₦airaland Forum

coogar:
there's hardly any man that doesn't appreciate the male-female dynamism. that is why he proposed to the woman in the first place but men continue to bear the biggest chunk of the brunt in the west. if he's not losing 50% of his wealth, he would lose the house, cars & even the pet dogs. if she's the mean type, she can even put a restraining order against him to see his kids or the house.

I actually meant in terms of being a playa and triggering attration responses in women. It's so ridiculously easy if you know how. Such men can enjoy a wonderful variety of sexual partners, without getting married, and at relatively low risk compared to marriage.

coogar:
when you try to take responsibility & demand high value, you would be promptly labelled a brute, bully, domestic abuser. it's a lose-lose situation.

Here I meant in regulating the kind of women you allow into your orbit. If high quality/status men refused to engage the wrong sort of women, they'd have to shape up. All women typically desire the top 20 -30 % of men.

coogar:
it's a mad mad world.

Ultimately we stand or fall together. This cannot continue or society will not remain as we have known it.

TV

carefreewannabe:
There is a consensus? Among which group of people?

Again whose current thinking exactly?

These responses suggest you are not conversant with the laws or prevailing thought in the West. You really should read up.

carefreewannabe:
You tell me what constitutes rape. Share your views. I will share mine.

Ladies first ! You are trumpeting marital rape, tell us what it is as distinct - unless it's exactly the same - from other forms. And if it's the same, my position remains unchanged based on what has been posted here. And further, I'd refer you to my response immediatley above.

carefreewannabe:
First of all, do you think a man can be raped? And if yes, why? If not, why not?

Legally he cannot be raped by his wife, as it's deemed a penetrative act. There is no statute that covers it in the UK. He will only be deemed to have been raped if his wife assusts another man to forcefully penetrate him

carefreewannabe:
Secondly, I have already said it on this forum, and I need to repeat it in this context, no logical supporter and promoter of equality will deny that there are biological differences between the se*xes.

And this is not recognised by the laws covering rape
And the word rape is loaded and heavily politicised

carefreewannabe:
If he forces and brutalizes her to have s*ex with her against her will then it is not only GBH but rape too.

You haven't shown good reason for that within marriage

carefreewannabe:
If she decides to drink out of her free will and then sleeps with him without being forced to, then it is not ra*pe.

Legally it is

carefreewannabe:
If he coerces her to sleep with her, then it is rape, do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.
If a wife coerces or intimadates her husband to sleep with her, has she raped him?

carefreewannabe:
If a woman uses s*ex to obtain something and the man decides to give her something in exchange for se*x, then it is a deal between two consenting adults.

A wife has already consented to sex with her husband. Marriage is conjugal and sex is obligatory. What you talk of is something I am not familiar with !

And that is why I say that the term rape is loaded and politicised. It needs to be expanded to capture sexual crimes of the wife against the husband. By deeming it solely penetrative and only a matter of consent or deemed to be coercive when its the woman, the laws here are simply bad.

carefreewannabe:
If a woman withholds s*ex for some reason, then nothing can be done apart to her. The man can leave or cheat.

So you don't understand what marriage is and you are not for equality !

carefreewannabe:
So you can kill your wife or your wife can kill you and it is your business because you are married? Interesting.

Straw-woman (I am for equality ) - sex is implicit in marriage, murder isn't

carefreewannabe:
Nobody is butting into marital affairs unless one of the spouses, most likely the wife, accuses her husband of rape.

Only the wife can accuse her husband of rape.
And what is considered rape is contrary to some historically practiced, widely prevailing and accepted forms of marriage

carefreewannabe:
Any human being should have the right to be protected if needs be even if it is against their spouse.
I thought, this goes without saying.

That doesn't mean a husband should be arbitrarily criminalised for the act of having intercourse with his lawfully wedded spouse does it?


TV

LordReed:
Next time slow down and read before you comment, no where did I mention one body.

Marriage does not make one a soulless dummy that can be used against one's will. Your obligations still require your active and willful participation.

...will an answer to the question be forthcoming? Or are you waiting for consent !


TV

coogar:
•marital rape
•no fault divorce
•child custody battles
•ridiculous divorce payouts
•prenup, etc

all these things have crashed the value of marriage institution & men are mostly the victims. i can't even see it getting any better as there seems to be a force out there determined to swallow marriage values completely.

Long-term men, women and children will suffer the fallout. Yes, individual men may play smart, forsake marriage and just live life. Afterall sex, which was a major dividend for men in marriage, has effectively been divorced from it. A man who appreciates the male-female dynamic and moreso is at least solvent, will have a field day. The only snag would be if he wants children and the best long-term outcome for them.

But that's from a selfish individual perspective. Long term society will come close to collapse. Men built it, men have to take responsibility for turning the tide and retrieving the situation. Setting high standards for ourselves as men, husbands and fathers and demanding high value from women is the way to go.

TV

^{**after clearing all the hurdles to getting married and then taking on the huge burden that comes with it, why do men need a busy-body state, or interfering - typically unmarried - types, adjudicating on the intimacy between them and their wives; and with nebulous crap about consent !**}

coogar:
it must be asked though....
why do you defend marriage when it's clear as daylight that men are being short-changed in the institution? in the western world, is there any merit for men to get married?

Societal flourishing demands it.
Civilisation as we know it cannot persist without it.

I am fully aware of it's low value proposition for men in the West - especially from a legal standpoint - but all told, society works best with men and women harnessing the complimentary natures to raise healthy families.

You can literally opt out of the current value-proposition and create your own. You just need to find a woman that shares your worldview or at least gets it and buys into it. Long-term it's nest for her too.

More widely, a society requires a bithrate of around 2.2 to regenerate itself. Almost all Western societies are unable to meet this as they retreated from first religion and then marriage. Hence the need for massive immigration. With no way of importing like for like - as they are all suffering the same problem - they have to allow in cultures and religions that clash. Long-term unworkable. Or do you think yesterdays attacks were not clearly forseeable?

Even Nigeria with all it's problems would make much headway if we had good solid nuclear families. How many of the current generation can hold decent unions together?


Faith & family

TV

LordReed:
Individual wills have agreed to work together they don't automatically disappear nor will they ever. No party is supposed to make such a unilateral decision, it is to be arrived by consensus which why it is not acceptable for the husband or wife to simply withhold sex.



Same principle, it is neglect whether neglect of provision or the bed.



It might be inchoate to you but it is the reality. When two individuals marry they don't become a one brained one willed two bodied monster, they remain individuals who are choosing to work towards the same goals. Their wills remain theirs even if they give up their self interests for the family.

More of the same. No one said thay became one body. Otherwise where is the sex !

If a man demands sex with his wife and she doesn't want it, but he insists as it's an express part of marriage, so she agrees against her feelings has he raped her? Should he be charged? Noting that legally, there was not informed consent (or it was coerced), the basis for rape.

TV

vivalableue:
When I said implicit consent, I literally mean an open invitation at all times without giving way the need to ask. However, when I look at it, when I agree to be a wife, for example, I'm agreeing that my husband will be the only one who I agree to have sex with me. Not that he can have access to my body regardless if I consent or not, just that he'll be the only one I will give consent to.

In marriage, consent is one side of the coin; the other is that a spouse has a right to conjugal relations and you have understood and accepted that right by marrying them. Of course one expects ones spouse to be receptive/consent to intimacy, but there is also a right to it.

vivalableue:
Oneness means that decisions and actions of each spouse be considered as though the both are doing it. So if one spouse decides to purchase a house, his wife implicitly agrees to do so. However, in the course of a marriage it is reasonable to assume and perhaps even expected to assume that both parties agree to each other activities before the activity is committed. Which is why in my neck of the woods, a couple can legally separate if they allege that one partner is acting on a consistent basis without consulting the other.

I found it hard to pin down what is being outlined here. "Openess" sounds somewhat abstract. Practically I understand that spouses need to discuss and agree and often compromise. I also see why "legally", one spouse acting unilaterally would be grunds for a separation.

vivalableue:
About the divorce for non consummation, I have to consult the law books of my province and get back to you.

Most religious and cultural forms of marriage were sealed and validated by consumation.

vivalableue:
Rape is sex without the implicit consent of both parties, even the withdrawal of consent of one party during the act. In my part of the world, the word party is used, because gay sex is legal, therefore it's possible for one man to rape another, a women to rape another, a man to rape transgender etc

And part of the issue is the fluidity of consent and the different way sex happens for men and women

As far as I know women cannot be charged with raping men unless they do so as an accomplice of another man. It's penetrative as defined

And this without alluding to holy matrimony as I know and practice it. Here a spouses body literally belongs to the other. Conjugal relations are implied and a right.

As you yourself noted, consent can be retracted during the act, the law saws if consent is not informed and explicit, it's not consent. This leaves the door open to criminale men in their homes - even against the wishes of their wives. And I am in no way championing violence or the use of force

I also see it as a slur on marriage, which is actually safest for women. People are free to pursue the rape epidemic, I continue to defend marriage.


TV

coogar:
a brief decision was made when they heard the guys involved were football players. they knew the case would draw attention.

And leave one mans career in tatters and unfairly denied the chance to pursue his livelihood?

coogar:
no date drug was found in her system but prosecutors used the technicality of her high metabolism rate. traces of cannabis & cocaine were found in her system though.

She could equally have taken the drugs alone (before she even met the guys) or consensually with them. Someone who had partied and gotten high through the night, vomited inthe street and urinated in a shop doorway? And non of that means she was raped, just that it's damn murky out there!

coogar:
there's a thin line between consensual sex & nonconsensual sëx. there was no evidence they even slept with her - but the lads confessed to sleeping with her. so the moment the complainant claimed her drink might have been spiked then the police would naturally be interested in the case.

It's not thin mate, it's arbitrary - totally arbitrary. I shake my head at such guys,; you's be mad to even engage such.

coogar:
hahaha!
the laws won't change anytime soon. haven't you seen the new definition of rapë put out by FBI?

Please post, I need to see it, in for a laugh, in for a dozen ! I bet habitual breast-gazers are in trouble !

TV

...my head this morning. This made me laugh! There is so much meat here, a veritable feast;

- Champions of polygamy, this is your cue
- Hungry (along, with the bitter, time-bound etc.) single women, your input is required
- Single men on the make, what do you have to say, please share your rejection experiences, too short, "ball head", no money, no car !
- Femnivores, come and chip in, how are women making themselves unmarriageable
- Feministas, please explain why this is only sorry-arse sisters as marriage is not by fire-or-force, or do-or-die. You don't even need a man
- Smug married ladies, a few teaspoons of haughtiness will help this brew taste better

Please don't delay. I'm on furlough today !

NL parry !


TV

LordReed:
I believe that when discussing the issue of rape in marriage one must put in mind that marriage does not erase individual identity nor does it subjugate individual will. The call of marriage is to freely offer one to the other everything that one has including the body.

Rape in marriage now addresses situations where individual wills are at opposition. Rape is a violent resolution of the battle of wills whereby one imposes his/her will over another. If this happens in marriage it is still rape. Marriage gives no one the right to impose as marriage is about agreement and mutuality.

And if marriage is about agreement and mutuality as you've outlined, having entered the agreement - which is conjugal and implies co1tus - can one party now unilaterally decide to renege on the agreement? Individual identities have agreed to merge and seperate wills too mesh.

If a man freely refuses to make provision for his wife - when he is able to do so and she has need - he can be charged with spousal neglect. Much talk of free wills is at best odd, when they freely enter into the union.

Again, I'm not buying into this "marital rape" is endemic ish. And I'm not swayed by inchoate definitions of what constitutes rape or marriage.

TV

vivalableue:
It's aa complicated question that honestly varies depending on the situation at hand.

Surely we just have to define what rape is and then decide if it applies exactly the same in and out of wedlock?

vivalableue:
In the majority of cases, marriage implies a union of committed adults who agree to stay true to another and to become one. That oneness IMO doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse. It implies that by the joining together, they resolve to be in one accord.

If the oneness doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse - why can marriages be nullified in the event of non-consumation? In addition to a clear definition of what constitutes rape, you need a working proposition of what a marriage is.

I for one would be interested to hear what this "oneness" actually entails? Or how being in "one accord" in a conjugal relationship does not implicitly and explicitly demand coital relationships

vivalableue:
So, with that in mind, if one spouse at any moment of time disagrees to have sex, the other must be in accord with that decision. Forcing your spouse to have sex with out their consent not only is rape, but it's also breaking the marriage vows.

You have not defined rape, and your definition of marriage is not one that I am aware is pracrtised anywhere? So you have a plausible sounding conclusion without a premise. And no one is arguing against individual instances of "giving leave to one another", or endorsing violence.


TV

coogar:
the complainant initially reported to the police that she believed ‘her drink had been spiked’. it was only after informing the police that the complainant had stayed in a room in the premier inn that had been booked for two footballers, that the police escalated the enquiry to a rape enquiry. this was only 14 minutes after taking the call and without interviewing either the complainant or the suspects.

That again is an issue; the decision to charge as rape was taken by the law authorities.
1. She cannot be held to have given informed consent, but her "belief" that her drink was spiked is given due consideration? Not too mention that there was no forensics backing up this claim? The law is too woolly, the claims too spurious, charges too arbitrary and convictions too inconsistent - why was the other guy let off?

coogar:
i think their honesty incriminated them. if they had denied sleeping with her, they wouldn't have been charged. there was no witness, no forensic trace on the victim nor the accused persons.

It was not their honesty, it was faulty - poorly formed - laws and shoddy due process. How can truth convict the innocent?

coogar:
the male sêxual response isn't different from that of the female but i doubt the law sees it that way. the law believes a woman can steal, commit murder, manslaughter, terrorist attack, etc but till this date, the law does not recognise a woman can räpe a man........so where is her sëxual responsibility?

no matter her age, she has to repeatedly say yes to the act before a man can proceed. her silence doesn't even constitute to consent. her lack of fight or not resisting doesn't mean she consented. i ask again - where did the law place her responsibility?

I see the humour, especially as I don't swim in those murky waters, but the thinking behind those laws will percolate and harm men in other areas.


TV

cococandy:
Yes that's not how rape is defined. But there are technicalities.
Would a man be considered a rapist if he makes love to his while both then are in a state of delirious wantoness?

Certainly no. And you'd be hard pressed to prove that in court.

I would agree - or at leat hope - that it would'nt get to court, but technically he has committed rape. She was in no position to give informed consent - and the same is not required from her.

cococandy:
Sensationalism at best and if not carefully taken for what it is, can prove to be distracting to the fact that there are real cases of r@pe in marriage.

As per my response to CFW, what constitutes rape in marriage has not been clearly outlined. Your example above is technically rape, yet you are saying no charges should b brought

Perhaps I have a bit of a blind spot here? As I see this as much on an attack on marriage. Marriage is still the safest - statistically proven - relationship form for women and any children they may have. Rape to be treated as a heinous crime - absolutely - but why the focus on marriage? And particularly with wooly definitions of what actually constitutes rape.

cococandy:
Oh yes TV
You're missing. Try it. she will call you daddy if she never did before

Wish wan? Stout? Hennessey, or Courvoisier? And how mush? I'm prudish and stingy. Plus I don' wanna wake the kids !


TV

...I was responding to posts yesterday when some sort of glitch happened. Anyway...

carefreewannabe:
I think it is wrong to sleep with a woman who is extremely drunk and not in her right senses but it is not necessarily rape.

That is not the prevailing thinking or concensus on what constitutes rape. In fact, that kind of utterance will have you labelled a rape apologist ! A man has to ensure there is informed (essentially competent) consent prior to the act and at every stage during it - even if he is also drunk or high. He also has to be able to prove or evidence it if any charge is made.

carefreewannabe:
And I agree that people / women should be urged to regulate their drinking and moderate their behavior when doing so instead of convicting everyone who sleeps with a drunk person as rapists.

Again, not according to curent thinking. This would be characterised as victim-shaming, or blaming the victim instead of the aggressor. You sound a little ideologically out of date

carefreewannabe:
We were actually talking about rape in marriages and not rape between strangers but anyway. Would you say that it is MORALLY right to sleep with a woman who due to her irresponsible alcohol intake is very drunk and not in her right senses Mr Moralizer?

Accepted, I have derailed somewhat, but any discussion of rape has to define what constitutes rape.

I personally would never - even as a gentile, I would not date smokers, drinkers or substance abusers of any kind - Not just moral, also judgemental !

But even if they are both "very drunk" and intercourse takes place, he can be charged with rape - she can't. Hence coogars valid point - which I also alluded to - that men are being held responsible for womens actions. How does that square with you equality, freedom and responsibility mantra?

carefreewannabe:
First of all, saying that rape takes place when a person sleeps with another without their consent is not entirely wrong.
If someone spikes someone else's drink, then it is s*ex without consent and rape.
If someone loses consciousness, which can happen for several reasons without alcohol, and someone sleeps with that person without their consent, then it is rape.

I am not arguing any of this - needless to say, the legal definition is much less rigid than what you allow for

carefreewannabe:
The question of the OP is if there is such a thing as marital rape and I STILL BELIEVE that there is such a thing. You have not been able to convince me that there is no such thing. The story you have brought to this topic is an interesting one but rather irrelevant to the topic.

The marriage relationship/covenant is a conjugal one, that is the whole point. If a man brutalises or hurts his wife I have no problem with him being charged with assault, GBH, I just question it being handles as rape.

If a man gets his wife drunk in order to sleep with her or otherwise coerces her to have intercourse without force, has he raped her?

Of the flipside question;
If a women uses sex to obtain something or withholds it out of displeasure for not getting her way, what should she be charged with?

carefreewannabe:
If you believe that there is no such a thing as marital rape because the Bible tells you that your wife's body is yours, then that is your conviction, not mine.

It is both - my wife and I - our convictions - and hence not a state affair or anybody elses business. You see why it is tendentious butting into marital affairs. Where do people who are not married, or party to a marriage, get off butting in or legislating for the relationship of those who are !


TV

cococandy:
A rape will only be considered if she said no and the man went ahead or forced her to agree.
So where both parties are drunk and high and each considering the other their spouse,non can be accused of going over the border by making love to this spouse who said nothing in disagreement.

That is not how rape is defined. She has to say an emphatic yes and she must be in a state - not high, drunk - to give informed consent. Indeed, the push is for consent to be continuously and proactivley re-evaluated.

Neither wifey or I really drink - maybe we are missing a trick. Is it different than with good blunt ?


TV

carefreewannabe:
I don't know much about this case, this is why I am asking. I just did a quick google search and this was one of the first things that caught my attention and I decided to ask you because you seem to be familiar with the case.

If a girl drinks alcohol out of her free will and does not know her limits and on the next day does not remember anything, then it is her fault. That does not give anyone the right to sleep with her but it cannot be proven whether she consented or not and that's her own fault.

If a girl gets "intoxicated" because someone puts a drug into her drink to make her lose consciousness, then that's a different thing altogether, is it not?

...if by intoxicated you mean spiked drink, of course that's rape. And the bolded bit is the whole point, if she drinks to forgetfullness, legally it's not her fault, the onus is on the accused to prove consent, not the accuser to regulate her drinking or moderate her behaviour.

So, if she went out got drunk and copped off with a boy she fancied, instead of her being a cheating ho', she becomes a rape victim. Not to make too much of a point about it, it would help if you based you understanding of marital rape on rape as defined, not as you believe, as your beliefs as stated are not aligned with how it's legally defined.

It's somewhat blasé to trumpet marital rape without giving the nuances due consideration.

TV

coogar:
and it's for this reason we cannot apply this to marital cases. if ched was married to the victim, it's highly unlikely for her to ring the cops that she had been räped. cases like this are usually around strangers meeting up or booty calls.

The victim did not allege rape, she woke up in a hotel room, couldn't remember what had happened or find her phone and the hotel staff suggested she call the police. CCTV showed she rocked up to the hotel with the two guys, so they were asked to report in. They relayed what transpired and the rest is history.

I agree that it is more unlikely to happen in marital cases, but my point was what technically constitutes rape. Plus there's a funny one you always remind us of where a husband got done for not withdrawing after the act has started - as his wife withdrew consent part way through or did he go beyond what was agreed?

coogar:
even if she was conscious, she has to express consent for the whole act not to be illegal. if she was silent when the question was posed to her - it is still not consent.

They both claim she consented, one was let off and one convicted.

coogar:
well, let's just admit the law doesn't deem women as responsible enough when it comes to the issue of sëx. they have to be constantly asked every minute if the act can proceed. consent can also be withdrawn at any point during intercöurse. if she says "stop" around the time her partner is about to ejäculate & the partner thrusts once after then, he can be charged with räpe!

Per the bolded, please tell that to those pushing for equality, responsibility and freedom. As for the rest, is it not clear that the male sexual response is different to a females? He could technically be at the point of "surrender" as she withdraws consent, and thus not able to halt his climax. Na rape be that na !

TV

carefreewannabe:
Hold on, was she drunk or intoxicated? There is a difference, is there not?

Please tell us what the difference is and how it affects the case as outlined. Especially as the victim has to be deemed able to give informed consent at the time of intercourse and the transgressor has to be able to prove she did. So if the victim cannot remember and the accused cannt evidence - wise use of smart phone - he has raped her. Plus there is no law where a woman can directly rape a man

I'm sure we'll hear you pushing for both these "oversights" to be remedied under your equality & responsibility drive.


TV

coogar:
if she feels she has been räped and she calls the cops then the husband deserves to be charged and prosecuted. everything is about the perception of the victim.

i get where you are coming from though - but my definition of marital räpe would be a situation where a husband violently räpes his wife - not the other technicalities involved i.e. consent!

That's the whole point - the pivotal determinant of rape is consent. This is pretty much what happened in the Ched Evans case. The "victim" claims she doesn't remember anything and did not actually allege rape, there wasn't even any evidence that intercourse had taken place. They only knew because Ched and his friend both confirmed they'd slept with her - with her consent.

But as she was considered unable to give "informed consent", they were both charged with rape. And even more weirdly, only one convicted?

Sex is now something men do to women and men have to take responsibility for womens choices. The E, F and H words in a nutshell !


TV

carefreewannabe:
Says who?

She cannot remember consenting but she can remember that she was raped?



I don't agree that she has been raped just because she does not remember consenting. If she doesn't remember consenting, she also cannot remember saying no, right? So a rape cannot be proven.

Anyone who drinks to the point that he / she does not remember what he / she did, should not drink. Alcohol is not an excuse.

The wording of rape laws - and the push - in the West (certainly UK and the US, and I would have thought Deutscheland), mean that where a women is deemed incapable of giving consent (as in when drunk), if intercourse has taken place, she has effectively been raped. Informed consent is the sole determinant.

Charges can be brought even if the "victim" does not allege rape - and the man being equally drunk is no defense, as the wording also deems sex and thus rape to be something men do to women.

The whole notion of rape has become politicised and ideologically weighted.

It would be good if you grasped the nuances of what you are pushing - your response to my question casts doubt or at least makes me wonder.


TV

esere826:
good to know we have a meeting point
so let me explain
I only believe he is. just like I believe that TB Joshua is, and believe that I am.
Those are just my beliefs/perception based on what I have processed and think i understand
By his fruits, he sure spreads the gospel of sinlessness. i do not question this nor the type of gospel itself. what I question is follow follow throughout most of ones lifetime without grounding, like a guy that came here parroting what he was taught. I also kinda question the subtle encouragement of people to do what they wont otherwise do to bring in money. This is an ethical thing to me.
yep, i would think that miracls can be worked outside God, but pls refer to my conclusion
also refer to my conclusion

CONCLUSION
interestingly the gospel of sinlessness if true (I believe it is)
means that you can indeed tap into God independent of your character whether good or considered evil. it essentially says that its not your character that matters to tap into what is already available to you
it also means someone who tries to live by the typical xtian values is able to achieve same result as someone who discards the typical xtian values

based on this gospel of sinlessnes
so after the 'born again' point, how do you tap into Gods goodies whether you're good or evil
Chris suggests that it is mainly through money
some say its through prayers and fasting
some say it is through keeping quiet when pastor messes up
some say it is by follow follow
some say it is by pursuing what God has laid in your heart to do
the list goes on and on

Thanks again, I can't say I agree with the "gospel of sinlessness" as defined and outlined here. It seems the write-up is for a particular audience, so fair dos..


TV

carefreewannabe:
Let it be the same question every day as long as there are still people who claim that there is no such a thing as rape in a marriage.

If a man and his wife both drink, subsequently have intercourse and then fall asleep, if she awakens after the fact and cannot remember consenting to the act, he has technically raped her and can be charged.

This is even if they both drunk to stupor and neither can remember anything, and even if she does not claim to have been raped.

Are you satisfies that he has indeed raped her and should be charged and prosecuted?


TV

HNY Aisha,

We basically do KISS . We spend all my income, we then start on my wife's income. Anything left over, she saves.

aisha2:
Times are becoming very hard, some workers experiencing salary delays, business people being owed by Government offices and individuals.
In the midst of all these how do you stay afloat and plan for the future ( savings, fees, rent, housing projects etc)

1. How do you handle bills? Monthly bills like light, water, generator, baby needs ( if you have a little baby).

2. Are you able to keep some stash away?

3. How do you reduce cost? Do you buy in bulk? Buy and share?

4. How do you save for projects or annual expenditure like rent, save towards building a house and childrens fees?

5. Are you registered with NHIS? This saves medical expenses a lot or do you just pay cash when there is a medical emergency?

6. How do you handle extended family demands and expectations?

Do you operate a single or double income household.

The reason for this post is to help younger ones coming into marriage understand the reality of marriage beyond the glitz and glamour

But to answer you questiosn in turn

1. My wife pays household bills and pays for the majority of our foodstuffs (old school word ). Wifey also sorts out childrens basics. I pay for nursery fees.

2. Per KISS. I also overpay the mortgage every month - and we could draw that back if required.

3. We buy in bulk, but so not share. Have heard the idea floated and know some who di it though. Wifey is ace on the internet and seaches for the best deals on everything. I make sure to question and prove a shortlist of her proposals.

4. We don't save for projects per se; we save andf then see what we can do in the short, medium and long terms. We also prioritise and park some that are currently out of reach as we look for ways to transform our income.

5. We rely on the UK NHS and I have healthcare from work. We practice primary/preventative healthcare, but most of all trust God. I'm so pious !

6. Together. We literally have a policy, but consider each instance individually. Thankfully we don;t have to much of a burden here. We also co-ordinate our charitable giving.

It's a labour of loff.

TV

carefreewannabe:
Of course not, I am not insane.

You dey fear huh. Or have you given up on Manuel !


TV

esere826:
The target audience for this write up was folks who share some similar beliefs to mine -the once saved always saved crew
and those that many times agree with the man but find it difficult to understand why some of his (or his ministries) actions or utterances seem at variance with what they consider cherished christian values

And finally it was my little way of empathizing with the woman in the center of the whole brouhaha

..it might be difficult for someone outside this circle to understand it except they understand (even if they not accept) the gospel of sinlessness.

I grasp the concept of a "gospel of sinlessness", but how does agreeing with it prove if someone is anointed, a worker of divine miracles etc as posed by my questions?

Thanks for taking the time to respond anyway.


TV

carefreewannabe:
I have. What if he forces her to have s*ex with him without hurting her?

Please re-read- carefully. Are you considering marriage ?


TV

carefreewannabe:
And what if he does?

Please re-read- carefully. Are you considering marriage? !


TV

...in some jurisdictions a man can legally be charged with raping his wife.

Personally, I don't believe that should be the case. The marital union is a conjugal one. If anything, he could be charged with GBH if he forces and/or injures her.

And from a Christian perspective her body is now his - as his is hers. But note, that as being one flesh with her, to hurt his wife is to hate himself - who hates his own flesh?

So, no, I personally don't believe a man can "rape" his wife, but he shouldn't in anyway force or brutalise her.


TV

@Frosbel, please keep us posted


TV

PastorKun:
Sup bro? Longest time!

I dey 0!
Started an expanding family so "exodused" to the Family section. Stil step back here on rare occassion - just felt like responding to this.

How are you? I pray very well. And journeying purposefully. Any major life events?

All the very best.

TV

...apologies all for not reading through all the posts prior to responding - just came across this now

frosbel:
Starting with the ones you know and that I hold to be myth ;

- trinity
- Virgin birth
- hell fire and heaven
- tithes and offerings
- compulsory church attendance
- one pastor leadership model

The first three are doctrinal questions, the second three are questions of practice and "religion" (Although I appreciate that dodgy practice oft times emanates from faulty doctrine).

I'll start wirth the 2nd three;
As my early posting history will show, I also reject all three of these practices - indeed, it was my research into the doctrine of a compulsory tithe that led me to NL in 2006. Indeed, it's from scripture itself that you can show that these are wrong. That is not to reject Christinaity, it's to rightly eschew man-made religion.

The fact men - as men are wont to do - have introduced bad practice into the faith should not move you (assuming these men are actually of the faith, regardless of what they claim). If anything my faith is now stronger than when I was embedded in the institutional church.

The first 3
- Trinity; I've never really looked at to closely and is instinctively odd to me. I worship God in Christ Jesus, and believe that Jesus is fully God; guess I'm a Duotarian
- Hellfire & Heaven; Is it the question of eternal burning? ! I used to fear this; I'm prone to believe in annihilation.
- Virgin birth; without this - along with the death and ressurection - there is simply no Christianity. Presumbaly you don't believe the biblical account of Adams creation either?

In all, true christian faith is experientail and revelatory. You'll never be fully persuaded by reading articles and "scholarly" works. I am dfully at ease with the fact that there are some somethings, I don't know, some I haven't fully considered and even some I may not ever get to. I don't question God, I let God answer my questions. I believe and place my faith in Him to lead me and reveal things to me as required. That's faith.

frosbel:
These ones are bad enough, but the most serious ones are attempts by some gospel writers to tie their accounts to prophecies that do not exist , are half-complete or not related in any form or shape. None of the gospel writers were eye witnesses of the events surrounding Jesus , they were mostly anonymous authors who took on the name of popular people like Matthew , John etc.

The oldest gospel is Mark around 70ad with Matthew and Luke following and lastly John. John's gospel imbibed elements of gnosticism and Hellenistic belief to tell the story of Jesus to a mostly Greek audience. Matthew no doubt copied from Mark and made some refinements , many of which were presumptuous interpolations to deify Jesus and remove Mark's tendency to make Jesus look like he did not know everything. The account of Jesus's death and resurrection are not aligned and portray serious inconsistencies that cannot be overlooked.

I am still studying and will form a final summary of my findings and stance in the near future.

I still believe in Christ as the Messiah and his ultimate resurrection purely because of Paul. Paul's letters predate the gospels and were written nearer to the time of Jesus by as much as 20 years or so. This means he must have had real contact with the original apostles as he states , and was the one person who was able to articulate the whole concept of Jesus's death, burial, resurrection and purpose into a logical sequence of events pointing to the good news and God's ultimate plan for mankind.

By the way Peter did not write the epistles of Peter because he was an unlettered fisherman considering that the epistle was written in classic Greek which only the elites of that day could do.

Too many to mention, I am still going on ........".

This second part is somewhat woolly. Does the gosel, scriptural narrative and Gods eternal purpose not hang together from your perspective?

I see no real issues here and actually think if you are truly seeking you'll find your way back - if you have faith, He'll lead you. I can but testify.

Godspeed
TV

esere826:
1. I have no doubt that Pastor Chris is anointed
2. I have no doubt that he is also dedicated to spreading the gospel
3. I also have no doubt that he works miracles in the name of God
4. I also understand the gospel of sinlessnes

1. How are you certain he's anointed? And more specifically anointed by God?
2. Even if we don't question his dedication, which "gospel" is he dedicated to? Especially when you yourself question his gospel of sinlessness
3. How are you sure? Miracles - or seeming miracles - can be worked outside God
4. I appreciate that to understand is not to endorse, but how do yo umake your claims 1-3 above - with any certainty - if you don't.

Wild card;
5. Even if you assume he started with genuine fervour, and in Gods will. Do you believe he is still in/doing it at this point?


TV