Search results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'd have to apply the standard of 2 or 3 witnesses.

And abortionists, right? And men and women who ask for abortions--you know, those scumbags who harm other human beings?

Then you agree that rape is so horrendous that it deserves the death penalty in order to express that empathy and compassion?

But at least you acknowledge that they are here on this forum.

And who decides the right balance? You or me?

Based on what? Why should I understand something your way instead of someone else's way? What if my moral compass says it's ok to rape and pillage other people groups? Many, many people groups have believed so for thousands of years. Why is it wrong now? Was it wrong before? Is it because we're...

Yours or everyone's?

Which is what?

I'm pretty sure that's NOT why some are here.

If we're entitled to our own opinions, who's actually in error? Right and wrong are only simple if there's 100% agreement in those opinions, which there never is, else there wouldn't be a need for this conversation. Or if there's a standard we can all turn to that will tell us what's right vs...

Sure I do. Whereas from what you've written, there's nothing about yours that can't be changed with a change of "leadership".

Just like anyone who makes up his own standards of right and wrong is not trustworthy to judge right vs wrong. So why does it bother you so much when someone does it different than you?

I wasn't the only one: