GarthP2000

Fascinating. Just fascinating. You talk about clocking women who run off at the mouth, try to give biblical justification for it, failing that, you bring up Hollywood movies that seem to justify it, etc., etc., ad nauseum ... despite the many here who reprove you for your distorted views, .... and you squawk about *my* 'manner of communication'? Well, as to my manner of communication, despite what Dabbobadah may or may not 'reprove' me of, like I said in numerous times past: I stand by what I say. And no, you come nowhere *near* giving me 'a taste of my own medicine'. Not even close. And if you can't (or won't) see that, .... thanks but no thanks, I wouldn't want to go to twig with you either. And with that, Caio!

Ok, message received. But he still illustrates my case beautifully. When he fails to prove his point, instead of saying "Ok, you have a point.", he reacts this way to defend something out of stubborn pride.

Radar, Thanks for the assist, but Johniam isn't hurting me at all. As a matter of fact, he is helping me illustrate my case.

Abi, I think Johniam is in his 'plains' and 'drains' mode now. Apparently its his way of settling into a comfortable denial of having his case so soundly ... 'clocked'. ;)-->

Translated to plain English: Damn! Lost Yet Another Argument! :D--> Care for another game?

You could check out Tatoo, and see if he still in show business. "Ey Boss!! Ey Boss!! Da plane! Da plane!!"

Jonny, oooooooo!! Cruel man. A fate worse than death, ehh? ;)--> Hhmmmm, is that the biblical version of "Meet the Fockers"? :D-->

Oak, See, the main flaw in Johniam's (and now apparently, in an indirect way, Oldies) reasoning, is that they compare and equate hitting a woman when she's a danger or stabs you in the back, to hitting a woman simply for being mouthy. To them, there is (or seems to be) no distinction. And even decking her for doing what that woman did in "The Verdict" is questionable, and most likely illegal. To them this is Yet Another Example of 'taking a stand on The Word' when it comes to relation between the sexes, and that there is ((cough)) 'principle' and 'respect' to backing up the man's authority and place with muscle, even as a 'last resort'. Johniam, had you married to, and tried something like this on my mother while she was in her younger years, even leaving out that there would have been 4 of her sons (including yours truly) piling on your redneck a$$ like a cheap suit at Penny's, she would be even the greater danger to you, as she has been known to fly in a rage, and do some serious damage when in that kind of situation. And pal, I don't give a rat's a$$ HOW bad or like Rambo you think you are, you would have lost that fight. Bet your last Confederate dollar on it! So I wouldn't place too much stature on a man's muscles. Women can (and often are) be just as strong in many other respects.

It sure beats bible verse justified, 'I'm just a poor lil' white male persecuted by the Evil Liberals' whining, white trash reasoning for wife beating. :o-->

and on and on, ad nauseumA-fricking-mazing! And you accuse ME of one dimensional thinking? (Oh, byu the way, that is an urban myth about being able to see the Great Wall of China from space. But then again, it just goes to show that there are some people in this world who will believe anything *without verifying it*. ;)-->) The major flaw in your desperate rambling to justify even the 'last resort' reasoning of clocking a woman due to harp-harp-harp? *There isn't suich a 'last resort'*. Ergo, no such 'blurring of such an obvious distinction'. The only thing that is obvious here is your slanted attitude against women who just 'won't learn their place', and this stubborness in hanging on to a now outmoded, and illegal practice in smacking them to enforce some masculine authority you seem to believe you have. I mean, look at all the examples you bring up to make it look good and justifiable! --> Misrepresenting you? Hell chief, you depict my rendering of you by your own posts! Oh, and speaking of going on and on in the verbal sense, I gather from your posts, and the not-too-short amount of the number and content of them, that you can be quite the motor mouth yourself. So should we likewise clock you as well? ... Hhhmmmm? Thanks but no thanks, pal, you can keep your views and beliefs. I don't see where any civilized and intelligent individual would want all that. -->

Johniam, Your handling of the bible in this argument is even worse than Smikeol's. And that ain't good! Not by a long shot! First off, I asked where in the bible because I knew that you believed in it as God breathed (or you act like you do -- at convenient times, that is). 2nd, the verses you supplied do not address when a woman is 'henpecking' a man, a situation that you specifically mentioned that gives a man the right to 'clock' her. Rather, the verses talk about a man's wife grabbing him (or his opponent) by the family jewels, and 2 situations where the newly wed wife was found not to be a virgin. So you still haven't provided me with the verses where a man gets to clock his wife for her harping on him. And even those examples are not allowed as legal in today's society--for which I am very thankful! I have found a few verses in Proverbs that basically talk about its more peaceful for a man to live on top of the roof in peace, than in the house with a contentious wife, and nowhere is there given any go ahead to whack her. So does the bible show those men to be 'emaciated'? And how about that judge that Jesus talked about who was henpecked by a widow to hear her case? Why didn't Jesus portray the necessity for that judge to 'be a MAN' and throw her a** in jail, hmmmm? Amazing how desperate some people will be to bandy about verses in the bible to support their morally bankrupt viewpoints. P.S., Now here I am, this so-called 'spiritual slime', yet I can present a better biblical case for my side than you, the True Believer, can? You can't do better than that? Classic case of your PFAL and the 'rightly divided Word', huh? --> So be a man, and go sleep up on the roof. I think there was a James Taylor song about that anyway.

First off, where specifically in the Bible does God give the husband the OK to give her the back of his hand in these emotional situations, even as 'a last resort'? Or where does it portray *any* of what you posted in that paragraph? Two, for every example where you can give me the 'emaciated man' (and yes, I know that they are there), I can easily, easily give you *at least* one incident of the overpowering/abusive husband, and terror stricken wife who is too scared to leave her husband due to threats on her life, especially in times before 30-40 years ago. Easily! Like its been mentioned before, if you have to 'clock' a women due to the running off at the mouth syndrome, or because her words 'bite you', then that shows that "you are outmatched intellectually, that you have no control over your emotions, that you are so much of an idiot that the only solution that you can come up with is to shut them up by hitting them". How many times have I witnessed that to be the case for so many guys who resort to that kind of rank stupidity. -->

Ahh, having women in positions of leadership is one thing. Having them being treated as equals with appropriate respect is *totally* something else. (Can you say 'token minority'?) As clearly shown by the many hundreds of testimonies both here on Greasespot, as well as on other boards (despite the cavalier yet empty dismissals of loyalists like Oldies and Smikeol, and much to their chagrin), there was clearly a pattern of sexual abuse and disregard for the respect/care due to these women, and often in direct contradiction of the Bible, the authority of which they have touted to the skies. So the amount of female leadership as evidence of 'no widespread abuse of women' clearly rings hollow and means little. If anything.

Oak, Bingo! Well done post! Johniam, After reading your recent posts in this thread, I ask myself, "And he accuses *me* of being spiritual slime??"

Smikeo--err, Oldies, :D--> What would you call the Corp/VPW taught practice of getting a female believer (preferably young and nubile) to 'meet the Man of God's needs', or else depicting the refuser as a cop-out, possessed, and all the other names that went along with it? What would you call the blind and goosestepping closing of ranks around VPW when his abusive actions were proven and verified according to the biblical standard of two or more witnesses? (Yes, Virginia, they were) The Living Word in a believer's life?? -->

Oldies, ??? You base your agreement with Johniam's ranting simply on a joke?? --> Please!

Johniam, You sound like the guy who had the 'good fortune' (definitely tongue in cheek here) to have been in a bad experience with blacks, then who bases his judgements of many, if not all black people on just those few bad experiences; except with you, its women. While the feeling is understandable, it is still none-the-less flawed. Sorry chief, but there ain't no widespread 'anti-male' corn-spiracy running amok, Rush Limbaugh's 'feminazi' rantings notwithstanding. Besides, you ask many women, and I'll be willing to bet that they would have a similar impression re: men as you do of women, and historically, they would have more to go on than you do. And even then, the 'men have got it all' viewpoint is still flawed. It still comes down to the individual. And no, there is no way you can convince me that 90% of all domestic violence cases have been 'initiated' by women. Nahh, been around the block far too many times for me to fall for that one.

Ok, they don't exist because the science regarding medicine, biology, and the mind, and other related fields have progressed and have proven that insanity is a medical/psychological issue, not a spiritual one consisting of demons, devils, and sprites which needs exorcism and drilling holes in people's heads to let all the bad spirits out. There, happy now?

((laughs)) First you say its by possession, ... then you say she is responsible. Gad, I wish you'd make up your mind. -->

Oldies, You don't even follow your own scriptures, but rather, your own/VPW's interpretation of them, BOTH of which is sadly lacking, in so many ways! No, you don't adhere to this interpretation because 'it makes the most sense'. You adhere to it due to nothing else than loyalty to the literal and fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. If there is something in the 'Word' that runs counter to that which is generally regarded as wrong (such as the wholesale slaughtering of children and babies), then you must remain loyal to that which the scripture endorses and whitewash any bad looking image/impression that might come of what is inside. THAT is one main thing that I referred to when I made my 'free of bondage' remark. You see, I no longer am bound to make excuses for actions done/endorsed by a belief, actions that would send any human being to the electric chair, with the ACLU there to pull the switch. Actions where innocent people are hurt are ALWAYS wrong, be it done by Andrea Yates, or some prophet in the OT.

Ahh no, Oldies. God specifically told them that they were to kill the unbelievers in Canaan because they 'worshipped' other gods, and he didn't want them to be 'contaminated' with that worship. Therefore, slaughter them all. (Not exactly Constitution-friendly, doncha think? -->) ... Except for the female virgins. Gotta have all them good looking 15-18 year old babes to ((cough)) 'undershepard', you see. ..... Dang! Sounds like how Weirwille woulda run things, ya think? ;)--> "That's the way I view the rationale for the killing in the OT." Rationalize, you mean. Yeah, you'd be amazed what kind of rationalization goes on when people defend their beliefs, no matter how psychotic/immoral they are. -->

Oldies, Your post is so wrong in so many ways. For one thing, what about killing infants and sucklings, like the prophet Samuel told Saul to do, as well in many other places? Why is it natural and godly to do that, while it isn't natural and godly for Yates to kill her children? Get this straight: There IS NOT nor WILL NEVER BE a 'godly' (read that which is good and right) reason to kill anybody like that, be it Yates kids, nor men, women, or children because they might 'contaminate' you because of their unbelief. That kind of behavior is, and should be treated as a capital crime/crime against humanity by a civilized society, regardless of what god is worhipped/or not, by its people. I am SO glad that I am not mentally bound and chained by the TWI/fundamentalist based viewpoints that you have just expressed any longer. I have declared my independence (read 'flipped the finger') from them (and that kind of 'god') several years ago.

Oldies, No, that's prethought malvolence, possibly coupled with mental illness and/or extreme depression. In either case of mental illness, or deliberate action, NO 'demons' or 'devil spirits' were involved. In other words, I don't buy the 'Its not in man's nature to kill' explanation of demonic possession, especially not when you consider that in the OT, God's people were slaughtering the unbelievers in such a wholesale fashion as to make what Yates did look like a Shirley Temple flick! Also, if devil spirit possession was involved, and the poor murderer couldn't stop him/herself because of it, then why have the trial for murder and the capital punishment that goes along with it? I mean, isn't that part of a 'godly' legal system? And how does that deal with the devil spirit, since you can't kill it, and it will just go on to 'possess' someone else? Hhhmmmm? Science and medicine has come a long way since the 21st century B.C. and the times of believing in demons, my friend. So I strongly suggest that you 'reset' your clock. -->

Point 1: VPW is in no way comparable to one who is/has been clinicly proven (note the emphasis) to be mentally insane or delusional. That co**s***er deserves not even a smidgeon of that kind of regard, Johniam. Point 2: Bramble, despite all of your brother's suffering, has he ever killed some kids, *knew* that he was killing them, had a pretty good idea that killing was morally and biblically wrong, and would react like Yates did when she was told that her conviction was overturned, if he was in her shoes? I don't believe so. Mental illness on Yates part? a pretty strong maybe if not yes. But, she had enough awareness to realize what she was doing (KILLING the children), and the consequenses thereof. Also note, that _nowhere_ in the overturning ruling was her mental state, nor how it affected her judgement ever addressed. Nowhere. Got a question for ya. ..... What if it had been your kids? Hmmmm??

Ah HAAA, a pineapple pizza atheist. Or is that a-pineapplepizzaist? Adrywaterist? ...... Oh well, having nowhere else to go with this, off I go to munch on *real* pineapple pizza, ... which really does exist, thank you very much.