1-9/ I hope so!
Can you offer an opinion as to the relevance of Goldie Locks and the three
frigging bears??
Anything written by Paul the apostate is a frigging fairy tale, something he
dreamt up while suffering from a sunstroke induced hallucination!!
Therefore what ever Saulus meant in 1 Cor. is illrelevant!!
Got that yet??
Ben Mitts
Well at least I received 2 persons opinion
on the Verses in disagreement!
Thanks Dave!
Now! Are there any more who wish to com-
ment my message?
Randy
in article <452A7991...@sbcglobal.net>,
Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Well at least I received 2 persons opinion
>on the Verses in disagreement!
>
>Thanks Dave!
>
>Now! Are there any more who wish to com-
>ment my message?
Good point. I have also called for this several times during the
discussion, and no one but Dave or I has even attempted posting a
serious exegesis of the passage. It's time for the opposition to put
up or admit their faith and practice isn't based on God's will, as
revealed in the Bible.
Zadok
"Randy" <> wrote in message ...
> Good point. I have also called for this several times during the
> discussion, and no one but Dave or I has even attempted posting a
> serious exegesis of the passage. It's time for the opposition to put
> up or admit their faith and practice isn't based on God's will, as
> revealed in the Bible.
That's because instructions from the apostate Paul are not worth the paper
they are written on.
God's will and the writings of Paul have nothing to do with each other.
And between yourself, pasta Davey and Ben, who all have nothing better to
do, you all get your knickers in a knot about nothing.
You three really are a hoot.
Randy
Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:04:31 GMT,
in article <kelii25mdvegkqd64...@4ax.com>,
Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:54:36 -0500, Randy
><pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>>I haven't seen even one commentary that doesn't agree "due
>>benevolence" is refering to the conjugal duties in this case.
>
>Interesting that you should mention that. :)
>
>"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
>and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 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." - 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
>
>"The duty of cohabitation on the part of the married,
>due benevolence — The oldest manuscripts read simply,
>“her due”; that is, the conjugal cohabitation due by the
>marriage contract." - Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
>
>"Let not married persons fancy that there is any perfection in
>living with each other, as if they were unmarried. 'The debt'.
>This ancient reading seems far more natural than the common
>one." - Wesley
>
>"Marriage is not simply not wrong, but for many a duty.
>Both husband and wife have a mutual obligation to the other.
>This dictum defends marital intercourse against rigorists..."
>- Robertson's Word Pictures
>
>"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. ...he warns them, that they are in each other's
>power, with regard to the body, so that they may not defraud
>one another." - Geneva Study Notes
>
>"The Syriac version renders it, "due love"; and so the Arabic;
>and may include all the offices of love, tenderness, humanity,
>care, provision, and protection, which are to be performed by
>the husband to his wife; though it seems chiefly, if not
>solely, here to respect to Exo 21:10, "her marriage duty",
>as distinct from food and raiment to be allowed her; and
>what is meant by it the Jewish doctors will tell us: one says
>it is "the use of the marriage bed"; and, says another, "it is
>to lie with her", according to the way of all the earth. And
>so the phrase here, "due benevolence", is an euphemism,
>and designs the act of coition; which as it is an act of love
>and affection, a sign of mutual benevolence, so of justice;
>it is a due debt from divine ordination, and the matrimonial
>contract. The Jewish doctors have fixed and settled various
>canons concerning the performance, of this conjugal debt:
>and the apostle may not be altogether without some view
>to the rules and customs which obtained in his own nation."
>- John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
>
>Now let's look at Strong's, with this "euphemism" in mind...
>
>Eunoia - kindness; euphemistically conjugal duty.
>
>Note: Euphemistically, "conjugal duty". The subject of
>1 Corinthians 7:1-9 is "sex within marriage". Thus, it is
>this definition that is to be applied.
Ben Mitts
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:32:14 GMT,
> in article <452A7991...@sbcglobal.net>,
> Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well at least I received 2 persons opinion
>>on the Verses in disagreement!
>>
>>Thanks Dave!
>>
>>Now! Are there any more who wish to com-
>>ment my message?
>
>
> Good point. I have also called for this several times during the
> discussion, and no one but Dave or I has even attempted posting a
> serious exegesis of the passage. It's time for the opposition to put
> up or admit their faith and practice isn't based on God's will, as
> revealed in the Bible.
>
call for those who claim to know what Gods'
Word teaches make shambles out of every
thing you and he did/will do, totally skirt the
issue where you post Scripture to back you.
I bring to mind where many claimed Paul had
no authority on such matters because he said
he was only speaking as a way of concession
and not as commanded by God! I know you
both thoroughly understand that because is was
a Born Again Apostle to The Word of God he had
authority directly from God to speak on His be-
half (God/Jesus Christ) All one has to do to prove
this is get into Scripture and see for themselves
where he was given the same stature with the
rest of Christ's Apostles!
From all this I claim all Gods' Born Again Child-
ren have and are given the same authority from
on high to do the same work required of them
just as the Apostles did!
Now again what bothers me is why none of the
other so-called Christians, who claim to be Gods
Children, never stood along with you from the
beginning?! Only Dave! Could it be that as long
as there is no chance of having to stand up for
Jesus Christ and His Word they consider them-
selves safe? As long as they dont halve to come
against certain things and make a stand it, okay?!
I call this carnal Christiandom at its worst!
Basically they dont come out against any thing
that belittles God', Jesus Christ is they dont
halve to look like they favor one side or the ot-
her. Looks like if they dont make waves they
cant be accused of Christians in the true sense
of the word. They take this to mean that if they
did they wouldn't have any friends. They remind
me of fences sitters! Waiting to see who is going
to have power or which way the winds of argue-
ment are going to blow and in whose direction
they should lean too!
Reminds me of what we where tqaught in Isreal
when I was iver there! Our guide showed us where
the Beduoins were living and stipulated that where
they lived gives perfect evidence as to whether
Isreal or some Arab country controlled the region
For now I will keep watching ad see what happens
Randy
in article <452A7991...@sbcglobal.net>,
Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Well at least I received 2 persons opinion
>on the Verses in disagreement!
I think it's unlikely there will be many others who will take up this
challenge. When you have to actually allow yourself to see and think
about what the passage means, and keep your arguments based on what
the Bible actually says, it will automatically eliminate about 98% of
the arguments that have been thrown against us. I haven't seen even
one commentary, yet, that doesn't basically agree with what we
proposed.
Ben Mitts
I am in complete agreement! Well Spoken
Keep this in you library for future reference!
Giant Waffle
What some commentaries have to say on the following
verses...
so the phrase here, "due benevolence", IS AN EUPHEMISM,
and designs the act of coition; which as it is an act of love
and affection, a sign of mutual benevolence, so of justice;
it is a due debt from divine ordination, and the matrimonial
contract. The Jewish doctors have fixed and settled various
canons concerning the performance, of this conjugal debt:
and the apostle may not be altogether without some view
to the rules and customs which obtained in his own nation."
- John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Now let's look at Strong's, with this "EUPHEMISM" in mind...
Eunoia - kindness; euphemistically conjugal duty.
Note: Euphemistically, "conjugal duty". The subject of
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 is "sex within marriage". Thus, it is
this definition that is to be applied.
__
Ben Mitts
Actually Zadok, some very foolish
people decided they knew all about
Scripture, opened up their mouths
and proceeded to make insensitive
fools of themselves over something
they couldn't in a million years under
stand on their own! The various NG's
prove it! This fits you as well!
Ben Mitts
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:32:14 GMT,
> in article <452A7991...@sbcglobal.net>,
> Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well at least I received 2 persons opinion
>>on the Verses in disagreement!
>
>
> I think it's unlikely there will be many others who will take up this
> challenge. When you have to actually allow yourself to see and think
> about what the passage means, and keep your arguments based on what
> the Bible actually says, it will automatically eliminate about 98% of
> the arguments that have been thrown against us. I haven't seen even
> one commentary, yet, that doesn't basically agree with what we
> proposed.
>
Agreed! What bothers me is the many
Believer who voiced an opinion against
you two and The Scriptures have turned
away and dont want to be heard from
again! Many claimed they were "experts"
in Scripture the way the purported them
selves to be!
COME ON BELIEVERS, NOWS YOUR CHANCE!
Giant Waffle
<pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>The NIV says that because there is so much immorality,
The translators of the NIV, I believe, let their more liberal
leanings come through in this section. Note v4.
I do love what Clarke's Commentary had to say on v5...
"What ye owe thus to each other never refuse paying, unless
by mutual consent; and let that be only for a certain time,
when prudence dictates the temporary separation, or when
some extraordinary spiritual occasion may render it mutually
agreeable, in order that ye may fast and pray, and derive the
greatest possible benefit from these duties by being enabled
to wait on the Lord without distraction." Clarke's Commentary
>2) The fact that both parties have to get consent from
>the other to stop rendering due benevolence supports
>the interpretation it's talking about sex. You don't have
>to stop being kind, in general, to your spouse, just to pray.
>You do have to stop having sex if you want to devote
>yourself to prayer.
<LOL> This was my favorite part. :)
Here's what Gill had to say about your claims of one saying no
being a defrauding of the other...
"because they have a mutual power over each other's bodies,
and therefore the abstinence must be voluntary on each side;
otherwise injury is done to the person that does not consent,
who is deprived against will of just right; but if there is
agreement, then there is no defrauding, because each give up
their right; and such a voluntary abstinence is commended by
the Jews" - John Gill
>3) It says to "come together again" after the time during
>which you avoid, by mutual consent, "due benevolence"
>for the purpose of prayer. This shows that the due
>benevolence is one of "coming together", and supports
>the interpretation it is talking about sex, not just general
>kindness.
Herein, we can open an interesting subject. There is actually
more to it than has been stated. It actually, for some, had
involved more than just abstaining from sex with one's spouse,
but I felt it best not to give opportunity to some, to cloud
the issue.
But now that we are starting a thread based on proper exegesis
(actually, Ben did), I thought it appropriate to throw some
further light on the subject, since I have spent a lot of time
researching the peoples of the Scriptures. Here, we have a
people who were also influenced by eastern culture and some
wives had separate apartments (not for everyday use). And
so, in cases where they would go to devote themselves to
fasting and prayer, they would literally *GO* and devote
themselves to fasting and prayer. :) Thus, Paul is not only
arguing against the idea of sexual separation, but physical,
since what was probably beginning to happen, was spouses
were withholding sex and ended up living apart. After all,
if there's not going to be any sex, as some false teachers
were teaching to do, what's the point of living together,
right? And so, when Paul said that it would be a good idea
for those who had wives to live as though they had none,
he was speaking to those who were married *AND* were not
being consumed with lustful thoughts and who could, live apart
from their wives, as in that culture, some wives had their own
apartments anyway.
But this again is due to the "present distress". If a couple
was not distracted with lustful thoughts, then this would
be okay, so that their entire life was devoted to God and
this, only if both consent. But if they were distracted by
lustful thoughts, then they were to live together and Paul
strictly commanded that after this short period of devotion
apart, that they make sure to come together and even if
only one wanted sex, the other was not to deprive the other
and not to live apart, but as I said, could, with mutual
consent, take time apart to devote themselves to fasting
and prayer.
We must remember that a euphemism is a substitution of
a mild thought for a harsher, offensive one/way of saying it.
And we must remember that "due benevolence does mean
"conjugal duty", when used as a euphemism, as in this case.
But why pick that word? Well, for one thing, Paul did not
wish to come right out and say, "do the horizontal bop". :)
Well, remembering that he could have come right out and
say it, I believe that he was that he was safeguarding certain
ideas, by use of this specific euphemism and Paul was quite
the delicate writer when he wanted to be. :)
And I see the thought being safeguarded here, as not only
the idea that we are not to deprive our spouse of sex, but
keeping in mind what the main definition of "benevolence"
is "kindness", etc., that he was also saying that when we
defraud the other, that we will find that benevolence itself
in its main definition withers away as well.
I.e., Feelings of benevolence are alienated and the entire
marriage suffers. We must keep in mind that marriage
has coming with it, sex. Otherwise, what is the point of it?
You can live with a woman whom you love and so, have her
with you and if you're not going to have sex, then why marry?
Think about it. :)
With marriage, comes the marriage bed and it is meant to be
the most intimate form of the expression of love between a
husband and a wife. So intimate, that Paul also compared it
to Christ and the church being wed. Keep your history in
mind. There was no wedding ceremony. A legal contract
was drawn up, but it was sex that united them as husband
and wife. So if we take away this most intimate expression
of love between the husband and wife, what will happen to
the rest of their marriage? It will crumble, as marriages
without sex almost always do and the husband and wife
will find themselves alienated from each other and you
can be sure, it all started with a lack of bedroom activity.
So for those who claim that sex is optional and isn't to be
rendered as *DUE* *BENEVOLENCE*, then they take away
the most intimate form of expressing their love for each
other, which as I said, Paul compared to Christ and the
church!
Thus, as I said, I see Paul safeguarding more than just
sexual activity here and selecting the word "benevolence"
to express politely the support for conjugal duty to be done,
but also to express properly and forcefully to those who
do not wish to "be as though they had none", the fear that
they may lose their marriage and themselves altogether.
Just some thoughts. :)
>Since God gives your spouse power over your body,
>and not you, you are making a physical abuse of power
>against your spouse, when you rob them of "due"
>benevolence! That's not "love" for your spouse or God!
Amen!
>2) Why I believe this got out of control
>
>Because of the degree to which it was allowed to be argued
>on the basis of feelings, past offenses & biases, strong influence
>from the modern world and laws, and the goal of political
>empowerment, rather than a love of and submission to the
>truth of God's word (a.k.a. exegesis) as our authority.
Amen! And noting the "benevolence" issue I stated above,
we have to wonder what the marriages of those who claim
that saying no is just fine and who treat their husbands as
if they have to earn sex, are really like. (:
Good post, Randy! :)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Correct for these two and all other GOD-breathed translations. All
such translations show Paul asking (and not commanding) married
brethren couples to help each other from falling from GOD's grace into
sexual immorality. Paul advises that couples achieve this by relying on
GOD's authority concerning their marriage. GOD's authority is manifest
by both the authority given to the husband over his wife's body and the
authority given to the wife over her husband's body (1 Corinthians
7:4). This is reminiscent of the authority given the Son of Man over
HIS assembly.
The satan-view of authority over something is that one has power over
that something. Satan fell from heaven in a failed attempt to wrestle
power from GOD taking a third of the angels with him.
The Christ-view of authority over something is that one has the
responsibility of a servant for that something. Our LORD is the
servant-KING, Who came into the world to serve as the Redeemer for our
deadly sins.
Christ Jesus is all about loving and serving.
Satan is all about hating and dominating.
The truth, Who is the living Word of GOD, is a double-edged sword that
separates the wheat (brethren) from the chaff (non-brethren). The
division we have witnessed here on this issue of GOD's authority in
marriage is the work of the truth. Laus Deo !
> There is no difference at all in
> their meaning and intents!
Correct.
> Also this old Preacher be-
> lieves both Believer and non-believer alike can under
> stand their meaning!
So far we have seen two distinctly different views of these verses as
applied to the following simple question:
"Is spousal rape sin?"
Those who have the view that authority is power have written that
Scripture answers this question with "No."
Those who have the understanding that authority is loving
responsibility have written that Scripture answers this question with
"Yes."
And so the truth divides those of this doomed world, who walk in hate,
from those who have been reborn of living water and the Holy Spirit,
who walk in love.
> Why not try you hand at seeing whether you can pick
> out from these verses where the war started and the
> flamed out of control?
1 Corinthians 7:4
"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband
does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his
own body, but the wife does."
> I's easy to do!
It all started with man's original sin of coveting GOD's power, which
is HIS authority from the perspective of the fallen and unredeemed.
"...you will be like GOD..." -- satan tempting Eve to eat the forbidden
fruit
HIS brethren know that GOD's power resides in HIS love and not in HIS
authority (ie knowledge of good and evil).
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear brother
Ben whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
Mark T
>I recently post a message to Randy on the
> subject of 1 Cor
1 Cor 3: 23 "You are Christ's; and Christ is God's" [Note that Christ is not
God]
> KJV
A dreadful translation for contemporary people! We no longer speak in King
Jimmy English!!!
> I Cor 7:1-9
> 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
> good for a man not to touch a woman.
Paul views virgins (like himself) to be more spiritual than those who are
married. Marriage is a fall-back position. This is not a Jewish concept.
Mary the mother of Jesus is prized because she is a virgin but The Great
Mary (Mary Magdalene .. possibly the wife of Jesus of Nazareth) is demonised
to be a prostitute.
> 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication
... a fall-back position is given for those evil people who are not
spiritual and virgins ....
> let every man have his own wife
Though many OT people had more than one! Think about SOLOMON.
> 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
> likewise also the wife unto the husband.
"The husband should give his wife what she is entitled to in the marriage
relationship, and the wife should do the same for her husband." (CJB)
> 5 Defraud ye not one the other
"Do not deprive each other" (CJB)
> 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
"I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command." (CJB)
Quoting Paul is NOT quoting God.
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
> "Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
"Feed your God-given brain .... starve your fundamentalist ratbaggery!"
> From The Word of God
... which ain't the bible!
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
Mark T
> But Jesus himself says -
>
> Matthew 15: 3 - But he answered and said unto them, why do ye also
> trangress
> the commandment of God by your tradition?
>
> Then in verse 9 he adds, But in vain they do worship me, teaching for
> doctrines the commandments of men.
>
> Now the whole doctrine as taught from 1 Corinthians, is a doctrine from
> Saulus (Paul) the apostate.
Yep!
I Cor 7:6 "I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command." (CJB)
Quoting Paul is NOT quoting God.
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
> Who never met Jesus, never knew Jesus, and never studied with Jesus.
> Paul's only contact with Jesus was in his frigging dreams.
> That is why no true christian, would ever take the word of Saulus the
> apostate for anything. Because his is the doctrine of man!!
>
> Let's check Paul's apostolic succession one more time -
>
> Jesus - BIG GAP - Dream/vision/sunstroke induced hallucination - Ananais -
> Paul.
Exactly!
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Of The Dead)
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
Mark T
> Why cant you stay on track and keep with the program!
"Follow the progrom ... or else!" - Trew Kristyun Motto
> the subject only concerns Christian Men and Women and
> does not concern secular humanity in any manner!
Bullshit!
It concerns truth.
All truth is God's truth.
I Cor 7:6 "I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command." (CJB)
Quoting Paul is NOT quoting God.
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
Mark T
> "Ben Mitts" <> wrote in message
>
>> Cant you at least stay with the program *[Trew Kristyun progrom]
...
> Can you offer an opinion as to the relevance of Goldie Locks and the three
> frigging bears??
Ben Mitts can because he erroneously thinks that the errant man-made bible
is "God's word"!
Mark T
> Giant Waffle wrote:
You're replying to a waffle????!!!!!!!!!!
Mark T
> God's will and the writings of Paul have nothing to do with each other.
Amen!
> And between yourself, pasta Davey and Ben, who all have nothing better to
> do, you all get your knickers in a knot about nothing.
>
> You three really are a hoot.
The ACC Trew Kristyun Klown Act !!!!!
Quoting Paul is NOT quoting God.
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
--
Mark T
> some very foolish people decided they knew all about
> Scripture, opened up their mouths and proceeded to make insensitive
> fools of themselves
That's fundamentalist Trew Kristyuns for ya!
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
> claim to know what Gods' Word teaches
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
--
Mark T
> COME ON BELIEVERS, NOWS YOUR CHANCE!
The Charge of the Trew Kristyun Lite Brigade!
Onward in another Crusade / Inquisition!
Toot! Toot! Fart! Fart!
--
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Mark T
> 2) Why I believe this got out of control
Your pulpit caught on fire!
I'd piss on it ... buit it would be a waste of good urine.
> submission to the truth of God's word (a.k.a.exegesis) as our authority.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
All truth is God's truth.
Mark T
> Randy wrote:
...
> I am in complete agreement! Well Spoken
> Keep this in you library for future reference!
I'm keeping it on the back of my dunny door to wipe my arse on!
Mark T
Vic
news:452A6E03...@sbcglobal.net...
> I recently post a message to Randy on the
> bands and wives in regards to sex between
> each other in their marriages!
>
> I will start with the below paragraph to help
> you understand where I am coming from:
>
> "I am going to try an experiment to see if I can help
> this subject get back on track so it can be brought
> to a sane and sensible conclusion so we can all
> once again get back to business as usual. I'm go-
> ing to print a message which will give all concerned
> a chance see what it is they are arguing about and
> try to make moves to bring everybody back on to
> the same page!"
>
> From the KJV,
>
> 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
> good for a man not to touch a woman.
> own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
> likewise also the wife unto the husband.
> and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body
> but the wife.
> 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
> time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and
> come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incon-
> tinency.
> hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another
> after that.
> 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for
> them if they abide even as I.
> 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
> marry than to burn.
> The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
>
> Now once again the same Scripture but from The Nasb.
> If you dont like this translation use another and replace
> these verses with your own translation!
>
> 1 Cor 7:1-9
> for a man not to touch a woman.
> their meaning and intents! Also this old Preacher be-
> lieves both Believer and non-believer alike can under
> stand their meaning!
>
> out from these verses where the war started and the
> flamed out of control?
>
>
>
>
> Peace!
>
> Sincerely,
> Ben mitts
Hi Ben!
I will supply both Young's Literal Translation, and Revised Version
YLT:
1Cor 7:1 And concerning the things of which ye wrote to me: good it is for a
man not to touch a woman,
1Cor 7:2 and because of the whoredom let each man have his own wife, and let
each woman have her proper husband;
1Cor 7:3 to the wife let the husband the due benevolence render, and in like
manner also the wife to the husband;
1Cor 7:4 the wife over her own body hath not authority, but the husband;
and, in like manner also, the husband over his own body hath not authority,
but the wife.
1Cor 7:5 Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may
be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the
Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;
1Cor 7:6 and this I say by way of concurrence--not of command,
RV:
1Cor 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man
not to touch a woman.
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and
let each woman have her own husband.
1Cor 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the
wife unto the husband.
1Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and
likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.
1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season,
that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that
Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
1Cor 7:6 But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.
I would just like as an aid also to add Darby 1Cor 7:6
1Cor 7:6 But this I say, as consenting to, not as commanding it.
I don't believe that 1Cor 7:1 has been contentious:
1Cor 7:2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and
let each woman have her own husband.
RV "But, because of fornications" or KJV "Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication"
I believe that the RV gives us a clearer reading. It is fornications in the
plural, and is relating to what was going on at Corinth
Because of the fornications, harlotry, whoredom that is evident among you,
let every man have his *own* wife (not someone else's) and let every woman
have her *own* (or proper) husband (not someone else's)
Since Paul was responding to *things* (plural) I think he was answering to
one question in verse 2, and answering another question below
(RV) 1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also
the wife unto the husband.
Most translations that I know do not include the word 'benevolence'
Strong includes (euphemistically conjugal duty) 'euphemistically' being;
mildly, indirectly.
New American Standard(r) Updated Edition Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, does not include
*euphemistically conjugal duty* for 'benevolence' (eunoia)
From a cross reference of translations, I believe the correct interpretation
is similar to NASB:
The husband must fulfill his duty (of kindness or goodwill) to his wife, and
likewise also the wife to her husband.
Of course this duty includes sex, but not exclusively. Sex is not the only
duty to prevent the spouse leaving for another, or having a secret fling.
Sex can be plentiful within the marriage, but some can be tempted away for
many other reasons, like 'a newer model' or wealth or power. Someone may
treat your spouse with more kindness of respect and attention. They may be
having plenty of sex from you, but they are not being fulfilled, or if
virgins when married, they could be curious about another.
NASB:
1Cor 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband
does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own
body, but the wife does.
Again I believe that the NASB gives us a clearer understanding of this
verse:
"authority over" or "power over" seems the most common translation, instead
of the KJV that says 'power of'
Interestingly (NASB) gives 'authority' (1850) and 'over' (1850)
"The wife does not have *power, to control* her own body, but the husband
does," and vice versa. "The husband does not have *power, to control* his
own body, but the wife does,"
This 'power' or 'authority' (1850), appears in only three passages of
scripture (including this one)
Jesus relates this type of power (1850) to the kings of the Gentile, who
exercise this power for self benefit.
We are commanded by Jesus, not to exercise it as they do.
So the husband (who has power over his wife's body), does not excercise his
power to benefit himself, but his wife, and again vice versa.
1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season,
that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that
Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
Defraud or Deprive?
1Cor 7:5 *Defraud (650) ye not one the other
G650 ap-os-ter-eh'-o (to deprive); to despoil: - defraud, destitute, kept
back by fraud.
1Th 4:6 and that no man transgress and *defraud (G4122) his brother
G4122 pleh-on-ek-teh'-o (get an advantage, defraud, make a gain)
I believe it is deprive in the sense of meaning to withhold, rather then rob
for gain.
What are we not to deprive one another of?
Some claim sex exclusively, but I say it is our duties of goodwill.
Paul says in 1Cor 7: 33-34 'the husband how he may please [his] wife' and
'the wife how she may please [her] husband
lack of self-control v self-indulgence
**It is now 2am in UK, so I will cut short for now:
1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season,
that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that
Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency
Deprive ye not one the other (of your duties to please one another) except
it is by agreement for an occation, that you may devote yourselves to prayer
(and or fasting) and may be together again, that Satan test you not because
of your self-indulgence.
The KJV and YLT have "for fasting and prayer"
1Cor 7:6 But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.
Darby 1Cor 7:6
1Cor 7:6 But this I say, as consenting to, not as commanding it.
Some say this relates to marriage, but I think the Darby translation may
help to consider that it is related to the previous verse, in that Paul
reiterates that the break for prayer is by consent and not the commanding of
it.
I suspect that this will be pulled to bits, but it is late!
Zadok
"Ben Mitts" <> wrote in message
> > You three really are a hoot.
> >
> >
> Actually Zadok, some very foolish
> people decided they knew all about
> Scripture, opened up their mouths
> and proceeded to make insensitive
> fools of themselves over something
> they couldn't in a million years under
> stand on their own! The various NG's
> prove it! This fits you as well!
And you clown.
Anyone who follows the apostate Saulus us a fool.
And you fit that discription!!
Giant Waffle
you decided to say:
>The husband must fulfill his duty (of kindness or goodwill) to his wife, and
>likewise also the wife to her husband.
>
>Of course this duty includes sex, but not exclusively.
Even if it isn't, your statement says that sex is part of it.
And IMO, Paul clearly shows that it's about sex, when
he talks about the body.
>NASB:
>1Cor 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband
>does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own
>body, but the wife does.
>
>Again I believe that the NASB gives us a clearer understanding of this
>verse:
>"authority over" or "power over" seems the most common translation, instead
>of the KJV that says 'power of'
>Interestingly (NASB) gives 'authority' (1850) and 'over' (1850)
>"The wife does not have *power, to control* her own body, but the husband
>does," and vice versa. "The husband does not have *power, to control* his
>own body, but the wife does,"
>
>This 'power' or 'authority' (1850), appears in only three passages of
>scripture (including this one)
>Jesus relates this type of power (1850) to the kings of the Gentile, who
>exercise this power for self benefit.
>We are commanded by Jesus, not to exercise it as they do.
>
>So the husband (who has power over his wife's body), does not excercise his
>power to benefit himself, but his wife, and again vice versa.
Then it seems that you are basically saying that he has
no power. After all, if he's just listening to his wife say
no and his job is to say, "Okay", all the time, then there
is no authority over her body, nor vice versa.
Jesus never said not to exercise authority. You keep saying
this, but it's not true. One should not abuse power and that
is what Jesus spoke to. But exercising one's God given
authority, is not abuse. Exercising power is not a sin.
If it were, then Paul would not have said that each spouse
has the power over the others' body. He would have said
that they didn't and you are not accounting for this serious
problem in your doctrine.
If Paul meant to express, "Just do whatever your spouse feels
like with regard to sex, whether you agree or not", then he
wouldn't have brought the issue of authority over the others'
body up in the first place. And he certainly would NOT have
said that they are NOT to defraud each other.
Paul's language is the exact OPPOSITE of the ideas that you
propose. (:
>1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season,
>that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that
>Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
>
>Defraud or Deprive?
>
>1Cor 7:5 *Defraud (650) ye not one the other
>G650 ap-os-ter-eh'-o (to deprive); to despoil: - defraud, destitute, kept
>back by fraud.
>
>1Th 4:6 and that no man transgress and *defraud (G4122) his brother
>G4122 pleh-on-ek-teh'-o (get an advantage, defraud, make a gain)
>
>I believe it is deprive in the sense of meaning to withhold, rather then rob
>for gain.
>
>What are we not to deprive one another of?
>
>Some claim sex exclusively, but I say it is our duties of goodwill.
Even if you say it is sex in part, you are still saying that
one is not to withhold sex from the other. And v5 comes
right after v4 and so, this context cannot be simply forgotten
from one verse to the next. Each spouse has authority over
the *BODY* of the other and that sets the context as sex.
Then v5 says not to defraud each other. Defraud each other
of what? What did the sentence just before it say? SEX! :)
We cannot read the next verse and suddenly get amnesia
of what we just read! :)
>Paul says in 1Cor 7: 33-34 'the husband how he may please
>[his] wife' and 'the wife how she may please [her] husband
No, that's not true at all! You just took it completely out
of context! You take what is about the body and try to
claim it's not about the body and then take what is not
about the body and try to make it about the body. (:
What Paul was saying there, is that the married man is
concerned about how he can please his wife.
In other words, Paul is discussing getting married versus
not getting married and devoting your life to the Lord.
Let us read it in context...
"But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried
cares for the things of the Lord; how he may please the
Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of
the world—how he may please his wife." - 1 Cor 7:32-33
>lack of self-control v self-indulgence
>
>**It is now 2am in UK, so I will cut short for now:
>
>1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season,
>that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that
>Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency
>
>Deprive ye not one the other (of your duties to please one another) except
>it is by agreement for an occation, that you may devote yourselves to prayer
>(and or fasting) and may be together again, that Satan test you not because
>of your self-indulgence.
>
>The KJV and YLT have "for fasting and prayer"
>
>1Cor 7:6 But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.
>
>Darby 1Cor 7:6
>1Cor 7:6 But this I say, as consenting to, not as commanding it.
>
>Some say this relates to marriage, but I think the Darby translation may
>help to consider that it is related to the previous verse, in that Paul
>reiterates that the break for prayer is by consent and not the commanding of
>it.
>
>I suspect that this will be pulled to bits, but it is late!
Of course v5 relates to marriage. It is in the section about
sex in marriage.
No offense, but it seems to me that you have a habit of
lifting verses right out of their context and trying to make
them say the opposite, by taking verses from somewhere
else in the Bible, that have nothing to do with the subject
at hand and trying to apply them there.
Furthermore, you try to imply that exercising a God given
authority over the body of the spouse, is the same thing
as Jesus' warning against how the Gentile kings abused
their power, just because the same word is used, which
translates to "power", or "authority". I'm sorry, but this
seems to me, ridiculous and an attempt to try to work
around the clear teaching on 1 Cor 7:1-9, keeping it in
it's context and I believe that this is why Randy and I
have taken issue with you. That, combined with the fact
that you openly recognize the God given authority and
that neither is to deny the other and then proceed to
go on, attempting to make it somehow mean the opposite
("Jesus said not to use authority", etc., when He never said
that), immediately after admitting to what it means. (:
Ben Mitts
Thank you very much Vic! I see that your
only the 3 person who was willing to ex-
plain 1 Cor 7:1-9. It is well appreciated
that you did! One question I have for you
is: Do you now see better why the flame
war go so rough and out of control?
Would you care to take a stab at answer-
ing this question? Pleas do not worry if
you choose not to because it is not a part
of my original challenge!
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
That would depend on which verses of the Bible you are citing.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
oldwetdog
If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
troubled, dysfunctional, relationship -- and having the authority and
power to use force to gratify your lust for sex is not going to give you
the marital relationship intended by God....
oldwetdog
> the wife to her husband.
> husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have
> authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Ben, I noted your post and spent some time thinking about it.
Rather than reply in this thread, which has already become long, I posted
SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
owd
oldwetdog
Vic, many of your thoughts are agreeable to me...
I posted SPOUSAL RAPE :: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
http://tinyurl.com/qdtqy
Perhaps you would care to compare thoughts?
owd
Archie Leach
>Mark T wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>>
>> > GOD-breathed translations
>>
>> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
>That would depend on which verses of the Bible you are citing.
>
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
>love unconditionally.
>
Do you ever post anything besides medical-related stuff and Christian
proselytizing (which is what you're doing whether you admit it or
not)?
It makes you seem like a rather colorless and humorless individual.
Randy
in article <u42mi256sq19560h2...@4ax.com>,
Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes. Good reply.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Randy
in article <12im754...@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>troubled, dysfunctional, relationship -- and having the authority and
>power to use force to gratify your lust for sex is not going to give you
>the marital relationship intended by God....
Well...seems Owd still has no exegesis to contribute.
Randy
in article <12im822...@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I read your link, and am going to leave you in your error.
oldwetdog
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700,
> in article <12im754...@corp.supernews.com>,
> oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>> troubled, dysfunctional, relationship -- and having the authority and
>> power to use force to gratify your lust for sex is not going to give you
>> the marital relationship intended by God....
>
> Well...seems Owd still has no exegesis to contribute.
>
I always smile when Randy uses the word "exegesis" because it means he
has nothing
:-)
oldwetdog
Sure, sure....
Roofshadow
Archie Leach <arrrr...@arrrrrrrr.pirates> wrote:
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark T wrote:
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > GOD-breathed translations
> >>
> >> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
> >
> >That would depend on which verses of the Bible you are citing.
> >
> >May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
> >love unconditionally.
> >
>
> Do you ever post anything besides medical-related stuff and Christian
> proselytizing (which is what you're doing whether you admit it or
> not)?
>
> It makes you seem like a rather colorless and humorless individual.
Please tell me this guy isn't a real doctor.
Please!
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> >Mark T wrote:
> >>
> >> > GOD-breathed translations
> >>
> >> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
> >
> >That would depend on which verses of the Bible you are citing.
> >
> >May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
> >love unconditionally.
>
> Do you ever post anything besides medical-related stuff and Christian
> proselytizing (which is what you're doing whether you admit it or
> not)?
Yes.
> It makes you seem like a rather colorless and humorless individual.
Sorry my posts bore you. Please forgive all my iniquities.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
Randy
in article
<Roofshadow2004-D7D...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Roofshadow <Roofsha...@spamtrap.yahoo.com> wrote:
Nope, sorry, your nightmare is true.
Giant Waffle
<g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
I did not say that was the case in my marriage. It was
a response to what the poster said, but you knew that.
And Glenn, i would not talk about "troubled, dysfunctional
relationships", if I were you.
>-- and having the authority and
>power to use force to gratify your lust for sex is not going to give you
>the marital relationship intended by God....
I did not say one word about using physical force.
That is a straw man of your own invention, but
you knew that.
The bottom line is, you were unable to argue a single point
that i made and so, instead of just leaving it alone, you
decided that you had to manipulate my words into something
sick and also to try to make that a commentary on my
marriage, implying that my wife is always saying no and
that I am physically forcing her to have sex, when I said
no such thing and have repeatedly stated the opposite,
in thread after thread, as you well know.
So once again, you are a false accuser. Please see Ex 20:16.
This thread is supposed to be about discussing 1 Cor 7:1-9.
You are trying to turn yet another thread, into a disgusting
bashing session, based on your imagined up words and
events, which not only do not reflect reality, but actually
reflect the exact opposite of the reality that YOU KNOW
to be true, which is that I have never advocated the use
of physical force to have sex in marriage, nor have I ever
said that I have done so with my wife.
Now unless you wish to converse like an adult and stay on
the subject of the Scriptures, while leaving the worldly
view and your bashing behind, I see no reason to continue
on, with your word manipulation games. No matter how
many times I knock down your straw man, you wish to
prop it back up and pretend that it has been standing the
whole time and you do this, knowing in your heart, that
it's a straw man. But you prefer the friendship of people
who do not actively serve the Lord, over the fellowship
of Christ Himself. And that is your choice. But it is not
mine. And I hope you will change your mind.
Giant Waffle
<pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>Yes. Good reply.
Why thank you, kind sir. :)
Daedalus
<lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>>
>> My comment on these Verses is that both translations
>> say the same thing.
>
>Correct for these two and all other GOD-breathed translations. All
>such translations show Paul asking (and not commanding) married
>brethren couples to help each other from falling from GOD's grace into
>sexual immorality. Paul advises that couples achieve this by relying on
>GOD's authority concerning their marriage. GOD's authority is manifest
>by both the authority given to the husband over his wife's body and the
>authority given to the wife over her husband's body (1 Corinthians
>7:4). This is reminiscent of the authority given the Son of Man over
>HIS assembly.
God made porn a helpful antidote to sexual crimes.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Porn_up_rape_down_0922.html
Academic claims rape cases down because porn use up
Christian Avard
Published: Friday September 22, 2006
An academic has claimed to
<http://rawstory.com>RAW STORY that a decline in
reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be
tied to an increase in pornography consumption.
In a study for Northwestern University's Public
Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series titled
"<http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf>Porn
Up Rape Down," Anthony D'Amato, a Leighton
Professor of Law at Northwestern University,
argues that the proliferation of pornography has
lead to a sharp decline in rape across the United States.
According to a 2005
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm>National
Crime Victimization Survey, the national rate of
rape decreased from 2.5 to 0.5 for every thousand
people over a 30-year span from 1973 to 2003. The
explanations offered include less lawlessness
associated with crack cocaine, women being taught
to avoid unsafe situations, that more potential
rapists are already in prison for other crimes,
and sex education classes telling boys that "no means no."
But in an interview with <http://rawstory.com>RAW
STORY, D'Amato argues that these are minor
factors and do not explain the decline in rape.
"Suppose you distribute free condoms to a
country, and you find, five years later, that the
birth rate has gone down 85%. Would you say that
it's just a cosmic coincidence or would you say
that the distribution of condoms caused the drop
in the rate of birth? The reasoning is the same
for my position on rape: the causation factor is
reasonably inferred, " said D'Amato.
Randy
in article <e3cni2552a8ic7l19...@4ax.com>,
Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
><g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
Yeah...It may be he's just jealous because he's the one with a
troubled, dysfunctional life, who isn't getting any "due" benevolence,
and so is trying to manufacture some company for himself. Don't give
him the satisfaction of seeing you share his troubled frame of mind,
or of turning this thread into another troublefest.
Jude Alexander
"Mark T" <wh@thefeck0932756495869132438696986598> wrote in message
news:452a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>
>> But Jesus himself says -
>>
>> Matthew 15: 3 - But he answered and said unto them, why do ye also
>> trangress
>> the commandment of God by your tradition?
>>
>> Then in verse 9 he adds, But in vain they do worship me, teaching for
>> doctrines the commandments of men.
>>
>> Now the whole doctrine as taught from 1 Corinthians, is a doctrine from
>> Saulus (Paul) the apostate.
Saulus (PaulO) created a religion from the basis of temporal lobe epilepsy
just like Mohammed!
oldwetdog
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>
>
>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>> troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
>
> I did not say that was the case in my marriage.
Of course you did not say it was YOUR marriage...but you knew I knew
that :-)
You fail to note that when you said "your marriage" you did not say
"Vic's marriage" so it is obvious that you (Dave) are using "you" and
"your" in the third person....
Since you (Dave) are using "you" in the third person, then why would you
(Dave) think that when I use "you" I am NOT using it in the same tense?
Why? Red Herring.
But that is ok, we know you need red herrings and straw men because you
are caught advocating a doctrine you cannot support with Truth. :-(
> It was
> a response to what the poster said, but you knew that.
>
Yes, we know that you hear a lot of men, perhaps thousands of men, who
are complaining that they are always listening to their wife say "No,"
and that YOU (Dave) advise them that the way to correct that sad
situation is to claim the "right" given by force-of-law or commandment.
Why would a man ask his wife's consent if she has no option to give or
withhold her consent?
Randy
in article <12injk4...@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why would a man ask his wife's consent if she has no option to give or
>withhold her consent?
"Consent", in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, is to pray and fast, not to get
"due" benevolence. The premise is not that we have a right to take
sex by force, but that we have a duty to render "due" benevolence, as
God enables us.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Roofshadow <Roofsha...@spamtrap.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Archie Leach <arrrr...@arrrrrrrr.pirates> wrote:
> >> >Mark T wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > GOD-breathed translations
> >> >>
> >> >> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
> >> >
> >> >That would depend on which verses of the Bible you are citing.
> >> >
> >> >May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
> >> >love unconditionally.
> >>
> >> Do you ever post anything besides medical-related stuff and Christian
> >> proselytizing (which is what you're doing whether you admit it or
> >> not)?
> >>
> >> It makes you seem like a rather colorless and humorless individual.
> >
> >Please tell me this guy isn't a real doctor.
> >
> >Please!
>
> Nope, sorry, your nightmare is true.
The light from a heart filled with GOD's love is indeed both true and a
nightmare for creatures of darkness such as yourself and Roofshadow.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to repent,
dear neighbor Randy whom I love unconditionally.
Giant Waffle
<pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:45:54 GMT,
> in article <e3cni2552a8ic7l19...@4ax.com>,
> Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>><g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>
>Yeah...It may be he's just jealous because he's the one with a
>troubled, dysfunctional life, who isn't getting any "due" benevolence,
>and so is trying to manufacture some company for himself. Don't give
>him the satisfaction of seeing you share his troubled frame of mind,
>or of turning this thread into another troublefest.
Amen and I hope through my message, that you and Ben
both saw that I wasn't planning on it.
Giant Waffle
<g.aed...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>Giant Waffle wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>
>>
>>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>>> troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
>>
>> I did not say that was the case in my marriage.
>
>
>Of course you did not say it was YOUR marriage...but you knew I knew
>that :-)
And yet, you accused me of raping my wife. Thank you
for admitting that you're a liar and a false accuser.
<snip the rest of Glenn's lies and false accusations>
Ben Mitts
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:03:15 -0500, Randy
> <pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>
>
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:45:54 GMT,
>>in article <e3cni2552a8ic7l19...@4ax.com>,
>>Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>>><g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>
>>Yeah...It may be he's just jealous because he's the one with a
>>troubled, dysfunctional life, who isn't getting any "due" benevolence,
>>and so is trying to manufacture some company for himself. Don't give
>>him the satisfaction of seeing you share his troubled frame of mind,
>>or of turning this thread into another troublefest.
>
>
> Amen and I hope through my message, that you and Ben
> both saw that I wasn't planning on it.
>
> __
>
> Giant Waffle
I was watching, well done.
You and Randy are keeping
this subject on track, again
well done to you both!
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."
Similarly, God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him should not
perish, but Have eternal life. Another: God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world should be saved through Him. He spoke elsewhere:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and
believes in Me shall never die. Believe you this?
Therefore we may, as many will to do so: "But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become child-
ren of God, even to those who believe in His name,"
(John 1:12)
Randy
in article <47mni2hlgb0732dnk...@4ax.com>,
Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:03:15 -0500, Randy
><pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:45:54 GMT,
>> in article <e3cni2552a8ic7l19...@4ax.com>,
>> Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>>><g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>
>>Yeah...It may be he's just jealous because he's the one with a
>>troubled, dysfunctional life, who isn't getting any "due" benevolence,
>>and so is trying to manufacture some company for himself. Don't give
>>him the satisfaction of seeing you share his troubled frame of mind,
>>or of turning this thread into another troublefest.
>
>Amen and I hope through my message, that you and Ben
>both saw that I wasn't planning on it.
Yep.
Vic
> Vic wrote:
>
> > "Ben Mitts" <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:452A6E03...@sbcglobal.net...
> >
> Thank you very much Vic! I see that your
> only the 3 person who was willing to ex-
> plain 1 Cor 7:1-9. It is well appreciated
> that you did! One question I have for you
> is: Do you now see better why the flame
> war go so rough and out of control?
>
> Would you care to take a stab at answer-
> ing this question? Pleas do not worry if
> you choose not to because it is not a part
> of my original challenge!
Hi again Ben!
Yes!
1 Cor 7:1-9 is a follow on from another discussion were, Dave and Randy went
on a women bashing frenzy.
TTBOMK it started with: women should dress moderately, or they were to share
some responsibility if they got raped. Insults were then inflicted against
those women who had spoke of there own experiences.
Dave (supported by Randy) then went all out and started calling women, men
manipulators, 'feminnazis'(sp) (or some such words). Randy then went and
gave warnings (below)
Quote from Randy:
To all the women reading this discussion, I'd just like to point out
here, that women will not be safer from rape, by thinking they're
entitled to dress and act how they want, without sharing any
responsibility for the consequence.
To all the married women, I'd just like to point out that trying to
insist on your "right" to say "no", won't help keep your husband from
yielding to immoralities in society, Satan, and his own lack of self
control, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 says "due" benevolence will, nor will
it promote unity in your family, or a healthier relationship between
you and your husband.
You've been warned.
------------------------------------------
The discussion then went on to the possibility of spousal rape.
Now Ben, if I am correct, I think that you (like me) are sufficiently mature
enough in years, to know that it is not always about what you say (or
write), but how you say (or write) it.
The Law is good, but :
2Cor 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the
letter but of the Spirit; *for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.*
1Cor 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the
law.
oldwetdog
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:46:58 -0700,
> in article <12injk4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would a man ask his wife's consent if she has no option to give or
>> withhold her consent?
>
> "Consent", in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, is to pray and fast,
Exactly...
owd:
If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
Randy:
>
> Yes,
By claiming you have the God-given right, by claiming there is no rape
in marriage, you are excusing, endorsing, advocating and promoting
spousal rape.
EOD
oldwetdog
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:46:58 -0700, oldwetdog
> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>
>
>> Giant Waffle wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>>> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>>>> troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
>>> I did not say that was the case in my marriage.
>>
>> Of course you did not say it was YOUR marriage...but you knew I knew
>> that :-)
>
> And yet,
And yet, why clip my reply, Dave?
Since you clipped it, here it is again.
owd:
>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
>
Dave:
> I did not say that was the case in my marriage.
owd:
Of course you did not say it was YOUR marriage...but you knew I knew
that ;-)
You fail to note that when you said "your marriage" you did not say
"Vic's marriage" so it is obvious that you (Dave) are using "you" and
"your" in the third person....
Since you (Dave) are using "you" in the third person, then why would you
(Dave) think that when I use "you" I am NOT using it in the same tense?
Why? Red Herring.
But that is ok, we know you need red herrings and straw men because you
are caught advocating a doctrine you cannot support with Truth. :-(
Dave:
> It was
> a response to what the poster said, but you knew that.
>
owd:
Yes, we know that you hear a lot of men, perhaps thousands of men, who
are complaining that they are always listening to their wife say "No,"
and that YOU (Dave) advise them that the way to correct that sad
situation is to claim the "right" given by force-of-law or commandment.
Why would a man ask his wife's consent if she has no option to give or
withhold her consent?
end repost
----------
According to Dave, his wife has no right to give consent -- and he has
no need to ask her.
By claiming you (Dave) have the God-given "Right," by claiming there is
no rape in marriage, and that your wife has no right to give or withhold
consent and you have no need to ask her for her consent, you (Dave)
excuse, endorse, advocate and promote spousal rape.
EOD
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Ben wrote:
> > Vic wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
>
> > Thank you very much Vic! I see that your
> > only the 3 person who was willing to ex-
> > plain 1 Cor 7:1-9.
Actually, the order and number of responders up to this thanks from Ben
are as follows:
(1) Zadok - dismissed the verses altogether because of distrust held
for Paul.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/c0afba4615b7a121?
(2) Giant Waffle (Dave) - rehash of his past misinterpretation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/5a949fca7dda3d4e?
(3) Randy (Pulpitfire) - rehash of his past misinterpretation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/1307fe7c81995f6c?
(4) Andrew - described an understanding of authority versus power.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/7be06ade23517d10?
(5) Mark T - essentially dismissed the verses altogether because of
distrust of both Paul and the Bible.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/e731b480e0c0d728?
(6) Vic - also described an understanding of authority versus power.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/121220b08c5ed60a?
The many who have been injured by Randy and Dave are noticeably absent.
May GOD heal them with HIS living water, in Jesus' most precious and
holy name.
Amen.
It would be wise if all choose to ignore Randy and Dave, henceforth.
They belong to satan... so let satan deal with them until they repent.
May GOD keep their hearts beating to give them the time they need to
understand the need for repentance, in Jesus' most praiseworthy and
holy name.
Amen.
> > It is well appreciated
> > that you did!
In truth, you are the 6th and not the 3rd person to offer an
explanation of the meaning in the verses of interest. See above. Not
sure how Ben counted only 3. This (and his ignoring Glenn) reveals to
me that Ben is not here to either promote healing or peace but to
inflict harm and sow discord. It is likely that if our injured sisters
were here to participate that Ben would hurt them all over again by not
counting them (Grace, Diana, Sioux, Feather, Sensi... please find it
in your heart to forgive them and pray for their lost souls... that
they will repent and turn from satan back to Christ Jesus).
> > One question I have for you
> > is: Do you now see better why the flame
> > war go so rough and out of control?
> >
> > Would you care to take a stab at answer-
> > ing this question? Pleas do not worry if
> > you choose not to because it is not a part
> > of my original challenge!
>
> Hi again Ben!
>
> Yes!
> 1 Cor 7:1-9 is a follow on from another discussion were, Dave and Randy went
> on a women bashing frenzy.
Yes. I witnessed this too.
> TTBOMK it started with: women should dress moderately, or they were to share
> some responsibility if they got raped. Insults were then inflicted against
> those women who had spoke of there own experiences.
> Dave (supported by Randy) then went all out and started calling women, men
> manipulators, 'feminnazis'(sp) (or some such words). Randy then went and
> gave warnings (below)
>
> Quote from Randy:
> To all the women reading this discussion, I'd just like to point out
> here, that women will not be safer from rape, by thinking they're
> entitled to dress and act how they want, without sharing any
> responsibility for the consequence.
>
> To all the married women, I'd just like to point out that trying to
> insist on your "right" to say "no", won't help keep your husband from
> yielding to immoralities in society, Satan, and his own lack of self
> control, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 says "due" benevolence will, nor will
> it promote unity in your family, or a healthier relationship between
> you and your husband.
>
> You've been warned.
> ------------------------------------------
> The discussion then went on to the possibility of spousal rape.
>
> Now Ben, if I am correct, I think that you (like me) are sufficiently mature
> enough in years, to know that it is not always about what you say (or
> write), but how you say (or write) it.
How we write reveals whether GOD's love is in our hearts.
> The Law is good, but :
> 2Cor 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the
> letter but of the Spirit; *for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.*
>
> 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the
> law.
Agree.
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear brother
Vic whom I love unconditionally.
Vic
news:1160516752.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Brother Andrew!
You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
May you always abide in Him, and He in you.
"May GOD continue to heal our hearts"
Not a patching up with new cloth, on an old garment, nor a putting new wine
into old wineskins
"but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."
For when we are weak, then we are strong!!
Ben Mitts
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:31:46 GMT,
> in article <47mni2hlgb0732dnk...@4ax.com>,
> Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:03:15 -0500, Randy
>><pulpi...@gmail.com> you decided to say:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:45:54 GMT,
>>>in article <e3cni2552a8ic7l19...@4ax.com>,
>>>Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>>>><g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>>
>>>Yeah...It may be he's just jealous because he's the one with a
>>>troubled, dysfunctional life, who isn't getting any "due" benevolence,
>>>and so is trying to manufacture some company for himself. Don't give
>>>him the satisfaction of seeing you share his troubled frame of mind,
>>>or of turning this thread into another troublefest.
>>
>>Amen and I hope through my message, that you and Ben
>>both saw that I wasn't planning on it.
>
>
>
> Yep.
>
I see OWD shied away from the original thread
I set up in hopes of keeping everyone together,
Figures. This is what he did when all the ladies
were fighting his battles. I see one or two have
entered the fray once again to make fools of
themselves! So we will have to see when the
going gets rough for OWD will they stay
Why is it they still want to intercede with sec-
ular worldly rape! Cant make a state for Gods
Word I guess
Ben Mitts
I thank you for thinking of me but I would
remind you that I have been in on these
many posts from day one! As usual you
take the side you believe is right so you
think David and Randy a rapists! But some
how, you as well as others always held
they believe, condone, and support rape of
all kinds. OWD got into the mix with his
brand of evil and destroyed the women a
involved by disrupting their thinking! And
no matter how much David and Randy tried
no one wanted to believe them! And now
you have joined their shark feeding frenzy!
Randy and David wanted to keep it all with
in Scripture but you, as well as the others
tried what ever way you could to keep it
secular so you dont have to deal with Gods
Word! You come along and start posting
verses just like you think you are totally
experienced with this subject and then take
it upon yourself to tell me whats going on!
Are you attempting to swing me over to your
side?
The Verses of Scripture involved in the dis-
cussions out here involve Pauls answer to a
question put forth to him! If one wants to
accept Biblical understanding properly it is
plain and simple he was speaking to sex in
a Christian marriage (this is what Dave and
Randy were doing also}. If you dont like this
then you need to visit other translations to
see how they render 1 Cor 7:1-9- the Verses
in question! One of them actually use "deprive"
instead of "due benevolence?
A real eye opener!
Mark T
> Cant make a state for Gods Word I guess
Thank God! No-one except rabid fundamentalists want a rabid fundamentalist
state!
Fundamentalist Christians - our own Taliban!
> "Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Of The Dead)
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
Mark T
> Now Ben, if I am correct, I think that you (like me) are sufficiently
> mature
> enough in years
Senile?
That figures!
Mark T
> Brother Andrew!
> You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
If he's a blessing then I'd hate to see a curse!
Mark T
> OWD got into the mix with his brand of evil
QUE????
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
> Randy and David wanted to keep it all with in Scripture
... and not use their God-given minds like normal people.
> Gods Word
... ISN'T the man-made errant bible.
Quoting the bible is NOT the same as quoting God.
> "Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
Stephen Knight
<lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>The light from a heart filled with GOD's love is indeed both true and a
>nightmare for creatures of darkness such as yourself and Roofshadow.
Barf....
Oh... Is that Mary in my Rainbow Yawn?...
Sorry. It happens every time I see intellectual suicide caused by
superstitious programming.
Smarmy know it all, pious better than all types, are totally
annoying.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Vic
Oh now I see!
You wanted to start your own flame war.
Since you have been here since day one, I assume you are suggesting that you
have read all.
That being the case, you would be deliberatly making a false accusation. You
would have read were I cleary answered the question asked by Randy and Dave.
I clearly said that I did not agree or accuse them of rape.
> But some how, you as well as others always held
> they believe, condone, and support rape of
> all kinds.
Why are you lying?
>OWD got into the mix with his
> brand of evil and destroyed the women a
> involved by disrupting their thinking! And
> no matter how much David and Randy tried
> no one wanted to believe them! And now
> you have joined their shark feeding frenzy!
You again lie
Ask Dave and Randy if I supported the claims made against them
> Randy and David wanted to keep it all with
> in Scripture but you, as well as the others
> tried what ever way you could to keep it
> secular so you dont have to deal with Gods
> Word! You come along and start posting
> verses just like you think you are totally
> experienced with this subject and then take
> it upon yourself to tell me whats going on!
> Are you attempting to swing me over to your
> side?
Have you been on the ale?
You asked me my views doughnut.
> The Verses of Scripture involved in the dis-
> cussions out here involve Pauls answer to a
> question put forth to him! If one wants to
> accept Biblical understanding properly it is
> plain and simple he was speaking to sex in
> a Christian marriage (this is what Dave and
> Randy were doing also}. If you dont like this
> then you need to visit other translations to
> see how they render 1 Cor 7:1-9- the Verses
> in question! One of them actually use "deprive"
> instead of "due benevolence?
>
> A real eye opener!
Yeah sure Ben,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
GOD's strength is made perfect in our weakness.
Remember that as brethren of Christ, we do not take sides but we do
stand at HIS side giving freely of ourselves to HIM as living
sacrifices, made to worship HIM 24/7/365 forever and ever.
HIS side is the right side.
"Cast your net over the right side ... " -- LORD Jesus Christ
Amen !
Laus Deo ! !
Marana tha ! ! !
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Vic" <som...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Brother Andrew!
> > You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
>
> If he's a blessing then I'd hate to see a curse!
Such is the heart filled with hate.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to
understand this, dear neighbor Mark whom I love uncondionally.
Jude Alexander
> Mark T wrote:
>> "Vic" <som...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Brother Andrew!
>> > You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
>>
>> If he's a blessing then I'd hate to see a curse!
>
> Such is the heart filled with hate.
You don't get Mark. Mark isn't a hater. He's a joker.
Jude Alexander
"Mark T" <th@tdontwork09327564958695263657876598> wrote in message
news:452c5a65$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ben Mitts" <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Cant make a state for Gods Word I guess
>
> Thank God! No-one except rabid fundamentalists want a rabid
> fundamentalist state!
>
>
> Fundamentalist Christians - our own Taliban!
lol.... Talibanito!! Little Taliban.
Giant Waffle
you spake thusly:
>Oh now I see!
>You wanted to start your own flame war.
He was not seeking to take your job. :)
>I clearly said that I did not agree or accuse them of rape.
It is hard to tell that from your words.
>Why are you lying?
I have not known Ben to lie.
--
Giant Waffle
My heart rejoices in the Lord; My horn is exalted in the Lord.
I smile at my enemies, because I rejoice in Your salvation.
- 1 Samuel 2:1
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> > Mark T wrote:
> >> "Vic" <som...@home.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Brother Andrew!
> >> > You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
> >>
> >> If he's a blessing then I'd hate to see a curse!
> >
> > Such is the heart filled with hate.
>
> You don't get Mark. Mark isn't a hater. He's a joker.
It remains my choice to refrain from judging others per the kind and
loving suggestion of LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:1-2).
Instead, Mark remains in my prayers, in Jesus' most precious and holy
name.
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear Jude
whom I love unconditionally.
Giant Waffle
<benm...@sbcglobal.net> you spake thusly:
>I see OWD shied away from the original thread
>I set up in hopes of keeping everyone together,
>Figures. This is what he did when all the ladies
>were fighting his battles. I see one or two have
>entered the fray once again to make fools of
>themselves! So we will have to see when the
>going gets rough for OWD will they stay
>
>Why is it they still want to intercede with sec-
>ular worldly rape! Cant make a state for Gods
>Word I guess
Ben, I am glad that we were able to come together
on something, after all of the disagreement.
Randy
in article <12inv4n...@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) Here's the part of my response Owd keeps trying to separate from
the word "Yes".
(see: da26i2l34ksar6klm...@pulpitfire.org)
Randy:
>Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
>forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
>one sinning (defrauding), not me, but I would not force it either.
See how Owd tries to make it look like I'm agreeing with rape, while
he separates the part where I say I do not endorse forced sex, then
publishes I agree with forced sex (which is his definition of the word
"rape")?
2) Notice how Owd pretends your spouse doesn't have a right to have
"due" benevolence (sex), unless you agree to render it? Further, he
has the audacity to imply that if your spouse even claims to have a
right to "due" benevolence, when you don't agree render it, then that
means your spouse is endorsing and promoting "rape"!
Now, what does 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 say about this? It says if you
refuse to render "due" benevolence, you are guilty of "defrauding"
your spouse. That means you are robbing them of that is "due". You
can't be guilty of robbing your spouse of something that is "due", if
it isn't still "due"! Thus, your spouse has a right to "due"
benevolence, even if you don't want to render it! Otherwise, it
wouldn't be called "due" benevolence, and you wouldn't be guilty of
defrauding them, if you refused to render it!
But what does Owd claim? He claims that if your spouse even claims
the right to "due" benevolence, when you don't agree to render it,
then your spouse is endorsing rape, and it can't be any other way! See
his twisted lie?!
Randy
in article <12io022...@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Giant Waffle wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:46:58 -0700, oldwetdog
>> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>> Giant Waffle wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>>>> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>>>>> troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
>>>> I did not say that was the case in my marriage.
>>>
>>> Of course you did not say it was YOUR marriage...but you knew I knew
>>> that :-)
>>
>> And yet,
>
>And yet, why clip my reply, Dave?
Self evident, self contained, self condemning hypocrisy. You cut his
response, then charge him with cutting yours.
Randy
in article <DtqdnccPn6V...@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <som...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ben Mitts" <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:452B0F35...@sbcglobal.net...
>> Vic wrote:
>>
>> > "Ben Mitts" <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > news:452A6E03...@sbcglobal.net...
>> >
><snip>
>
>> Thank you very much Vic! I see that your
>> only the 3 person who was willing to ex-
>> plain 1 Cor 7:1-9. It is well appreciated
>> that you did! One question I have for you
>> is: Do you now see better why the flame
>> war go so rough and out of control?
>>
>> Would you care to take a stab at answer-
>> ing this question? Pleas do not worry if
>> you choose not to because it is not a part
>> of my original challenge!
>
>Hi again Ben!
>
>Yes!
>1 Cor 7:1-9 is a follow on from another discussion were, Dave and Randy went
>on a women bashing frenzy.
And this has been the constant response of those who oppose us. You
do nothing but play the savior of your own manufactured victims,
against your own manufactured offenses. Post the quote where I am
bashing women.
In reality, you've been bashing people who claim nothing more than
that your spouse has a right to "due" benevolence, implying they are
rapists who don't love their wives. On the contrary, a spouse
wouldn't be guilty of "defrauding" the other spouse of what is "due",
if benevolence were not still "due", when you didn't want to render
it!
Further, is that love, to defraud your spouse of what is "due",
especially when giving them what is do promotes holiness and prevents
fornication, which is the very will of God? No it is not! Yet you
argue against the right to "due" benevolence, as if the person who has
a right to it is, of necessity, an unloving rapist! As if their
simply having a right to what is due, implies they are out to force it
against their spouses' will! Thus, you try to create veto power for a
victim of your own creation, against the God-given rights of their
spouse!
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter!
>TTBOMK it started with: women should dress moderately, or they were to share
>some responsibility if they got raped. Insults were then inflicted against
>those women who had spoke of there own experiences.
>Dave (supported by Randy) then went all out and started calling women, men
>manipulators, 'feminnazis'(sp) (or some such words). Randy then went and
>gave warnings (below)
>
>Quote from Randy:
>To all the women reading this discussion, I'd just like to point out
>here, that women will not be safer from rape, by thinking they're
>entitled to dress and act how they want, without sharing any
>responsibility for the consequence.
>
>To all the married women, I'd just like to point out that trying to
>insist on your "right" to say "no", won't help keep your husband from
>yielding to immoralities in society, Satan, and his own lack of self
>control, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 says "due" benevolence will, nor will
>it promote unity in your family, or a healthier relationship between
>you and your husband.
>
>You've been warned.
This is not women bashing, and it only shows that you are trying to be
the savior of your own manufactured victims, from your own
manufactured offenses.
>------------------------------------------
>The discussion then went on to the possibility of spousal rape.
>
>Now Ben, if I am correct, I think that you (like me) are sufficiently mature
>enough in years, to know that it is not always about what you say (or
>write), but how you say (or write) it.
>The Law is good, but :
>2Cor 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the
>letter but of the Spirit; *for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.*
>
>1Cor 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the
>law.
Why do you flee to every passage except 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, then try
to use them against the plain teaching of that passage? Because when
you go to 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, it evaporates and exposes your
opposition to your responsibility to render due benevolence, whether
you feel like it or not.
Randy
in article <66SdnY4Ss7cwuLHY...@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <som...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Brother Andrew!
>
>You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
Translation: Thank God there's someone who supports my lies!
Randy
in article <452C34C...@sbcglobal.net>,
Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Amen! Praise God!
Randy
in article <tdudnfxE5-3e_LHY...@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Vic" <som...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>Have you been on the ale?
>You asked me my views doughnut.
On 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.
Randy
in article <haspi2t1ppib0no4r...@4ax.com>,
Giant Waffle <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:42:23 GMT, Ben Mitts
><benm...@sbcglobal.net> you spake thusly:
>
>
>>I see OWD shied away from the original thread
>>I set up in hopes of keeping everyone together,
>>Figures. This is what he did when all the ladies
>>were fighting his battles. I see one or two have
>>entered the fray once again to make fools of
>>themselves! So we will have to see when the
>>going gets rough for OWD will they stay
>>
>>Why is it they still want to intercede with sec-
>>ular worldly rape! Cant make a state for Gods
>>Word I guess
>
>Ben, I am glad that we were able to come together
>on something, after all of the disagreement.
Good point.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >Brother Andrew!
> >
> >You are a blessing to me, and many others in the Body of Christ!
>
> Translation: Thank God there's someone who supports my lies!
What is written plainly requires no translation.
Bottomline: You remain untruthful.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to repent,
dear neighbor Randy whom I love unconditionally.
Giant Waffle
<pulpi...@gmail.com> you spake thusly:
>>Yes!
>>1 Cor 7:1-9 is a follow on from another discussion were, Dave and Randy went
>>on a women bashing frenzy.
>
>And this has been the constant response of those who oppose us. You
>do nothing but play the savior of your own manufactured victims,
>against your own manufactured offenses. Post the quote where I am
>bashing women.
It's not my duty to keep proving that I don't endorse
every sick idea you imply about me. It's your obligation
to furnish a quote where I do and one in which you are not
altering the text. Now please provide a quote in which
I said such a thing.
Your words, which I stole. :)
Ben Mitts
( Snipped)
>>>Hi again Ben!
>>>
>>>Yes!
>>>1 Cor 7:1-9 is a follow on from another discussion were, Dave and Randy
>
> went
>
>>>on a women bashing frenzy.
No they didn't! Who told you this lie?
>>>
>>>TTBOMK it started with: women should dress moderately, or they were to
>
> share
>
>>>some responsibility if they got raped. Insults were then inflicted
>
> against
>
>>>those women who had spoke of there own experiences.
Randy gave a perfectly clear and concise
definition and reason for his statement!
The Women took it from there with a lit-
tle help from some other non-believers
who knew nothing (still dont and will tell
you they dont care either) about Gods
Word and the reasons for Paul to write
on immorality between men and women
by giving instruction on marital sex in a
Christian marriage. Those who started in
on Dave and Randy were having nothing to
do with Scriptures so they turned it all
around and caused a flame war- one wom-
en and one man started it all. Not Dave or
Randy!
>>>Dave (supported by Randy) then went all out and started
>calling women, men manipulators, 'feminnazis'(sp) (or some
>such words).
When Dave gets provoked he says what he
believes is right! They asked for it and he
decided to let them know what kind of
people they were- go read what they wrote
for yourself if you dont believe this! The
discussion turned into a womens lib conflag-
ration where they never produced their own
understanding of the particular Scripture
in question. They took the messaging into
other realms and then lost control over
what they were doing and blamed it all on
Randy and Dave! When Dave and Randy tried
to get them involved with staying with Gods
Word not one wanted to for whatever rea-
son to discuss this subject, they all shied
away and when some did they wound up mak-
ing a mockery of Scripture! To my recollect-
ion only one or two women tried to make an
effort to understand what 1 Cor was saying
and viola they begin to see why Dave and
Randy were standing their ground.
Randy then went and
>>>gave warnings (below)
>>>
>>>Quote from Randy:
>>>To all the women reading this discussion, I'd just like to point out
>>>here, that women will not be safer from rape, by thinking they're
>>>entitled to dress and act how they want, without sharing any
>>>responsibility for the consequence.
>>>
>>>To all the married women, I'd just like to point out that trying to
>>>insist on your "right" to say "no", won't help keep your husband from
>>>yielding to immoralities in society, Satan, and his own lack of self
>>>control, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 says "due" benevolence will, nor will
>>>it promote unity in your family, or a healthier relationship between
>>>you and your husband.
>>>
>>>You've been warned.
>>>------------------------------------------
I think he was within his right to give warn-
ings to help/remind women that sometimes
the way they dress/ed can and do cause ser-
ious consequences where dressing the way
some modern women (any women) choose
to dress.
>>>The discussion then went on to the possibility of spousal
>>>rape.
>>>
>>>Now Ben, if I am correct, I think that you (like me) are
>>>sufficiently mature enough in years, to know that it is not
>>>always about what you say (or write), but how you say (or
>>>write) it.
Out here the law is be careful what you
write because there are hundreds of law-
yers who are ready willing and able to make
a shambles over every thing that is written!
In the case of this subject the professional
lawyers didn't do their homework and blew it
because they attempted to rattle on about
something they knew nothing about. The sub-
ject was dragged out from within the confines
of Gods' Words (by even so called Christians
themselves who were to lazy to read the Bible
for themselves) so that they could be made a
mockery of.
>>>
>>>The Law is good, but :
>>>2Cor 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new
>>>covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; *for the letter
>>>kills, but the Spirit gives life.*
>>>1Cor 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of
>>>sin [is] the law.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I thank you for thinking of me but I would
>>remind you that I have been in on these
>>many posts from day one! As usual you
>>take the side you believe is right so you
>>think David and Randy a rapists!
>
>
> Oh now I see!
> You wanted to start your own flame war.
Your sick! This is exactly how people like
you started the flame war to begin with! I
said what I said because you never went
back to drug out the original messages to see
who did what, when, and to whom! You just
picked a side and gunned it. And now your
upset that not everybody is on the same
page with you! Okay!
>
> Since you have been here since day one, I assume you are
>suggesting that you have read all.
About 98% Enough (pretty much all) to know
who did what, and to whom, and why.
> That being the case, you would be deliberatly making a false
> accusation.
How so? I just comment on what I see and
read! Those who know me know that I dont
just jump in and get my feet wet to be a part
of any discussion! I wish more people would
do this before getting into a message and
making fools of themselves
>You would have read were I cleary answered the question
>asked by Randy and Dave. I clearly said that I did not agree
>or accuse them of rape.
Okay! if what you say is the truth then Dave
or Randy will get back to me and verify it!
Until then point me to where you make this
statement originally and I will read it for my
self, fair enough?
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
>>But some how, you as well as others always held
>>they believe, condone, and support rape of all kinds.
Now you went to far and revealed you hidden
agenda! Any damn fool out here has never ever
read where I condone rape. I dont know if Dave
accepts me as a true friend because we have
had words in the past. But he and Randy know
I never held any belief about them! The will be
the first to tell you I would have been one of
the very first out here to jump on them if I even
had at the least inkling of such behavior
You need to back away from this statement be-
cause you are on dangerous ground with this
statement! Go back an re-think what you just
just said because with your statement I put you
in with the rest of the people who caused this
mess to balloon out of proportion just to have
your jollys by making an buthead of yourself!
Who put you up to this! Some one must have
because it wasn't too intelligent on your part
to think of it on your own.
>
>
> Why are you lying?
About what" About who? And too whom? You
can speak plainer than this. Try it!
When they cant muster anything more to try
to bludgeon with, and they have run out of
facts and figures to attempt to destroy with,
they turn to the above and accuse people of
lying! First of all I dont have to resort to lies
Besides with the above foolishness you resort-
ed too to just proves how little a man you are
to make such a stupid statement!
>
>
>>OWD got into the mix with his
>>brand of evil and destroyed the women
>>involved by disrupting their thinking! And
>>no matter how much David and Randy tried
>>no one wanted to believe them! And now
>>you have joined their shark feeding frenzy!
>
>
>
> You again lie
> Ask Dave and Randy if I supported the claims made against
> them.
There you go again! You dont have anything
intelligent to say so you call me a liar! To
you again I say prove it, or shut up!
>
>
>
>>Randy and David wanted to keep it all with
>>in Scripture but you, as well as the others
>>tried what ever way you could to keep it
>>secular so you dont have to deal with Gods
>>Word! You come along and start posting
>>verses just like you think you are totally
>>experienced with this subject and then take
>>it upon yourself to tell me whats going on!
>>Are you attempting to swing me over to your
>>side?
>
>
> Have you been on the ale?
> You asked me my views doughnut.
Like I said you dont have the intelligence to con-
verse like an adult but I am willing to go the
length of Truth and ask you to interpret 1 Cor
1:7-9 if you would be so kind! This would give me
some idea of whether you think you are arguing
from a Scriptural or secular standpoint! Right
about now you give perfect evidence of not
knowing you subject very well nor what The
Bible has to say.
>
>
>
>>The Verses of Scripture involved in the dis-
>>cussions out here involve Pauls answer to a
>>question put forth to him! If one wants to
>>accept Biblical understanding properly it is
>>plain and simple he was speaking to sex in
>>a Christian marriage (this is what Dave and
>>Randy were doing also}. If you dont like this
>>then you need to visit other translations to
>>see how they render 1 Cor 7:1-9- the Verses
>>in question! One of them actually use "deprive"
>>instead of "due benevolence?
>>
>>A real eye opener!
>
>
> Yeah sure Ben,
You just showed your hidden agenda again! You
dont know how to use Bibles and or use exegesis
properly so you dont want to look for yourself. Its
easier to follow others because you think they have
already done the work. Your too blind to take it upon
yourself to strike out and search other translations
to see for yourself how the Verses in question are
rendered! But you know for sure I'm wrong, right?
Wrong!
I dont know what is wrong with you people! One
thing I do know is that if anyone anywhere were to
challenge my knowledge and Bible expertise I cert-
ainly would never call them liars unless I first went
and studied all I could before opening my big mouth
and remove all doubt as to how intelligent I was.
Any good Christian would know to do this! It's in-
stilled in us by virtue of indwelling of Gods Spirit
You printed some Scripture in this message to me.
Of what good is it if you dont know to make sure
God is glorified in what you do when yo call any
one a liar without proof! Your statement makes no
sense what so ever if your going to take the side
of evil instead of Gods own Elect! The Bible gives
ample Scripture on how to approach a brother
or sister if you suspect they may not have spoken
Truth! Just calling them liars with out proof is
useless and makes you look like fool!
Goodbye!
Randy
in article <452D0F1C...@sbcglobal.net>,
Ben Mitts <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks for your support of the truth, Ben. Grace and peace.
I went back to look, and couldn't find where Vic is actually accusing
us of being rapists. I may have confused him with those who do
because of his close connection with and support of them. Sorry for
that mistake.
oldwetdog
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:19:10 -0700,
> in article <12io022...@corp.supernews.com>,
> oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Giant Waffle wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:46:58 -0700, oldwetdog
>>> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Giant Waffle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:08:00 -0700, oldwetdog
>>>>> <g.aed...@yahoo.com> you decided to say:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are just listening to your wife say "No," then you've got a
>>>>>> troubled, dysfunctional, relationship
>>>>> I did not say that was the case in my marriage.
>>>> Of course you did not say it was YOUR marriage...but you knew I knew
>>>> that :-)
>>> And yet,
>> And yet, why clip my reply, Dave?
>
>
> Self evident, self contained, self condemning hypocrisy. You cut his
> response, then charge him with cutting yours.
>
So just like Dave clipped the original, now you clip the reply...
I Wonder, if it is "self evident," why clip it?
I wonder, if it is "self contained," why clip it so it is no longer self
contained?
Yes, I wonder, Randy, why, if my post is "self condemning hypocrisy,"
Why did you clip the evidence and just make the accusation?
OH! I get it! because YOU don't need evidence, just making the
accusation IS your proof...
Ben Mitts
Randy gave this message to me:
"I went back to look, and couldn't find where Vic is actually
accusing us of being rapists. I may have confused him with
those who do because of his close connection with and sup-
port of them."
I apologize Vic!
Giant Waffle
<benm...@sbcglobal.net> you spake thusly:
>Vic wrote:
>
>( Snipped)
>>>>Hi again Ben!
>>>>
>>>>Yes!
>>>>1 Cor 7:1-9 is a follow on from another discussion were,
>>>>Dave and Randy went on a women bashing frenzy.
>
>No they didn't! Who told you this lie?
No one and he knows that. This is not what he gathered
from other posts. It is what he wishes to dishonestly
portray as a description of what we've said.
>Randy gave a perfectly clear and concise
>definition and reason for his statement!
>The Women took it from there with a lit-
>tle help from some other non-believers
>who knew nothing (still dont and will tell
>you they dont care either) about Gods
>Word and the reasons for Paul to write
>on immorality between men and women
>by giving instruction on marital sex in a
>Christian marriage. Those who started in
>on Dave and Randy were having nothing to
>do with Scriptures so they turned it all
>around and caused a flame war- one wom-
>en and one man started it all. Not Dave or
>Randy!
Thanks, but again, Vic doesn't care about that.
>>Dave (supported by Randy) then went all out and started
>>>calling women, men manipulators, 'feminnazis'(sp) (or some
>>>such words).
>
>When Dave gets provoked he says what he
>believes is right! They asked for it and he
>decided to let them know what kind of
>people they were- go read what they wrote
>for yourself if you dont believe this!
He has and he knows. Vic is dishonest, period.
>The discussion turned into a womens lib conflag-
>ration where they never produced their own
>understanding of the particular Scripture
>in question. They took the messaging into
>other realms and then lost control over
>what they were doing and blamed it all on
>Randy and Dave! When Dave and Randy tried
>to get them involved with staying with Gods
>Word not one wanted to for whatever rea-
>son to discuss this subject, they all shied
>away and when some did they wound up mak-
>ing a mockery of Scripture! To my recollect-
>ion only one or two women tried to make an
>effort to understand what 1 Cor was saying
>and viola they begin to see why Dave and
>Randy were standing their ground.
Amen!
>I think he was within his right to give warn-
>ings to help/remind women that sometimes
>the way they dress/ed can and do cause ser-
>ious consequences where dressing the way
>some modern women (any women) choose
>to dress.
But according to most women, a woman can
undress in front of you, rub up against you
and grab your crotch and if you react, you
are a rapist!
>> Oh now I see!
>> You wanted to start your own flame war.
>
>Your sick! This is exactly how people like
>you started the flame war to begin with! I
>said what I said because you never went
>back to drug out the original messages to see
>who did what, when, and to whom! You just
>picked a side and gunned it. And now your
>upset that not everybody is on the same
>page with you! Okay!
He knows, Ben. He doesn't care.
>>You would have read were I cleary answered the question
>>asked by Randy and Dave. I clearly said that I did not agree
>>or accuse them of rape.
>
>Okay! if what you say is the truth then Dave
>or Randy will get back to me and verify it!
>Until then point me to where you make this
>statement originally and I will read it for my
>self, fair enough?
All I have seen, is him saying that we promote rape.
>>But some how, you as well as others always held
>>they believe, condone, and support rape of all kinds.
>
>Now you went to far and revealed you hidden
>agenda!
See what I mean? He knows he has no argument to make
and so, he resorts to lies. (:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e228ba1692acce5c?
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to
understand this, dear neighbor Ben whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
Giant Waffle
<g.aed...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>OH! I get it! because YOU don't need evidence, just making the
>accusation IS your proof...
Randy didn't do that. But if he did, your response would
just ve the pit calling the kettle black.
Giant Waffle
<_giantw...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:41:39 -0700, oldwetdog
><g.aed...@yahoo.com> you spake thusly:
>
>
>>OH! I get it! because YOU don't need evidence, just making the
>>accusation IS your proof...
>
>Randy didn't do that. But if he did, your response would
>just ve the pit calling the kettle black.
Correction: "pot calling the kettle black"