This Is My Fireproof Thread

[JanniGirl]

Now -- we have to remember that the husband is the only important person in the relationship. He should sin with abandon and always look after his own perceived well being, even to the detriment of those who love him. Love is what he determines it is. Faithfulness is a myth and something that women made up to make men feel bad. Integrity is an illusion and only for "feminine" men. God forgives all and therefore there is no need to even consider abating sin.

Oh -- did I use his old moniker?

 

[Tannic]

As a devoted Christian wife, it is my responsibility to pray for my husband that the LORD would be merciful to him and cut off anything in his life that is causing him to sin.

Which raises a question? You know how the Bible says the husband is THE HEAD? Suppose his "extracurricular activity" is causing his wife to stumble? Perhaps there are times when divorce becomes a necessary surgery?

Hmmm could be an example of her faith in God. If God is on her side, who or what can make her stumble besides herself.

 

[McScribe]

Now -- we have to remember that the husband is the only important person in the relationship. He should sin with abandon and always look after his own perceived well being, even to the detriment of those who love him. Love is what he determines it is. Faithfulness is a myth and something that women made up to make men feel bad. Integrity is an illusion and only for "feminine" men. God forgives all and therefore there is no need to even consider abating sin.

Oh -- did I use his old moniker?

Replace all that with wife and we get the feminist perspective. The woman need take no responsibility for the relationship as she is doing everything right anyway and is a victim of the patriarchy. The idea of forgiveness, mutual pursuit of love is just a clever trick to gull her into giving him sex, of course. And somehow this can pass for Christianity? Nonsense.

 

[c1ners]

Replace all that with wife and we get the feminist perspective. The woman need take no responsibility for the relationship as she is doing everything right anyway and is a victim of the patriarchy. The idea of forgiveness, mutual pursuit of love is just a clever trick to gull her into giving him sex, of course. And somehow this can pass for Christianity? Nonsense.

To be fair MsScribe, I don't think I've ever heard any of the females on this forum claim to agree with what you just said above. Not even the feminists.

 

[Psalm63]

Hmmm could be an example of her faith in God. If God is on her side, who or what can make her stumble besides herself.

Yes, indeed God is on her side, IF she SUBMITS to Him! But unfortunately there are those who pick and choose which verses apply to her situation and overlook God's COMMANDS relayed by Paul the Apostle here and here (for example).

OFF with that HEAD!!!

 

[Psalm63]

Now -- we have to remember that the husband is the only important person in the relationship. He should sin with abandon and always look after his own perceived well being, even to the detriment of those who love him. Love is what he determines it is. Faithfulness is a myth and something that women made up to make men feel bad. Integrity is an illusion and only for "feminine" men. God forgives all and therefore there is no need to even consider abating sin.

LOL!

I call this "the revised self-sanctified version"

 

[Luther073082]

Honestly I think it's incredibly rude and presumptuous to put your hands on your hips online-style and DEMAND for 3 women to answer a question before we're allowed to say anything else. Good grief. It's like you guys are just drooooling for PROOF that we are as horrible as you think!

I am not going to share my answers to those questions with an audience the likes of this one. Makes me think of the verse warning us not to throw our pearls to pigs. My thoughts, feelings and experiences regarding my marriage and spiritual life are not things I care to throw in THIS thread for people to trounce all over just to prove their point about women being one way and men being another. Assume what you want of me and ALL wives and women all you like; I doubt my personal testimony is going to change the harsh stereotypes I'm seeing here. I'm not going to play the game and be jerked around, doing what you demand like a marionette desperate to prove to a group of angry men that I am a good woman and a good wife according to THEIR standards. *vomit*

This thread IS making me incredibly grateful for my wonderful, sensitive, respectful, intelligent and humble husband!!!

You can't answer the question because you have no answer to the question. Thats why none of you will answer the question.

Point proven. . . its pointless to argue anymore. We point out real facts and ask a real easy question and you totally skirt all the answers and still attempt to use illogic to defend the idea that fireproof was not a tottally one sided movie that was only ment for women to drag their husbands to in order to try to fix them.

 

[Conservativation]

To be fair MsScribe, I don't think I've ever heard any of the females on this forum claim to agree with what you just said above. Not even the feminists.

Really?

Have you ever heard a man say the tripe in the post above that one?

geese, ganders, all that.

While neither thing is being said per se, one is much easier to glean straightforwardly from the amalgam of writing here, while the other is the normal "assign the extreme meaning to everything then rebuke it" intellectual laziness that passes for discourse

 

[Luther073082]

Now -- we have to remember that the husband is the only important person in the relationship. He should sin with abandon and always look after his own perceived well being, even to the detriment of those who love him. Love is what he determines it is. Faithfulness is a myth and something that women made up to make men feel bad. Integrity is an illusion and only for "feminine" men. God forgives all and therefore there is no need to even consider abating sin.

Oh -- did I use his old moniker?

Yeah your straw man arguments are what is getting ridiculous.

We say that fire proof was a one sided movie designed for women to drag their husbands to to fix them.

Of course you don't argue that point because you have no point. Instead you set up a straw man and try to argue with it.

This debate isn't between us. . . it never has been. Its been between the women and their strawmen.

Anything and everything we say, any logical and supported point we make you revert to the same old strawman.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Conservativation]

I wish they would eliminate the emoticon

Seriously.....how often is it NOT used as some little sarcastic kicker?

Its way abused, if anyone reading this has the powah! please see about that.
'K

 

[JaneFW]

I wish they would eliminate the emoticon

Seriously.....how often is it NOT used as some little sarcastic kicker?

Its way abused, if anyone reading this has the powah! please see about that.
'K

Kinda like the way that has been used to let people know that the "writer" thinks they are stupid.

 

[Conservativation]

Yeah your straw man arguments are what is getting ridiculous.

We say that fire proof was a one sided movie designed for women to drag their husbands to to fix them.

Of course you don't argue that point because you have no point. Instead you set up a straw man and try to argue with it.

This debate isn't between us. . . it never has been. Its been between the women and their strawmen.

Anything and everything we say, any logical and supported point we make you revert to the same old strawman.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly. Make up an extreme that anyone would agree is a bad thing, assign it to your opponent, then rebuke that extreme. Brilliantly done, except pretty much except those doing it, folks are seeing it more and more clearly. These last couple of threads have shaved it down to that being whats left.

To refute the predictable, Mcs's post does not analogously employ a strawman, he isnt assigning the thing to any poster in order to rebuke them, and he isnt using it even in an argument, hence no straw man, and no reason for the response "I dont think anyone is saying that"....he wasnt saying anyone was saying that.

Its an overall impression of a set of driving beliefs....and again, he didnt assign it to anyone or follow it with a rebuke....its not done rhetorically, its not a straw man. Its more an exposition.

 

[Tannic]

Yes, indeed God is on her side, IF she SUBMITS to Him! But unfortunately there are those who pick and choose which verses apply to her situation and overlook God's COMMANDS relayed by Paul the Apostle here and here (for example).

OFF with that HEAD!!!

It was her choice to marry him. She should have went to God before getting married(plain and simple). Sad how divorce is supposedly gaining ground here.

 

[Conservativation]

Kinda like the way that has been used to let people know that the "writer" thinks they are stupid.

No, nothing like that.

That emoticon is flat out directly meaning what it means. It doesnt have any other use, except maybe if i wanted to suggest I was slapping my own head over a stupid mistake.

Its the clever cuteness (too clever by half) that the is used....

Very different.

 

[c1ners]

Really?

Have you ever heard a man say the tripe in the post above that one?

geese, ganders, all that.

While neither thing is being said per se, one is much easier to glean straightforwardly from the amalgam of writing here, while the other is the normal "assign the extreme meaning to everything then rebuke it" intellectual laziness that passes for discourse

Excuse me, but I wasn't talking to you. If McScribe wants to get upset at me for saying what I did, so be it. But IMO, HE is the only one who can get upset seeing as though it was him I quoted. Not YOU! He can speak for himself. The man isn't a child after all!

 

[Luther073082]

Of course all of the men are desperatly waiting for women to answer what they got out of fireproof that made them a better wife.

But they are "uncomfortable" to answer such an easy question in such mixed company apparently.

Odd you would think they would be excited to answer this question since the entire argument is based on if fireproof has a value to women beyond trying to use it to fix their husband.

 

[Chaplain David]

Kinda like the way that has been used to let people know that the "writer" thinks they are stupid.

I don't want to derail so I will keep this short. Emoticons are like words and can be taken the wrong way and used in a good way or used in a bad way. For example, I have used the slapping myself in the head one to indicate I had posted something idiotic and it had nothing to do with who I was replying to. Same as the thumbs up. But's it's kind of designed ugly isn't it? And this one can be used both in negative and positive ways.

It would be nice to have some friendlier emoticons.

God bless.

 

[Luther073082]

Excuse me, but I wasn't talking to you. If McScribe wants to get upset at me for saying what I did, so be it. But IMO, HE is the only one who can get upset seeing as though it was him I quoted. Not YOU! He can speak for himself. The man isn't a child after all!

GREAT DODGE!!!

Some of you should really run for office. You would be good at it.

There are polticians who would be amazed at your ability to dodge and completly avoid answering important questions, set up straw men, and just go on with your talking points. There are bona-fide candidates for president of the United States who can't dodge questions nearly as well as you.

For the record the question that we've been trying to get a direct answer (instead of avoidance and dodges) on for the last 5 to 10 pages still stands. . . "What did you get out of fireproof that made you a better wife?"

But please feel free to come up with yet another way to dodge that question so that we may all revel in your mastery of straw men, nitpicking at how the question was asked, and totally avoiding the question all together to go to ramble on about something else.

I await yet another lesson in dodging the question.

 

[c1ners]

Edited because it was not very nice.

 

[Psalm63]

Replace all that with wife and we get the feminist perspective. The woman need take no responsibility for the relationship as she is doing everything right anyway and is a victim of the patriarchy. The idea of forgiveness, mutual pursuit of love is just a clever trick to gull her into giving him sex, of course. And somehow this can pass for Christianity? Nonsense.

If her husband is actively unfaithful in body or mind (Matt 5:28), she needs to detach and distance herself from him- up to and including divorce if he continues following the little head... (see my posts above for multiple passages instructing her thus).

YES she should take responsibility! She should take responsibility to STOP subjecting herself and the children to "hell on earth". God is going to take care of her! The progress in society with good options for women to take care of themselves and their children is God's good gift and provision for women!

God has heard and responded mercifully to the cries of HIS beloved (and longsuffering) daughters!