Wednesday, October 8, 2014

... on Marriage and on Rape, on Quiverfull and on Feminism, on I Cor 7:3-5

Religion Reverses Everything

Actually, Feminism is not brought up as a subject seen from without - but M McQuarrie illustrates a certain shade of familiphobic or oecophobic (oecos is Greek for family) feminism.

AronRa provoked my initial comment by pretending we have no family values (seems McQuarrie has none) based on Christ's words of loving no family members above Him - something AronRa considered "egocentric" of Our Lord. But also - here McQuarrie will provide irony - lacking in family values.

My comment to video
31:47 Christ is Theocentric, as any man should be, and He is God.

We are not to love family MORE than him and He knew he would be the cause why there were conflicts in quite a lot of families.

Much of the worst in that respect was within the Jewish people, when one was still siding for or against Him. Or later within the Roman élite. Some of it has come back with apostasy.

Now, this is not a ban on the family. It's a ban on idolising the family, not on having it on normal terms.
M McQuarrie
Do you know what the terms are for having a family under god? It is putting the husband at the head of the household and giving him absolute authority over his wife and children. This is what a loving god more than the family looks like:

Vyckie Garrison : Escape from Duggarville: How playing the good Christian housewife almost killed me
20 Sep 2014
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"absolute" authority is not what you can find, if by it you mean unconditional and promoting cruelty

Undemocratic authority over wife, granted.

Before I look at the link, now I will.

OK, I looked at the link.

Certain Christians have started a certain movement dedicated to remodelling the Biblical family as if it had been entirely lost in general culture. I do very much endorse the ban on birth control - what Catholic would not? - but the point is they risked getting things a bit wrong by being a dedicated movement.

Now it has apparently gone so wrong in one of ,the families one wife has run away and tolod media "it almost killed me".

Is her story really even representative of the Quiverfull movement?
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes. Yes it is.

And that's a no true Scotsman-Fallacy you tried to pull.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not think her story is representative of the Quiverfull movement.

Insofar as it involves her not having birth control it is, but insofar as it involves her not being able to stand that, since a ban on birthcontrol is perfectly normal, no, it is not.

Most wives in the Quiverfull movement are presumably quite happy being in the Quiverfull movement and having no birth control and having lots of children. Otherwise, why would she be making a headline?
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Really? So abuse is okay as long as the victim is happy? And it's not abuse if it's not in the headlines?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not think a family living the ideals of Quiverfull is necessarily abusive. That woman in that headline found them so.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well good for you, you are wrong. The article clearly illustrates exactly how it is abusive.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Didn't you see the abuse diagram wheel where it shows how you can recognize abuse?

It correlates to biblical passages illustrating how a life under biblical principles and ideal is harmful and detrimental.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Those correlations are abusive.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl And they come directly from the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not say the quotes were abusive. I said the correlations were.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl And it correlates directly to the bible. An application of bible tradition and verbatim interpretation leads to spousal and child abuse.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not think a verbatim interpretation of these Bible passages does lead to abuse.

In one of the items cited the "wheel of abuse" was itself clearly abusive, i e in calling it an abuse to deny birth control. That item was obviously written by an infidel feminist and an abject slave of the depopulation agenda.

In other items the correlation was very unclear. Statements about original sin are not dehumanising to the wife and children, since the husband and father also has it.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well good for you, you're wrong.

It's abuse when you exact control over someone and mandate how they may have sex and under what circumstances they may reproduce. Doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman.

[Omitting a blasphemy and a curse on Catholicism/Christianity] How is it not abuse?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well no. In a marriage:

  • no one/neither gets birth control
  • both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands.

Neither is abusive.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl "both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Because it is MUTUAL.
  • 2) Because it is consented in ADVANCE.

Rape is one sided, remember, and not consented, except some cases of statutory rape.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl "both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands"

That statement is very one sided. What kind of rose tinted world do you live in?

There is nothing about consent in that statement you made.

And consent in advance?

What kind of bullshit is that?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Marriage is consent in advance to whatever marriage means. According to Bible it means each has the right to reproduce with the other, neither has the right to withdraw without consent of the other. Rose tinted or not, that is what it says and what thousands or millions of Christian couples practise.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Who gives a fuck what the bible says? A statement like:

"both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands"

is an endorsement of rape.

So does marriage no longer make rape rape?

"neither has the right to withdraw without consent of the other."

How many wives have died at the hands of violent husbands because of that mentality I wonder?

"that is what it says and what thousands or millions of Christian couples practise."

And that somehow makes it moral?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is NOT an endorsement of rape, since it is mutual, preconsented and usually involves no violence. St Paul does not say a wife who refuses to consent can be taken by force by her husband. Nor that she cannot. Something is left to the good sense, but some other passages saying on how to treat the wife would very much tend to exclude that method.

What it says is that each by marrying incurs a debt. Not that each can act as if collecting a debt by force if that should be the only way of collecting it.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl "since it is mutual"

Where is the mutual consent in this statement "both get to demand sex from each other. And have to comply with the demands?"

Further more, your notion of good sense and debt flies in direct contradiction to 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9, Ephesians 5:22 - 25, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:9 - 15, Romans 7:2, Titus 2:3 - 5, 1 Peter 3:1 -3, and 1 Peter 3:5 -7.

It's a very one sided debt which seems to indicate a wife is less human and more property.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The "mutual" part is the "both" part.

A husband is neither less nor more property of his wife in bed than she of him.

I Corinthians VII: [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Where exactly in the other passages, those you mention does it say the opposite?

Passages of chapter 11 are about their social relation, not about their sexual one. Both 3 and 7-9. Ephesians 5 also stresses mutuality of love without getting deeply involved in sex. Colossians 3:18 is also not about relations in bed. I Cor. VII:3 - 5 on the contrary is precisely about that. I am not going on, have I missed anything?
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are positing that a biblical idea of a marriage is somehow equal to both parties involved, are you not?

That is not the case in the bible.

"The "mutual" part is the "both" part"

So either one can demand sex from the other and take it without consent as long as they are married?

Again, how is that not rape? What is marriage to you? 'I get to rape you and you get to rape me so it's all good?'

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "are about their social relation, not about their sexual one."

So wives get to be subjected socially as well as sexually?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You dishonest knave, what do you mean by "as well as sexually"? I Cor VII:3-5 outlines absolute equality sexually!
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl I Cor VII:3-5 outlines mutual rape by denying the husband or wife the right to say "no."

"The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."

No authority over their own bodies? That's not sexually equality. That's dehumanizing.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is not dehumanising. It is erecting the couple into a unity. That is what marriage means. No rape about it.

[It would have been dehumanising if one sided, like in Fifty Shades of Grey, according to rumours I have heard of it.]
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So where does it stipulate consent? Where does it say a wife has the right to say "no?"

For that matter, where in the bible does it say "thou shall not commit rape?"
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It does not say the wife has a real RIGHT to say no. It does very much say that bad manners to her are out of the question. Love your wives as Christ has loved His Church.

As to your second question, diverse forms of rape were punished in diverse manners during OT. If it involved adultery or sodomy, it was of course a stoning offense. If it was a woman the rapist could marry, he HAD to if her father wanted it and could never divorce her (in NT no one can divorce his wife or husband). And if not, he HAD to pay the dowry.

That way, if she didn't like him at all (friend rapes do happen, so her liking the perpetrator is not out of all possibility) she could marry a poor man she liked and the rapist was paying it.

If an offense merits a large fine or a decision being taken for one, it is a large offense indeed.
M McQuarrie
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Christ didn't have a church. If he existed at all he had a temple (synagogue).

"diverse forms of rape were punished in diverse manners during OT"

Not if you were raping someone who wasn't Hebrew. Remember the Midianites whom god commanded Moses to have killed and their homes sacked? But the virgin girls they could keep.

[Referring to a thread on slavery, which is upcoming.]

And if a man raped an unmarried woman, he only had to pay the father a dispensation of 30 silver. It didn't matter what the father wanted (let alone what the woman wanted, after all, she's just property).

In biblical times if you wanted a woman you could just take her. Real ethical there.

"friend rapes do happen"


All of this is irrelevant because until you can find the passage where it explicitly states "thou shall not rape" the biblical position on rape is at best ambivalent and at worst sanctioned.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Christ FOUNDED the Church.

Keeping Midianite daughters as slaves did not necessarily mean raping them. It would very probably mean marrying them off OR putting them under some pressure (as Orientals do now) to become concubines.

That was because Midianites had deserved a punishment, forgot exactly what for.

And forcing a rapist to marry victim if she wants to or pay her dowry if she doens't isn't sanctioning rape.

No comments: