Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

What a fucking moron. EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!!! YOU ARE ALL PAGANS!!! I AM THE CHOSEN ONE, AND I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO IS RIGHT, AND I WILL POST AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL THE REST OF YOU ADMIT IT!!

That’s some professional grade autism there,

I take it you're a believer in the "Melinda is actually autistic" theory yourself?
It's certainly a better belief that whatever the fuck she believes in.

 

[Deadpool]

@Deadpool who has told me to kill myself several times

Do a flip skank.

 

[Sir Dank-a-Lot]

I take it you're a believer in the "Melinda is actually autistic" theory yourself?
It's certainly a better belief that whatever the fuck she believes in.

She does tick a lot of boxes when it comes to autism.

 

[SS Reichsmarshall]

She does tick a lot of boxes when it comes to autism.

Autists like Ruth tend to become obsessed with dumb, retarded, random shit. Like her obsession with the word YOKE, which she has still failed to explain why she has now used it six plus times counting.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

What a fucking moron. EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!!! YOU ARE ALL PAGANS!!! I AM THE CHOSEN ONE, AND I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO IS RIGHT, AND I WILL POST AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL THE REST OF YOU ADMIT IT!!

That’s some professional grade autism there,

I clearly said several times my goal here was never to change anyone's mind. I recall saying about 100 pages ago I am a theological pacifist. I looked it up. It's page 253, post #5056. I don't believe in trying to convince people to follow The Torah, because I believe the conviction to follow The Torah has to be initiated and come from within someone to be genuine. The Torah does not condone proselytizing.

Each of you accusing, attacking or otherwise just speaking are representatives of your own worldviews and religions. That is what I am debating with.

And I clearly said several times I never said everyone else is wrong.

Rape is not a "oh in certain contexts" thing. It's either bad everywhere, every time, in every situation or not bad at all. If a person is fighting off another person who is attempting to sexually violate them that is morally reprehensible regardless of whether or not rings have been exchanged.

That's the theory. But I don't see a moral law in The Torah showing that.

we’ve all felt anger towards people in our life. The difference is Marshall has acted on that anger and intended physical harm towards one person (to our knowledge. He could’ve hurt many others). The fact that you know that and victimize/sympathize with him is a red flag to any sane person.

Disagree. Because striking someone is not always wrong. It can be justified at times. It also is not an action that gets the capital punishment or excommunication in The Torah, so I see no reason to condemn him for it.

This is a giant red flag. Many people who are abused make the excuse that the abuser should be given a break given a bad situation they had lived through. So he lived through an bad relationship with his ex wife, so it's ok if he has a hair trigger with you. If I had a nickel for every time I had heard that, I'd have a bunch of useless nickels. It's usually paired with the idea that if the person being abused can just heal the abuser of their previous trauma, they will magically 'fix' them, and the abuse will then stop and things will go back to the honeymoon phase. Been there, done that.
No empathy will help. There is no magic wand. You can't fix them.

Edit: I'm falling into the trap of wanting to give a lolcow advice. They don't listen. Toasty is threadbanning herself until tomorrow.

I see what your saying as more of a moral issue debate rather than advice, so I'll respond.

Well, while I agree that it's no one's job to fix others (everyone is responsible for their own actions), the part of the logic above that I don't agree with is that someone who decides to strike another person needs to be "fixed". I emphasize strike, because I'm not saying attack. Someone who attacks is abusive because they are instigating. Someone who strikes is fighting. The Torah commands that the person who strikes heal the injury of the person they strike, but it does not condemn the person striking (no capital punishment nor excommunication). Probably because it is a common human reaction to strike. Also that forces the person striking to act with caution.

You're literally okay with rape. You're right, too. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Yahweh's children, even if the women aren't willing. We will make them.

LOL

 

[White Baby]

That's the theory. But I don't see a moral law in The Torah showing that.

There are plenty of moral laws that modern humanity understands and accepts as a majority that aren't detailed in the Torah. It was compiled out of various texts written thousands of years ago for a diverse population of mostly farmers and nomads. You repeatedly ask Elohim to curse various Kiwis in this thread but have you ever consulted Him on scholarly issues?

And besides, why do you need a moral law in the Torah to understand that someone sexually violating their spouse is wrong? There are myriads of reasons why someone might not want to have sex, from pelvic cancers pressing on the female sexual organs to male impotence due to medications to simple temporary libido mismatch. Why is it reprehensible if someone grabs a woman off the street and rapes her, but if a husband grabs his wife and rapes her because she said 'no, I'm on my period, I'm too tender to have sex' it's suddenly perfectly fine?

Do you understand how immensely sickening it is that you perpetuate this kind of intermarriage abuse by believing spousal rape is okay? You don't automatically give up bodily autonomy just because you exchange vows with someone. It doesn't matter if the reason sex is withheld is unfair, you turn to therapy or divorce or compromise or medical treatment, whatever solves the fucking problem. You (general 'you', not you specifically) don't force yourself on someone sexually because you're too much of a stupid horny dog to understand that other people have feelings and rights even when you're married to them.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that gets women killed by abusive husbands. It is disgusting. You are disgusting, and a traitor to your gender for believing this kind of bullshit.

 

[redcent]

I clearly said several times my goal here was never to change anyone's mind. I recall saying about 100 pages ago I am a theological pacifist. I looked it up. It's page 253, post #5056. I don't believe in trying to convince people to follow The Torah, because I believe the conviction to follow The Torah has to be initiated and come from within someone to be genuine. The Torah does not condone proselytizing.

I for one already noticed you have no intention of converting people to your cult

However, do you honestly think you can change anyone's mind at this point about what they think about you?

If you don't, why bother, why bother "debating" if thats what you want to call it. You'd have better luck just talking to yourself. Otherwise all you're doing is wearing yourself down like the proverbial weasel licking the file in that fable

Also you say we are, as you quote:

Each of you accusing, attacking or otherwise

But also:

And I clearly said several times I never said everyone else is wrong.




That's the theory. But I don't see a moral law in The Torah showing that.





Disagree. Because striking someone is not always wrong. It can be justified at times. It also is not an action that gets the capital punishment or excommunication in The Torah, so I see no reason to condemn him for it.




I see what your saying as more of a moral issue debate rather than advice, so I'll respond.

Well, while I agree that it's no one's job to fix others (everyone is responsible for their own actions), the part of the logic above that I don't agree with is that someone who decides to strike another person needs to be "fixed". I emphasize strike, because I'm not saying attack. Someone who attacks is abusive because they are instigating. Someone who strikes is fighting. The Torah commands that the person who strikes heal the injury of the person they strike, but it does not condemn the person striking (no capital punishment nor excommunication). Probably because it is a common human reaction to strike. Also that forces the person striking to act with caution.

You say we are attacking. Do you feel at all threatened by us, do you feel in anyway concerned or paranoid about your safety? Are you concerned about your mental well being?

If not, how is it an attack? You are safe at home nursing babies. Everyone talking here is in other countries or at least other states. Your mind is made up that you will not commit suicide. If you have no threat, how is it an attack?

Although, if you do feel afraid of your well being, don't be afraid to speak up. Kiwifarms has it's own set of rules: eg. "don't pozload my negholep" aka don't harass the lolcow irl. Nobody even a lolcow should be threatened.

 

[Toasty]

the part of the logic above that I don't agree with is that someone who decides to strike another person needs to be "fixed". I emphasize strike, because I'm not saying attack. Someone who attacks is abusive because they are instigating. Someone who strikes is fighting.

Unless you are physically threatened or defending another who is, physical force is never ok. I don't care what your interpretation of an interpretation of o religious text says. Hitting is bad. Choking for violence is wrong. Shoving, threatening, using religion to justify abuse, no. Not ok. You may have your own religious rules, but you live within and benefit from a society that that fundamentally disagrees with you. You can't play "set apart" when you want to live within the secular world so deeply that you base your entire income on it, and enjoy trying to use it's legal system to deal with your grudges. Pick one.
By your actions as far as the legal and social benefits system, it would appear that you want to live in the real world with the rest of us, where we have agreed to certain laws and social contracts. To wit: hitting people= bad. Working with a local charity=good. Choking people=bad. Helping a friend move=good. Raping anyone, whether a stranger, but especially if they are a partner and believe they can trust you instead of you disregarding their right to the one thing they truly own=really bad. Making blankets for the beds at your local rape crisis/DV shelter=good.
You are not only judged on the basis of your interpretation of the Torah. You are judged by the standards of the society and legal system you have chosen to live in and take advantage of.

 

[Viridian]

That's the theory. But I don't see a moral law in The Torah showing that.

Rape apologist confirmed.

Disagree. Because striking someone is not always wrong. It can be justified at times. It also is not an action that gets the capital punishment or excommunication in The Torah, so I see no reason to condemn him for it.

Domestic violence apologist confirmed.

I'm going to enjoy pointing and laughing at you when Marshall the Manlet tosses you aside for some other slightly less ugly than you ditch pig to stick his micropenis into, when you're crying about how awful he was to you and trying to drum up sympathy for being abandoned like the worthless whore you are. All your excuses for how his raping and assaulting other women was totally okay by MUH TORAH will come home to roost then, and we will get no end of amusement out of your pathetic oinking as a result.

 

[Toasty]

Rape apologist confirmed.



Domestic violence apologist confirmed.

I'm going to enjoy pointing and laughing at you when Marshall the Manlet tosses you aside for some other slightly less ugly than you ditch pig to stick his micropenis into, when you're crying about how awful he was to you and trying to drum up sympathy for being abandoned like the worthless whore you are. All your excuses for how his raping and assaulting other women was totally okay by MUH TORAH will come home to roost then, and we will get no end of amusement out of your pathetic oinking as a result.

Not only would he jump for a woman more attractive, he'd fly at the chance for a woman with more money and less excess baggage. Imagine trying to get groovy with babies every where. Fuck that

I wish @xtamarlover would quit rating my posts. You are skeevy. I don't want your seal of approval. It makes me want to shower every time it happens.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

I clearly said several times my goal here was never to change anyone's mind. I recall saying about 100 pages ago I am a theological pacifist. I looked it up. It's page 253, post #5056. I don't believe in trying to convince people to follow The Torah, because I believe the conviction to follow The Torah has to be initiated and come from within someone to be genuine. The Torah does not condone proselytizing.

Each of you accusing, attacking or otherwise just speaking are representatives of your own worldviews and religions. That is what I am debating with.

And I clearly said several times I never said everyone else is wrong.




That's the theory. But I don't see a moral law in The Torah showing that.





Disagree. Because striking someone is not always wrong. It can be justified at times. It also is not an action that gets the capital punishment or excommunication in The Torah, so I see no reason to condemn him for it.




I see what your saying as more of a moral issue debate rather than advice, so I'll respond.

Well, while I agree that it's no one's job to fix others (everyone is responsible for their own actions), the part of the logic above that I don't agree with is that someone who decides to strike another person needs to be "fixed". I emphasize strike, because I'm not saying attack. Someone who attacks is abusive because they are instigating. Someone who strikes is fighting. The Torah commands that the person who strikes heal the injury of the person they strike, but it does not condemn the person striking (no capital punishment nor excommunication). Probably because it is a common human reaction to strike. Also that forces the person striking to act with caution.





LOL

Serious question: are you or have you been a domestic violence victim? I legitimately haven't seen anyone try to defend senseless violence and sexual assault as much as you have and it's legitimately concerning, especially since you're a mother. If you're teach your kids that's what's right, then that's just disgusting.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Not only would he jump for a woman more attractive, he'd fly at the chance for a woman with more money and less excess baggage. Imagine trying to get groovy with babies every where. Fuck that

I wish @xtamarlover would quit rating my posts. You are skeevy. I don't want your seal of approval. It makes me want to shower every time it happens.

Rape apologist confirmed.



Domestic violence apologist confirmed.

I'm going to enjoy pointing and laughing at you when Marshall the Manlet tosses you aside for some other slightly less ugly than you ditch pig to stick his micropenis into, when you're crying about how awful he was to you and trying to drum up sympathy for being abandoned like the worthless whore you are. All your excuses for how his raping and assaulting other women was totally okay by MUH TORAH will come home to roost then, and we will get no end of amusement out of your pathetic oinking as a result.

You have no idea what I look like in person. Just because Mr Mooney Looney warped some picture of me in an avatar doesn't mean I'm ugly. It just shows how your brain works -- assumptions and huge illogical gaps in your thinking.

I'm secure in my looks. And secure in the relationship that Marshall thinks I'm attractive. He told me before that he believes he and I are physically compatible because we are the same level of attractiveness. Tells me I'm pretty and beautiful all the time.

Marshall doesn't think like pagan men. He doesn't believe in tossing women who have given birth to the side for a barren woman. That's the way of pagans, not the way of YHWH and righteous men. In Hebraic culture children are not "baggage" they are "blessings". You just don't know the ways of YHWH

I've been in public and other women have tried to seduce Marshall for glances, even in front of me, and he just looks the other way. He's turned down invitations from co-workers to go to strip clubs on trips. Pagan women are like that, always trying to compete with other women for a man's attention (another manifestation of internalized misogyny). Many pagan women in my experience often also think they are better if they are younger or have less children so they try to get men to lust after them in front of their wives. Complete opposite of a Hebraic mentality. Based on the many conversations I've had with Marshall, he doesn't think like a pagan. Praise YaH

Marshall also has the capacity to love, which will hold us together. He also is one of those rare men that loves a woman from the inside out. He is attracted to things like wisdom, verbal intelligence, and sexy factor (good personality). There may be women prettier than me, but I got the "sexy factor" ladies , so I don't feel threatened by any of these predictions you make!

Your statements about rape are illogical. Clearly if I don't believe it is a sin then it wouldn't come "home to roost" because it doesn't bother me. I don't get into power struggles with my husband. That is one reason I can carry a relationship. Pick your battles wisely.

Your statements about him potentially assaulting me are illogical too. Obviously if The Torah says he is required to heal any injury he causes me, it all works out okay in the end. Why would he cause an injury that he will have to then turn around and heal? Eventually the brain figures it out.

See, this is where you have a huge disconnect in your brain. You want to condemn a man (Marshall) for causing an injury to another human being. I don't know anyone ever who has never caused an injury to another person when fighting. Please, by all means, if you have ever met someone who has never caused an injury to another person when fighting (verbal, mental or physical), let me meet them. I'd like to interview them.

My willingness to judge my husband properly for an action he did in his past (physical striking), and anything that comes up in my relationship is why I'm able to carry a relationship. I don't fly off the handle and call the cops because of human fighting. It's absurd and unrighteous to treat a man like a villain for an action that is not worthy of condemnation or excommunication in The Torah.

This is not being a DV apologist. This is being an advocate of healing and peacemaking. If the person who strikes is required to heal the other person then clearly I am advocating for being a peacemaker in a relationship, not sending a man to jail for something that could be remedied with healing and peacemaking.

My willingness to be a peacemaker under the rules of The Torah is what will hold my relationship with Marshall together

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will called the children of Elohim" (Matthew 5:9)

I for one already noticed you have no intention of converting people to your cult

However, do you honestly think you can change anyone's mind at this point about what they think about you?

If you don't, why bother, why bother "debating" if thats what you want to call it. You'd have better luck just talking to yourself. Otherwise all you're doing is wearing yourself down like the proverbial weasel licking the file in that fable

Also you say we are, as you quote:

But also:
You say we are attacking. Do you feel at all threatened by us, do you feel in anyway concerned or paranoid about your safety? Are you concerned about your mental well being?

If not, how is it an attack? You are safe at home nursing babies. Everyone talking here is in other countries or at least other states. Your mind is made up that you will not commit suicide. If you have no threat, how is it an attack?

Although, if you do feel afraid of your well being, don't be afraid to speak up. Kiwifarms has it's own set of rules: eg. "don't pozload my neghole" aka don't harass the lolcow irl. Nobody even a lolcow should be threatened.

I'm not too concerned if I change anyone's mind what they think about me. But I do think I have a right to speak for myself.

Each person carries their own worldview and religion and that is the lens by which they judge all things and all people. All worldviews and religions do not agree on the definitions of "good" and "evil", so there will ultimately be a disconnect. But like I said before, I learn about myself and become a better writer through debating and that is beneficial.

By "attacking" I mean the social abuse this site has inflicted to some degree. It moved off the internet into our neighborhood and the things we dealt with were very crazy. Several people have looked me up and commented about finding me on this site. The reactions have not all been negative, but more scapegoating and social abuse has occurred. Pagan Americans (USA) have a thing for scapegoating. Once one person starts, lots of people join in (sickness). Mostly to deflect the potential threat of being scapegoated themself, in my POV. Many people are quick to attack but slow to think that they aren't so perfect themself.

As a person who likes a lot of privacy I also felt attacked by my personal life being blasted for an international audience. Not because I am embarrassed by anything in my personal life, just that I tend to be shy and reserved by nature. I like to be in the shadows of society, not a public figure. Normally you share personal details about your life with whomever you choose. For example, my father's suicide was a secret I was going to take to my grave. I told Marshall and he the only person I have ever offered that information too. I don't tell anybody about that because of the stigma attached to it. Then The Stalker had to tell everyone online so I felt I had to correct the situation by having the change to speak for myself.

There are plenty of moral laws that modern humanity understands and accepts as a majority that aren't detailed in the Torah. It was compiled out of various texts written thousands of years ago for a diverse population of mostly farmers and nomads. You repeatedly ask Elohim to curse various Kiwis in this thread but have you ever consulted Him on scholarly issues?

And besides, why do you need a moral law in the Torah to understand that someone sexually violating their spouse is wrong? There are myriads of reasons why someone might not want to have sex, from pelvic cancers pressing on the female sexual organs to male impotence due to medications to simple temporary libido mismatch. Why is it reprehensible if someone grabs a woman off the street and rapes her, but if a husband grabs his wife and rapes her because she said 'no, I'm on my period, I'm too tender to have sex' it's suddenly perfectly fine?

Do you understand how immensely sickening it is that you perpetuate this kind of intermarriage abuse by believing spousal rape is okay? You don't automatically give up bodily autonomy just because you exchange vows with someone. It doesn't matter if the reason sex is withheld is unfair, you turn to therapy or divorce or compromise or medical treatment, whatever solves the fucking problem. You (general 'you', not you specifically) don't force yourself on someone sexually because you're too much of a stupid horny dog to understand that other people have feelings and rights even when you're married to them.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that gets women killed by abusive husbands. It is disgusting. You are disgusting, and a traitor to your gender for believing this kind of bullshit.

I don't talk to Elohim directly (and I don't know anyone in this generation who does!, but if anyone claims to, I'd sure like to meet them). My scholarship is an endeavor based on my own human effort.

I believe Elohim when They said you need The Torah to define right and wrong. Outside of that, there is no more definition of right and wrong. There is only opinion, preference and cultural norms.

I mentioned before on this thread that a spouse should not injure a spouse if there is rape in the situation. I tried finding the comment number but can't, so the situation you describe in which someone is ill and needs healing, then it would be clearly wrong to injure the person by forced sex.

Outside of that, I just don't see there being an issue with forced sex if it doesn't cause an injury. I don't see there being absolute bodily autonomy in marriage. Sex is a marital right, so it is an obligation of the other spouse to give it. In essence, one spouse has rights to the other spouse's body. This helps also form the moral principle that a spouse cannot have sex with others outside of the marriage because their body belongs to their spouse, not anyone else.

So, if you reason that rape is wrong based on bodily autonomy, then the inverse would be true too: withholding sex is then allowed. And that circles back to the marital rights issue. It can't be true then that there is absolute bodily autonomy in marriage because saying so would mean that you can deny your spouse his or her marital rights. And with that, I can't agree.

I'm puzzled by your statement that being raped by a spouse would cause injured feelings. I see the root of that as the perception that being dominated by a spouse (temporarily) makes a woman feel unsafe, rather than an actual emotional injury. Is it possible that by being raped by her spouse, a woman could actually feel more safe? The gesture is symbolic of his desire to dominate and desire toward her. Resisting rape is telling him that you don't want his dominance, but allowing the behavior communicates that she accepts his dominance at times. This can register in both of their minds as security in the relationship. His dominance makes him a protector, her accepting it shows him her fidelity toward him. (Not saying females can't dominate their spouse either, just that the psyscoligcal information communicated is different).

Why would it injure a woman's feelings?

Serious question: are you or have you been a domestic violence victim? I legitimately haven't seen anyone try to defend senseless violence and sexual assault as much as you have and it's legitimately concerning, especially since you're a mother. If you're teach your kids that's what's right, then that's just disgusting.

When my children marry, they can decide with their spouse how they feel about these issues. Every marriage has to build itself.

But I do not believe The Torah says spousal rape is a sin, nor is striking worthy of condemnation, that's what I would teach them.

 

[Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake]

I'm puzzled by your statement that being raped by a spouse would cause injured feelings. I see the root of that as the perception that being dominated by a spouse (temporarily) makes a woman feel unsafe, rather than an actual emotional injury. Is it possible that by being raped by her spouse, a woman could actually feel more safe? The gesture is symbolic of his desire to dominate and desire toward her. Resisting rape is telling him that you don't want his dominance, but allowing the behavior communicates that she accepts his dominance at times. This can register in both of their minds as security in the relationship. His dominance makes him a protector, her accepting it shows him her fidelity toward him. (Not saying females can't dominate their spouse either, just that the psyscoligcal information communicated is different).

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

You have no idea what I look like in person. Just because Mr Mooney Looney warped some picture of me in an avatar doesn't mean I'm ugly. It just shows how your brain works -- assumptions and huge illogical gaps in your thinking.

I'm secure in my looks. And secure in the relationship that Marshall thinks I'm attractive. He told me before that he believes he and I are physically compatible because we are the same level of attractiveness. Tells me I'm pretty and beautiful all the time.

Marshall doesn't think like pagan men. He doesn't believe in tossing women who have given birth to the side for a barren woman. That's the way of pagans, not the way of YHWH and righteous men. In Hebraic culture children are not "baggage" they are "blessings". You just don't know the ways of YHWH

I've been in public and other women have tried to seduce Marshall for glances, even in front of me, and he just looks the other way. He's turned down invitations from co-workers to go to strip clubs on trips. Pagan women are like that, always trying to compete with other women for a man's attention (another manifestation of internalized misogyny). Many pagan women in my experience often also think they are better if they are younger or have less children so they try to get men to lust after them in front of their wives. Complete opposite of a Hebraic mentality. Based on the many conversations I've had with Marshall, he doesn't think like a pagan. Praise YaH

Marshall also has the capacity to love, which will hold us together. He also is one of those rare men that loves a woman from the inside out. He is attracted to things like wisdom, verbal intelligence, and sexy factor (good personality). There may be women prettier than me, but I got the "sexy factor" ladies , so I don't feel threatened by any of these predictions you make!

Your statements about rape are illogical. Clearly if I don't believe it is a sin then it wouldn't come "home to roost" because it doesn't bother me. I don't get into power struggles with my husband. That is one reason I can carry a relationship. Pick your battles wisely.

Your statements about him potentially assaulting me are illogical too. Obviously if The Torah says he is required to heal any injury he causes me, it all works out okay in the end. Why would he cause an injury that he will have to then turn around and heal? Eventually the brain figures it out.

See, this is where you have a huge disconnect in your brain. You want to condemn a man (Marshall) for causing an injury to another human being. I don't know anyone ever who has never caused an injury to another person when fighting. Please, by all means, if you have ever met someone who has never caused an injury to another person when fighting (verbal, mental or physical), let me meet them. I'd like to interview them.

My willingness to judge my husband properly for an action he did in his past (physical striking), and anything that comes up in my relationship is why I'm able to carry a relationship. I don't fly off the handle and call the cops because of human fighting. It's absurd and unrighteous to treat a man like a villain for an action that is not worthy of condemnation or excommunication in The Torah.

This is not being a DV apologist. This is being an advocate of healing and peacemaking. If the person who strikes is required to heal the other person then clearly I am advocating for being a peacemaker in a relationship, not sending a man to jail for something that could be remedied with healing and peacemaking.

My willingness to be a peacemaker under the rules of The Torah is what will hold my relationship with Marshall together

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will called the children of Elohim" (Matthew 5:9)




I'm not too concerned if I change anyone's mind what they think about me. But I do think I have a right to speak for myself.

Each person carries their own worldview and religion and that is the lens by which they judge all things and all people. All worldviews and religions do not agree on the definitions of "good" and "evil", so there will ultimately be a disconnect. But like I said before, I learn about myself and become a better writer through debating and that is beneficial.

By "attacking" I mean the social abuse this site has inflicted to some degree. It moved off the internet into our neighborhood and the things we dealt with were very crazy. Several people have looked me up and commented about finding me on this site. The reactions have not all been negative, but more scapegoating and social abuse has occurred. Pagan Americans (USA) have a thing for scapegoating. Once one person starts, lots of people join in (sickness). Mostly to deflect the potential threat of being scapegoated themself, in my POV. Many people are quick to attack but slow to think that they aren't so perfect themself.

As a person who likes a lot of privacy I also felt attacked by my personal life being blasted for an international audience. Not because I am embarrassed by anything in my personal life, just that I tend to be shy and reserved by nature. I like to be in the shadows of society, not a public figure. Normally you share personal details about your life with whomever you choose. For example, my father's suicide was a secret I was going to take to my grave. I told Marshall and he the only person I have ever offered that information too. I don't tell anybody about that because of the stigma attached to it. Then The Stalker had to tell everyone online so I felt I had to correct the situation by having the change to speak for myself.





I don't talk to Elohim directly (and I don't know anyone in this generation who does!, but if anyone claims to, I'd sure like to meet them). My scholarship is an endeavor based on my own human effort.

I believe Elohim when They said you need The Torah to define right and wrong. Outside of that, there is no more definition of right and wrong. There is only opinion, preference and cultural norms.

I mentioned before on this thread that a spouse should not injure a spouse if there is rape in the situation. I tried finding the comment number but can't, so the situation you describe in which someone is ill and needs healing, then it would be clearly wrong to injure the person by forced sex.

Outside of that, I just don't see there being an issue with forced sex if it doesn't cause an injury. I don't see there being absolute bodily autonomy in marriage. Sex is a marital right, so it is an obligation of the other spouse to give it. In essence, one spouse has rights to the other spouse's body. This helps also form the moral principle that a spouse cannot have sex with others outside of the marriage because their body belongs to their spouse, not anyone else.

So, if you reason that rape is wrong based on bodily autonomy, then the inverse would be true too: withholding sex is then allowed. And that circles back to the marital rights issue. It can't be true then that there is absolute bodily autonomy in marriage because saying so would mean that you can deny your spouse his or her marital rights. And with that, I can't agree.

I'm puzzled by your statement that being raped by a spouse would cause injured feelings. I see the root of that as the perception that being dominated by a spouse (temporarily) makes a woman feel unsafe, rather than an actual emotional injury. Is it possible that by being raped by her spouse, a woman could actually feel more safe? The gesture is symbolic of his desire to dominate and desire toward her. Resisting rape is telling him that you don't want his dominance, but allowing the behavior communicates that she accepts his dominance at times. This can register in both of their minds as security in the relationship. His dominance makes him a protector, her accepting it shows him her fidelity toward him. (Not saying females can't dominate their spouse either, just that the psyscoligcal information communicated is different).

Why would it injure a woman's feelings?





When my children marry, they can decide with their spouse how they feel about these issues. Every marriage has to build itself.

But I do not believe The Torah says spousal rape is a sin, nor is striking worthy of condemnation, that's what I would teach them.

The tl;dr here is "rape good".

You know, maybe you shouldn't put that book-writing power to writing a nearly page-long response to why rape isn't bad. Legitimately surprised you can't determine right or wrong unless it falls within your autistic perceptions of a several millennia old book that fails to adapt well with modern society. That's actually quite pathetic.

 

[Karl der Grosse]

Melinda's downright desperate for Marshall to keep coming over two or three times a week to throw a twenty minute fuck into her. Also, I personally think it's great that your neighbors now know about Marshall's criminal background and your multiple investigations by CPS. Just maybe it'll encourage one of them with a conscience to make that phone call next time Marshall beats you up or slaps around one of your children.

 

[Toasty]

It moved off the internet into our neighborhood and the things we dealt with were very crazy. Several people have looked me up and commented about finding me on this site

Proof?

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Sure they have. Unless someone is looking for your full name they wont find you here. The very first Melinda Scott that comes up is one from Toronto. Melinda's on the second page and under courtlistener. Hell, her Academia.edu page comes up before Kiwifarms if you just search Melinda Scott. Her Kiwifarms page comes up on the sixth page.

 

[White Baby]

I don't talk to Elohim directly (and I don't know anyone in this generation who does!, but if anyone claims to, I'd sure like to meet them).

I'm not going to address the rest of your response to my post because you're still a misogynist gender traitor, but this is absolutely baffling to me. There are so many instances in the Torah of people directly talking and praying to Elohim that it makes no sense why you choose not to. Do you believe you're unworthy? Because that's a sentiment I can get behind.

 

[Toasty]

So to simplify what @TamarYaelBatYah is saying, if one spouse verbally abused the other spouse, the verbally abused spouse may then break the ribs of the spouse who verbally abused them, providing that they tape up the verbally abusive spouse's ribs after.
Sounds legit.
Andrew, I'm asking you nicely. Cut it out. My ratings stats are off the charts. I don't need your little stickers on my shit.

 

[redcent]

You have no idea what I look like in person. Just because Mr Mooney Looney warped some picture of me in an avatar doesn't mean I'm ugly. It just shows how your brain works -- assumptions and huge illogical gaps in your thinking.

I'm secure in my looks. And secure in the relationship that Marshall thinks I'm attractive. He told me before that he believes he and I are physically compatible because we are the same level of attractiveness. Tells me I'm pretty and beautiful all the time.

Marshall doesn't think like pagan men. He doesn't believe in tossing women who have given birth to the side for a barren woman. That's the way of pagans, not the way of YHWH and righteous men. In Hebraic culture children are not "baggage" they are "blessings". You just don't know the ways of YHWH

I've been in public and other women have tried to seduce Marshall for glances, even in front of me, and he just looks the other way. He's turned down invitations from co-workers to go to strip clubs on trips. Pagan women are like that, always trying to compete with other women for a man's attention (another manifestation of internalized misogyny). Many pagan women in my experience often also think they are better if they are younger or have less children so they try to get men to lust after them in front of their wives. Complete opposite of a Hebraic mentality. Based on the many conversations I've had with Marshall, he doesn't think like a pagan. Praise YaH

Marshall also has the capacity to love, which will hold us together. He also is one of those rare men that loves a woman from the inside out. He is attracted to things like wisdom, verbal intelligence, and sexy factor (good personality). There may be women prettier than me, but I got the "sexy factor" ladies , so I don't feel threatened by any of these predictions you make!

I think you are imagining the other women want to seduce your husband, no one wants to compete over him. If you think that other women in the worlds are all men stealing competitors I don't think you have seen much of the world or are projecting

Take this site as an example:do you really think any of the women here want to compete with you for your husband? No. Therefor not all women are competitors.

So rest assured nobody wants your husband

This isn't to say your husband might want someone else, despite what that someone else wants. Lol.

After all, it is mgtow mantra (mgtow being something your husband admitted to being) that women "hit the wall" at 30 and then become useless roasties or whatever

Your statements about rape are illogical. Clearly if I don't believe it is a sin then it wouldn't come "home to roost" because it doesn't bother me. I don't get into power struggles with my husband. That is one reason I can carry a relationship. Pick your battles wisely.

how can it not bother you?

You do realise how traumatising that shit is?

Rape can cause physical and mental damage that can't be healed by a bit of peace keeping. If you stop believing that spousal rape is ok, it will not hurt you to stop believing that. Why still cling to it?

I'm not too concerned if I change anyone's mind what they think about me. But I do think I have a right to speak for myself.

while you have that right there is little point in doing so if nobody listens. Otherwise you are just talking to yourself or just talking because you like the sound of your own voice (or appearance of your text wall arguments)

Each person carries their own worldview and religion and that is the lens by which they judge all things and all people. All worldviews and religions do not agree on the definitions of "good" and "evil", so there will ultimately be a disconnect. But like I said before, I learn about myself and become a better writer through debating and that is beneficial.

By "attacking" I mean the social abuse this site has inflicted to some degree. It moved off the internet into our neighborhood and the things we dealt with were very crazy. Several people have looked me up and commented about finding me on this site. The reactions have not all been negative, but more scapegoating and social abuse has occurred. Pagan Americans (USA) have a thing for scapegoating. Once one person starts, lots of people join in (sickness). Mostly to deflect the potential threat of being scapegoated themself, in my POV. Many people are quick to attack but slow to think that they aren't so perfect themself.

But if you are attacked how are you injured? Does it make you bleed anywhere? Are your legs broken? Do you even have a bruise from what people say? If it's a mental thing do you feel threatened?

As a person who likes a lot of privacy I also felt attacked by my personal life being blasted for an international audience. Not because I am embarrassed by anything in my personal life, just that I tend to be shy and reserved by nature. I like to be in the shadows of society, not a public figure. Normally you share personal details about your life with whomever you choose. For example, my father's suicide was a secret I was going to take to my grave. I told Marshall and he the only person I have ever offered that information too. I don't tell anybody about that because of the stigma attached to it. Then The Stalker had to tell everyone online so I felt I had to correct the situation by having the change to speak for myself.

Welcome to the internet

There's a magical way to keep things private: don't bring your private life up


Nobody cared about you until you came here and tried suing null. And I challenge you to go through the Andrew thread and tell me, aside from the pants changing comment, what you found so embarrassing.