₦airaland Forum

Kay 17: There are many posts like yours that have said the exact same as yours, which I have read well.

Likewise. I have read many such as yours which sneakily try to twist biblical truth to justify their errant ways.

Kay 17: My OP is seeking a different perspective in which homosexuality is juxtaposed with Slavery.

A different perspective? not really. Just a shabby re-working of the old lie "...did God really say"

Kay 17: Slavery has received support and justification from the Bible, great arguments supporting the horrific trans atlantic slavery have been made from the Bible. The trade went on for centuries receiving support from the Catholic Church itself.

Simply untrue. Men have tried to justify slavery - amongst other ills - using the Bible. Please make the distinction between the scriptures given to us by God and mens use/interpretation of them, rightly or wrongly.

As for your charge against Catholicism, abeg face Rome. "The Lord knows those who are His"

Kay 17: But today we look back in horror and condemn such acts. The Bible ought to be condemned too BUT great anti slavery activists have used the same Bible against Slavery!

We do? Can't honestly say I ever have. But for the avoidance of doubt, culpability here is neither Gods nor the Bibles. Again, I have not personally given time to the study of the "for and against slavery" cases made from the Bible. However, I have read it for myself - numerous times to be sure - and I can categorically tell you that it does not initiate, support, champion, structure or otherwise endorse slavery in any way. Either in part or in whole.

And ponder on your own point; the charge to abolish slavery was a Christian one.

Kay 17: Should all humans be treated fairly and equally? At least a secular definition of Love supports that.

Right, an exposition of the Biblical text on slavery juxtaposed with the same on homosexuallity, but using a secular definition of love? That's the kind of lofty intellect that "condemns the Bible"? Perhaps I have overrated you? Actually your OP wasn't an original piece was it?

Kay 17: So pls speak in that respect.

Ok. I've started so I'll finish. Listen carefully; Love =/= Fairness & Fairness =/= equality, at all cost and without due consideration.
Fairness does not mean two men - or woman - should be able to make a one flesh baby, any more than equality means a man should be able to gestate just like a woman.

I'll close thus; The Bibles greatest commandment is to love The Lord your God with all your strength, all your heart and all your soul. And your neighbour as yourself.

With that and the God sought - and given - enduement to joyfully fulfill it, all individual and societal ills will - maybe not immediately mind - ultimately cease.

It was Christianity that ended slavery. It was Christianity that emancipated women. And I could go on and on. And God, if you will simply believe Him, will free you from homosexual inclinations - no juxtaposition required.

Apologies if this lacks my usual flow, I've just returned from a mad spin class and had a delicious meal - prepared by my opposite sex spouse - of chicken and rice. I'm full, it's late and I'm understandably tired. Packed day tomorrow and if I don't get my full complement of sleep I'll be - in a manner of speaking - buggered in the morning.

So, please persevere with those preaching the gospel on this thread and ally that with my advise two paragraphs above. Being buggered due to lack of sleep is bad, I daren't imagine what it would be like for all eternity? But believe you me, it won't be gay heaven.

I have spoken.

Good night
TV

A gay union is de facto infertile. No supposedly “in love” gay couple can procreate and be blessed with “one flesh“ offspring.
Gays simply cannot “go forth and multiply, or be “fruitful”. It’s an abomination to the divine creational order and undeniably against nature.

Speaking of procreation in a fuller sense viz; “the raising and nurture of children”; by its very nature, it pre-empts the possibility of a child being raised in a loving union of both natural parents and always means that one is missing. To knowingly deny a child the presence of either of its natural parents is simply cruel.

Key developmental indictors are triggered and behaviours catalysed by the presence and appropriate nurture of both – different gender - parents. Oddly enough, compromising this in some respects can often trigger gay inclinations.

Back to the point about being “in love”, three things; 1. No amount of being in love can change the divine creation or natural order. 2. Marriage is not primarily predicated on love, although for a joyous union it is essentially that love is mutually given.

I did say 3 things. Point 3 is worthy of its “own show”, hence I’ll hive it off. This is not actually about love, it’s about deviant sex, it’s about forcing – legally - those who rightly consider it unnatural and abhorrent to accept and endorse it. Activism – no matter how strenuous - does not alter divine, natural and obvious truth.

The blanket, uncompromising – and quite frankly deceitful - use of the word love is to disguise the above and shift focus away from the consequences of gay sex. What the Bible calls the penalty of their error.

I won’t go into the absolutely stomach turning detail about the ramifications of gay sex here, rather I would urge everyone too search it out for themselves via the net. Numerous studies detail all too graphically the resultant pathologies of the unnatural act of gay sex and the gay lifestyle. Read it for yourselves. I suggest you start with “Gay Bowel Syndrome”.

I don’t promote real discrimination against those with gay inclinations, neither do I condemn them. I simply don’t want the gay lifestyle promulgated in society or taught to my children as an equally valid and healthy alternative to the male & female union.

I would be the first to acknowledge that marriage as an institution has suffered terrible abuse at the hands of so called heterosexuals. However, the response to that is not to pervert it, but to re-affirm it, champion it and celebrate it in the proper form and context.

In many aspects it’s something that I would simply consider further evidence of mans continued post-fall descent and evidence of a turning away from their Creator and glorifying the creation (themselves and their desires).

However, in this case I simply cannot “waka pass”. Once promulgated legally by state fiat, it follows that it will be equally endorsed and championed by every state-sponsored or affiliated organisation and by extension their employees and citizens– whether they agree with it or not.

The gay lobby has done a good job of building a straw-man of “love” and falsely making it about civil rights. Of getting it de-listed as a psychiatric condition – which it was merely a generation ago and undeniably is, even if only in part. Of erasing any pejorative medical terms regarding the pathologies and keeping the epidemiological health studies quieted. Of stilling dissenting voices with accusations of bigotry. Of using the media and entertainment industries to make it appear normal and acceptable, whilst placing high profile gays in strategically sensitive and influencing positions. The truth holds sure. It is simply wrong, unnatural and against Divine order to act on, promote, celebrate or champion gay inclinations and lifestyle.

Biblically, both testaments portray homosexual activity as an abomination in the clearest and most emphatic terms. Romans 1 alone is unequivocal in terming it unnatural, unhealthy, a direct challenge to Gods glory and ultimately rejection of God himself. That is why its considered particularly profane. That is why it is, and should be, resisted with such fervour.

If one does not agree with the Bible fine, reject it. But please spare us the feeble attempts – especially by so called clergy - to re-interpret it to fit the times. I personally shake my head at all such efforts, no matter how seemingly heartfelt. Because like marriage , it’s not about what you feel, it’s about Gods intent, Gods design and Gods purpose.

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out”

Why are people meandering around this topic? Giving people like the OP and others leave to continually promulgate this error. Will someone not simply spell it out?

Preach the gospel if you will, but what's with these protracted discussions?

Nansense !

@Goshen let me address you, as you are the main protagonist here. You do have a point of sorts, and one I can see if properly defined and contextualised.

The “but” here, is that you have gone about it in a way that can at best, be described as somewhat careless and have not really articulated the point clearly.

Firstly, the bible has as one of its many recurring themes, the fact that “He is no respecter of persons”. Does it mean that illiterate, vernacular-only speaking mama in the village cannot know God like concordance using, lexicon referencing, mult-ilinear translation reading brother in the city? No sir, he can possibly know the scriptures more, master the languages of antiquity better, but the desire for God and the Spirit of God are the real difference.

Secondly, all things are lawful, but are all expedient? Will you make your brother stumble by your knowledge or your desire to prove your sterling Berean ethic? You should have been as concerned about this, as about proving your essentially moot point.

Thirdly, you did not originally caveat or correctly outline the position which is a very narrow one. So it actually appears that you have changed position over the course of the discussion?

I am personally convinced that if God is truly in a (marriage) union and both parties consent to that and to one another, they are effectively married. However you define fornication or adultery - in English, Hebrew or Greek. And whatever further consents you seek or formalities you undergo. It is done and it is blessed.

What if – as has been noted – there are no parents, family or others? What if they are the last (or first) couple, castaway (or created) on a desert Island (garden)?

But if there are and they are not, what prevents them fulfilling all righteousness? What stops you acting maturely so that the one who has not the same understanding on this point does not stumble? It is not sin to you if you know, understand, are convinced and led. It could be to others who do not and are not.

In truth, all you’ve really done – and rightly so in my view - is question the view of were pre-marital ends and marital begins. In any event sex before – whether you term it fornication or not – is sin. And even sex after (dependant on where you consider it begins), while lawful, may not necessarily be expedient.

May we all attain to the fullness, the measure, the stature….

God bless
TV

Busy_body: @TV01
You try biko, you must have the patience of a saint i tell ya

BB greetings.

As ever you demonstrate a "without fear or favour" objectivity, that is most warming. Most appreciated. Thank you.

May The Good Lord I serve not only keep you set on truth, but exponentially increase you in discernment.
May He always compel succour when you have need and the presence of those He approves even if you haven't.
May He never allow those who do not seek your well-being to use you as a platform for their own self-aggrandisement - And especially not those who manifest the spirit of "Inesquor".

Have a very pleasant weekend.

God bless
TV

debosky: Therein lies the rub for me. Ideally you shouldn't divorce and re-marry, but this applies to all instructions not just divorce. For example - as Christians, there is no 'recourse' to fornication (i.e. ideally it shouldn't happen), but if one were to fornicate, will God reject such a person if they repent? I don't think so. Repentance doesn't mean you return to your pre-fornication state (physically anyways) but are still acceptable to God due to repentance.

Reasonable on the face of it, but whilst other sins can be renounced and done away with, how does oneu renounce the adultery of "marrying a divorcee" whilst remaining married to the divorcee?

ileobatojo: Well, stone the crows! Why then have you spent days arguing with all and sundry on NL when you essentially agree with that one should separate (if desired) when they are being physically abused irrespective of people's perception of the severity?

Me argue? I have merely remained consistent in my position . Just so that you are aware, separate =/= divorce.

ileobatojo: My primary goal in this discussion has always been to avoid severe harm to a victim in the form of dangerous advice and that's why I have come down hard (and seemingly "subjective" and "emotional" ) on people who I feel are trying to place victims in harms way by compelling them to stay in the situation "while trying to figure out what it is they have done to deserve the abuse" and change it. I have no major argument with anyone who agrees they should immediately separate (if they so wish) when they are being harmed. The rest of my arguments with you, myriad as may be, are 'by the way' and secondary. It has taken you a lot of 'speaking out of both sides of your mouth' to get to this point but I will accept it for what you say it is.

A laudable goal to be sure, it's just that unrelentlessly labeling men psychopaths and every situation heinous physical abuse, with divorce as the only recourse, you lose some traction, a lot of credibility and it's hard to take you seriously. Try balance and objectivity occasionally, it's lend credence to your position.

ileobatojo: I rest my case.

i.e. "Quit while I'm behind"

By the way, feel free to use my template !

Best
TV

ileobatojo: I have no idea what you're talking about.

True debate is not concluded by by giving a "nod to the majority".

ileobatojo: Nobody said the divorce process saves. I strongly disagree and object to your repeated assertion that only when loss of life is imminent is when separation should occur. It's not only when they become axe wielding and fire starting that the victim should leave. Common sense will tell anyone that once one party wields an axe and starts a fire, the chances of the victim coming out alive are slim. Your view is simply not supported by facts in cases of abuse. So I can never agree that one should wait till it is imminently dangerous before leaving. This view is dangerously ignorant or disingenuous at worst. When you counsel people to go back to their abusive partners, what advice to you give them about what to watch out for to know that their life is in danger or will be in danger next time? How do you know at the time of your counseling that the next time is not the time that will be fatal? I really hope you will answer this question directly.

TV01: First we are talking about a spectrum of abuse. I've said the remedy depends on the variables. You appear to be fixating on extreme physical instances. In those cases separate yourself from harm.

TV01: - I've said it repeatedly separate yourself from an unhealthy situation, avoid harm.

TV01: If there is the danger of harm, then separation should be considered and at some point 3rd part intervention.

TV01: , then I've noted that if potential harm is perceived, there are steps to be taken.

TV01: Healing and remediation should be persisted with, but if it escalates to a degree that may be considered harmfull, seperation should be considered and an increase in the external intervention considered.

The assertions are all yours. And all wrong. Feel free to make me emblematic of the opposing viewpoint and a focal point for your campaign, but for the sake of all following please stop tediously mis-ascribing things to me.

ileobatojo: As a matter of fact, I would recommend separation even when there is no physical abuse in some cases. Do you know anything about the psychological impact of verbal and emotional abuse on a victim.

You have every right to make your recommendations. And without anyone willfully misinterpreting them. Please accord me the same priviledge.

ileobatojo: God hates divorce and he hates violence. Why do you hate divorce but excuse violence? Why do you have zero tolerance toward divorce but will tolerate the violence for many different reasons.

Like I said, tedious.

ileobatojo: Then stop invoking the name of Jesus because you are not being Christlike at all. Jesus ministry was all about mercy not some false superiority based on your 'holy' works. Jesus said it himself, He desires your mercy not your sacrifice'. How many times in the bible did Jesus rebuke the pharisees for doing exactly what you are doing?

ileobatojo: By the way, did you say your wife goes to the church of England? Are you trying to tell us that your wife chose and married you according to your template that you've laid out for us all? I highly doubt it. Now if she didn't and I can bet my bottom dollar that she didn't, how can you go around condemning others for not doing so?

So if my wife didn't follow "my template" as you rightly say, wouldn't I simply have condemned or rejected her as opposed to marrying her if I was judgmental?

So you are quids in , but unfortunately still way too subjective, emotional or willfully biased.


Best
TV

ileobatojo: The above quoted, word for word, represents my position in this matter. And, I believe, it represents the position of the vast majority of people who have discussed this topic on these boards.

I don't have to contest that "non-point" and I'm sure you fully appreciate why.

ileobatojo: This, I disagree with. No one, not even those who have gone through divorce, is seeking an unquestioning 'aye' for divorce. On the contrary, the 'dissenting voices' are the ones that seem to be seeking an unquestioning 'nay' for divorce even where life and limb are at stake.

We have been specific about the implications for Christians and non Christians. In the "immediacy" of life and limb being at risk, the lengthy divorce process is not what saves.

ileobatojo: God hates divorce. Guess what else God hates?

So if anything that God hates happens within a marriage, it nullifies Gods hatred of divorce? Or gives one leave too?

ileobatojo: Where is the empathy? The humanity? In a case where one party was abandoned comatose in the hospital after repeated violent incidents; after resolution had been sought multiple times from family, elders, pastors and the like; how can a Christlike human being's immediate contribution to this story ever be, "what did you do to cause it" and "why did you not seek God properly before marrying"? Even if one wants to use it as a teachable moment to discuss their own version of prevention (no matter how limited it would be in it's reach, therefore not very effective), you cannot go about it by showing scorn and disdain to the broken and downtrodden all in the name of 'God hates divorce'. Is that what Jesus would do?

An appeal to emotion is just weak. As tragic as it is - and I have noted that severally - we can still have an objective discussion about it.
And teaching/prevention is the main driver for me. I always ask "wanna weds" to take note. Feel free to deride my beliefs/version.

ileobatojo: Hmm. I can't say that I've seen this.

Oh I'm sure there are people in the world who do that. Personally, I haven't seen this yet on NL though. I don't claim to have heard every divorce story there is on NL but from the ones' I've heard, I am yet to get that impression.

You see what you want too.

And for the record, you haven't actually heard any complete "divorce stories" on NL. Only "one version or events". And no sensible person judges a matter on that.

Best
TV

debosky: I have no issues with this - however, my point is that not everyone starts out with the right foundation, neither do they build as they ought to. God does not say 'well you didn't do it properly so that's your problem'.

In the event that such people find themselves contemplating divorce or some other degradation/dissolution of the union, my view is that I don't think God is solely interested in maintaining a 'marriage' in name only over the day to day experiences of the individuals involved.

Where I believe I differ is many are arguing "what God wants", my thrust is "what God can do".

debosky: My 'remedy' as you call it is a recognition of the peculiar circumstances in each union and the lack of a 'common solution' for every case. While I believe God can heal any union (and this should be the first resort), it is incumbent on the participants to seek that restoration. Where one or both parties are unsuccessful in receiving/asking for that healing, then keeping a marriage in name only is a failure already - you don't need to sign a sheet of paper titled divorce for the failure to have occurred.

He is God of every circumstance and Lord of every situation. If their is one Christian in the union seeking Gods perfect will, He can do it, it can work. If no one is seeking Gods will - regardless of the hurt they've suffered - and I fully accept this can be heinous - why is just the one party labelled "an unbeliever"?

debosky: There is no universal remedy. Healing is preferable, but when not attained/unattainable, do you keep a semblance of marriage only on paper in a legalistic nod to 'obeying' the scripture? I don't accept the latter.

God is. I always counsel aspirationally. In any case, why should I wish less for anyone else than what I myself have? With God's involvement, the end will not be a "legalistic nod" to anything, but a loving union.

debosky: No one is saying divorce is a remedy. Unfortunately divorce may become a lesser evil or necessity especially when issues such as threats to life or incessant abuse is what obtains within the marriage. To deny this reality (in some cases, not all) is to make this purely an intellectual debate.

Furthermore, when I mentioned every one working out his/her own salvation, that is what it ultimately comes down to in my view. For example, some may be able to separate and stay that way praying indefinitely for restoration without falling into other temptations such as seeking out sexual intimacy elsewhere. Others may not be that 'strong' and fall into temptation. Is God then happy that the 'remain in marriage' instruction is upheld but sexual intimacy outside the union is occurring? I don't think so.

I think my previous replies speak to this.

debosky: Others still may decide to avoid this issue by divorcing and re-marrying with a heart set out to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It is my belief that God will bless the latter case. God wants the best for us, but when we fail, a second chance exists, be it within that current marriage or in a new one - that is my belief. It doesn't change the fact that God hates divorce.

As "Christians", there's no such recourse as "divorce and re-marry". If they were unbelievers that's different.

debosky: Men are overwhelmingly the (physical) abusers in relationships so this is unsurprising. No side should be vilified, but we can't deny this reality.

I won't quibble here, but in the West, "alleged abuse" and a new style of "provoked abuse" is a tool that some women are not slow to use.

Best
TV

Afamdman: sorry a question TV01 let me get this straight. You mean you married same girl david dropped or you meant it literally.

lol! What do you mean "david dropped"?

No seriously, it was meant literally. When I first started "churching" I was like "it's a holy chorister babe for me". After meeting a ton of "MyPas - My Pastor Says - girls", I was freed from that particular mindset. My wife is Church of England, but gentle and sweet with a great character - and yummy. I don't think I'd let her step foot in a Naija style church without heavy security.

Afamdman: And yes I do understand your point about the discussion making divorce seem as a way out. If we continue like this, in a few years time it would be acceptable, and its very true when you have divorce as a way out even before marriage, you most likely will divorce.

Bro' forget me and the number of girls I met who always raised divorce as a possible conclusion - and as an acceptable one. Often predicated on the fact that they or someone close to them had been "abused". It was kinda sad really. And not just for the fact that I instantly rejected them.

Sadly, it's already considered acceptable. Appears it's trending towards inevitable.

Best
TV

davidylan: ^^^ you make some valid points. But at the end of the day to each his own.

Agreed. My urging was "to walk your walk", which is what we all must do.

For what it's worth, God had to disabuse me of many erroneous notions and strip me of a lot of pride & prejudice before I was ready for a wife. Indeed, if He hadn't I would almost have certainly rejected my wife for any number of reasons - and probably made a bad choice.

If - as I am assuming - you are trusting your search to God - He will have you ready at the right time for the right one. And in the right place. It would take a whole chapter to list all the "naysaying" I was subjected to - and much from those closest to me. Not that they were necessarily hating, but they were frustrated by my being in "marital-limbo". As for the real hate, let me not go there.

A lot of what you go through is designed to test and strengthen you. God won't take away the joy of your woo'ing your spouse. You still have to "quit yourself like a man".It got to a point where the "slap-downs" were boosting my faith and imparting a sense of "wow, when God delivers eh!"

My position was, it had to be right or nothing. I marry the right way and the right one or I remain single and celibate. I'don't look back at any of the numerous women I met and think any "perhaps or maybe" thoughts. Lot's of "thank God for that" and "ye, The Lord delivered me" ones though.

And finally He did. All mouths stopped. The eyes of the naysayers were widened in wonder and the haters were choked.

Take heart, don't look back. I'd like nothing more than to hear that you've married and married well.

davidylan: I frankly dont believe that the christian race is a one-size fits all, sometimes a lot of us want to force our own interpretation of the word down the throats of others without stepping into their shoes for 2 minutes.

I've always said it's more of a solitary walk - where paths may cross - than a group march. I don't pronounce doctrine or enforce dogma, just outline what I understand.

Best
TV

Malachi 2:16 - "For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce..."

The fact that God hates divorce is enough reason for anyone who professes faith – in Him - to consider why.

The Lord instituted – and gifted man with the covenant of marriage for good reason. It is the basic building block and primary order of society.
I believe The Lord cares about the genuinely motivated marriage of all, even those who do not necessarily call upon Him. Marriage came before the Church and is by no means subject to it.

God gave us a template for marriage – as He has for many things – which includes instruction for issue resolution.

Point 1 – if you transact a marriage based on some other template – and I absolutely affirm your right to do so - please don’t come up in here and do either of the following two things;

1. Accuse God of somehow forsaking or misleading you
2. Forcefully assert a new non-literal meaning into scripture to justify your departure from it.

If anyone – Christian or not – departs from sound principles of marriage and does not seek the surety that trust in God brings, please, don’t be surprised if your union encounters stormy weather with the very real possibility of shipwreck.

I have repeatedly spelt out my understanding of the scriptures with regards to marriage, and no one has been able to show different, merely assert that reading must “not be literal”. Why not? (Not every Yoruba speaker is a Yoruba man and not every Yoruba man speaks Yoruba!)

debosky: I do believe God wants us to remain in marriage not just to 'endure' but to truly enjoy it. However, what I do get worried about is the 'literal' biblical interpretation that insists you remain in the 'marriage' despite all odds (except for adultery of course). It almost paints God as someone who is only concerned with maintaining a 'marriage' (even if only in name) above all else - regardless of the experience of those in the marriage. I don't think this is the intent and this is where the lack of prescriptive direction in the bible for every conceivable scenario translates into each person 'working out his salvation with fear and trembling'.

I hope you now appreciate, that 1. “literal remedy” is for a “literal union” 2. What you build, you support, what He builds, He surely will.

debosky: I understand TV01's position to an extent - you should start off with God directing you, you should be sustained by God's power, but guess what? What you should have done is not very useful when things have gone down the drain. God's instructions and His grace remain our first (and last) resort as Christians and we should never discount the power therein.

Your solution appears to be “to each his own”? Is that a remedy? Which brings me on to my;

2nd point. It’s not really a remedy that is being sought here. “Divorce” is not a remedy. Divorce is a “fail”, a failed marriage. A remedy would suggest a healed one.

Oddly enough I have been attacked by one who holds a more rigid literal interpretation than I put forward;

davidylan: 1 Cor 7:12-16 gives you a reason to divorce ONLY in the case the unbelieving spouse chooses to depart (but you do know that does not make you free to remarry unless the spouse is dead).

TV01: Now for a believer who came to faith after marriage, there is perhaps leeway. If the unbelieving spouse departs post-conversion the bible says they are not under bondage. Let the believing brother or sister act according to faith/conscience. I certainly will not be prescriptive here.

However the urge to play to the gallery overwhelms him, so he artfully contradicts himself and denies what he himself claims scripture says ;

davidylan: But i believe an abusive husband is NOT a believer in the first instance and by virtue of his violence has pretty much destroyed the marriage covenant. Left to me, if madam prayerfully finds another true christian man, she is not bound to her ex. I do not for one second believe God intends for us to suffer for ending up in marriage to one willing to destroy us.

I am neither surprised nor disappointed DL has always appeared “conflicted”. Wanting to appear the model Christian, but at the same time appear “down”. Thankfully DL, it’s “not left to you”.

davidylan: ... i have had to leave someone just because she did not fit the "biblical" model of a wife by other's standards.

You blame “others” because you’re a “man pleaser” – quit snivelling. I urge you to learn to “walk your walk”. Funnily enough, I met and married that same girl !

What is being sought here is an unquestioning “aye” for divorce and a silencing of any dissenting voices. What is being sought is a “normalisation” of divorce to justify all those that have already taken that step . Many wilfully and not for reasons to do with abuse per se. Some that do not see that, may unwillingly validate it.

My 3rd point is regards the vilification of men. The campaign against men here is obvious and concerning. Ultimately it will profit neither gender. Opening threads that lend themselves to this is at best ill-advised and at worst spiteful and voyeuristic. Again, many - possibly even some that are spearheading this campaign - don’t see that. Others are unknowingly being seduced by the language.

Unlike some who can only point to “research,” I have had a 360 degree experience of “abuse” and fully appreciate that it can be by either gender, take various forms and vary in degree. It may be “characteristic” of a person, but it may also be “circumstancial”. There may well be situations that are not retrievable, but in many instances full restoration is possible.

I once also “had a position” but “reality and experience” have given me pause for thought. The Bible says it is folly to judge a matter on hearing just the one side. Do we assume women are gold diggers or black widows as a starting point?

I may well be mistaken at times, I may also seem overzealous. But I will always argue for truth and for balance , and without fear or favour. I will always testify of Gods faithfulness and declare His goodness in my life.

@Afamdman - thanks for your objectivity and counsel.

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: Bless ur union. I am happy u have a blissful marriage.

Thank you. Too kind.

Tgirl4real: Yours is a testimony that blesses the heart. However, it does not mean that bible believers that built on the rock still can't meet a brick wall in marriage.

The use of the term "brick wall" is somewhat ambiguous? If that means problems, yes, but if it means it deteriorates to point it cannot endure, I need to know why?

Tgirl4real: Are u denying that it's purely by God's grace your marriage is working? Forget that you think you know the principles, you should realise that it takes two to make this thing work. If your spouse starts misbehaving towards you, I bet u won't be finding it easy.

Absolutely by grace. Does that mean I can take the grace of God in vain and not apply the principles? And assume that the grace of God means I can take it for granted. Absolutely not.

- In as much as I work on my marriage, it's not from a base level. It's from a high degree of harmony, mutual affection, and a unified vision. We had this from the get-go. No mago-mago, no gamesmanship, no scheming. I'm still learning about my wife as an individual, understanding her better, to love her the more.

- Misbehaving? Why not use the term "abuse" and assume she's a psychopathic axe-weilding murderess - which is what many here do when it's a mans conduct that is in view .

- If my wife demonstrated conduct unbecoming, I'd want to know why. Firstly as her wellbeing is a top priority and secondly because I want no delterious things in or around my marriage.Note; not about me, my feelings or what I can bear. It's my sacrificial service to my wife , the health of my marriage and the well-being of my family.

- Then I'd address it with her as best I could, find the source and agree a solution together. I'd be on my knees as well. I won't believe that The Lord will abandon me. This would be even if we didn't marry as Christians and I'd converted.

Tgirl4real: I am not canvassing for divorce. But I don't see why we should compel someone to live with an unrepentant abusive spouse all in the name of Christianity. If one spouse is not willing to do what it takes to make the marriage work, I don't believe it's right to hold the other spouse bound. I asked about handling sexual urges, but I guess that isn't important here.

- I am canvassing for marriage. As God intended it.
- Abusive? As in axe-wielding fire-starting "man" abi? I need to know the specifics. In any event I have oputlined my position severally
- So let me get this right. One - the woman - is a believing born-again (your term) Christian, and the other one is an unrepentant abusive male unbeliever? And he's not willing to make the marriage work. My question here is are you sure that he actually wants to be in the marriage?

Tgirl4real: Ok. But u will agree, they are additional issues anyway.

Additional. I suppose And unique to marriage

Tgirl4real: Let me throw the question back at you; why would God be so bothered about the success of your marriage in the first place when it was a choice you made after all. Marriage is one of the non-essentials of the Christian faith. Marriage is not compulsory, so, I don't believe God is bound to help you make it work esp. if it will affect your salvation/sanity. He cares about your general well being; spirit, soul and body. How you choose to live in that body, you will account for.

1. Because God is concerned about everything about those who are His.
2. Marriage is an institution established by God for mankind, for our good. How much more for His own?
3. No marriage is not essential to salvation if that's what you mean. But there is the "whole of life" while we are here on earth and marriage is a big part of that. And God cares
4. "Marriage is not compulsory" - I find this one of the most bogus and hypocrital - or plainly unthinking - statements I havbe heard on NL. If marriage is not compulsory, why is almost everyone married, has been married, plans to marry, or is fighting for divorce and re-marriage? Y'all are funny. Who is raising or planning to raise children with that ringing in there ears? So no, it's not "compulsory", but's it's instituted and prescribed - by God - and it's central to human society.

Tgirl4real: I guess so, cos it seems u are eager to close the chapter. But I will surely wanna have this conversation with you again some years down the line. I may not be a first hand case, hence no case study. But I believe there will be by then.

Cool!

Tgirl4real: Let me bring this up again;

I asked this question some months back. I have a friend that has been subjected to abuse from her spouse for a while, it finally got out, they seperated for about a week, 3rd party got involved and they are now back together. However, she still can't connect sexually with her hubby. She has forgiven him, though he isn't truly repentant. His apologies are just mere lip service. How can she solve this intimacy issue and connect back with her husband? Divorce is not an option of course.

I can't make assumptions about the "abuse". Having said that, I can comment.

In as much as there was mediation, a clear basis for reconciliation should have been outlined.
"Isn't truly repentant" The abuse has not stopped? or it has, but he's not really apologetic? I'll assume the latter, as action for the fromer would presumably be as before?

The abuse has stopped. Wifey is not satisfied that hubby is suitably apologetic? I will depart from the other views.

1. If she truly wants to stay in the marriage and is after the outcome of a harmonious, loving union, she needs to act it. As hard as it may be, she needs to see beyond her hurt.

2. It may take time, but she needs to resume the sacrificial posture of a good wife.

3. His part is to respond in turn - having been won over by her conduct - restoration will follow.

4. No mention of faith, but if it exists, work it.

I've spent so much time on replying your post TG,, I don't know if I have time to point out the schoolboy errors in some of the others.

Faithfully
TV

Tgirl4real: Depending on ur def of success. In d Christian context, yes. But it doesn't guarantee plenty richies and wealth.

Wealth is not in view here. We are discussing a fulfilling and harmonious marriage

Tgirl4real: Ok. U shouldn't be asking dat question now. U made it sound like as a Christian u have 100% guarantee ur marriage will work, forgetting that it takes 2 to make a marriage work. Secondly, Christ's primary purpose of coming is salvation not for marital bliss.

Does God fall short? Does The Lord fail to deliver? I can only testify of my own union. Uxury is us! Truth is we simply never have any "problems with each other". Troubles, yes, but we take comfort and strength in knowing we face them together. God is with us, His grace is on us. I simply will not deny Him. Neither myself or my wife have ever been physically threatening or abusive towards one another, never sworn at each other and never raised our voices at each other. We are deliriously happy. Like we say in boxing - yes 0, I boxed - train hard, fight easy. It's in the foundation. Built upon The Rock.

Tgirl4real: And the unmarried don't? The divorced don't?

We are saying samething here. No matter your situation, u will face challenges, but it's worse when u are married. 1Cor 7

It's not necessarily worse. Marriage just has it's own unique set of issues, which may or may not present themselves to individual marriages. We/I had troubles before we even married. It's why it's for the mature and committed.

In our marriage we have experienced trouble. None that give leave for diovorce scripturally. But of course, if one of us is feeling the troubles we face are too much - or perhaps there is better on offer elsewhere - then of course we can.

Tgirl4real: I don't understand your point here.

I beieve I've covered that now?

Tgirl4real: Lol. Dare not. God can and even do much more. So, why not leave it to God to decide if he wants to save or not.

Is God capricious? Whimsical?? Why would He lead you into a bad marriage and then leave you there to be man or woman handled till divorce is your only remedy?

Tgirl4real: May be I am backslidden, but I no longer agree that marriage even amongst Christians should be a do or die affair. And dat does not mean to say divorce is the best answer.

Do or die? I've always suspected that many marriages are simply manage-manage affairs of convenience, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time, with wrong understanding and and woefully wrong expectations. That's not what God instituted, and not what we should aspire to. Your walk with God is between you and Him.

Are we done?

Best
TV

ileobatojo: Lol. Uneducated people who want to remain uneducated will not be the death of me in this place. Tying one down and flogging, dragging one along the floor by their hair are surely not serious enough. And you say I need help? Okay o abused people, wait until your spouse smashes your head in with a pestle before you know it's serious.

What ever you - or that person close to you - went through must have been serious eh? So bad that you are simply unable to broach the subject without a red haze and a total lack of balance. Do yourself a favour, leave the subject alone until you are better.

Abuse = "Tying one down and flogging, dragging one along the floor by their hair".

ileobatojo: For the reasonable people with an ear please know that research has proven that abuse most often escalates instead of improves. Even if it doesn't, people can die from just one push.

How objective and insightful. That's right fella's, if your wife pushes you, divorce her sharp-sharp. Take heart guys, at least one person will support you.

Let me not aggravate your condition any further.

Sorry 0!

TV

ileobatojo: This dangerous and false belief is basically the long and short of your position on this issue. It is what all your other statements are borne of. All you are doing is working backwards from this position and it is why you shut down all other opinions including factual ones because they don't fit into this belief. It is also the reason why it's essentially pointless discussing this topic with you.

I quickly realized that the majority of dissenting voices on that thread are essentially of this position. People who believe that a happily remarried divorcee is more dangerous than a physical abuser.

I'm not really going to engage in a back and forth. I just want to highlight this to those who wish to do so. So they know it is an exercise in futility.

Betray yourself loud and clear. As an ardently biased and unable to read and interprete clearly.

We are talking abuse. Without prejudice. Aware that it can be any gender, take different forms and vary in it's degree of seriousness.

But I'm sure any neutral and objective person can see that you and your ilk are pursuing it solely as extreme violence by men against women.

Get help for whatever it is that ails you.

Regards
TV

Tgirl4real: My dear, does being a christian guarantee success in marriage? NO

Does trusting in the Lord guarantee success/an expecteded end in marriage?

Tgirl4real: There are no guaranties. You stand a better chance cos you have the Holy Spirit to guide u, but there are no guaranties.

And if the Holy Spirit guides you and you obey, is that surety, or does it merely improve the odds? Not to mention that there are those who do not acknowledge God that have great marriages. So what is the point of faith or walking with God?

Tgirl4real: Even the bible says those that marry will face many troubles.

And the unmarried don't? The divorced don't?

In our marriage we have experienced trouble. None that give leave for diovorce scripturally. But of course, if one of us is feeling the troubles we face are too much - or perhaps there is better on offer elsewhere - then of course we can.

I have answered all questions posed. I have asked only one across multiple threads;

Is Gods hand too short? Is He not able? Can He not make dead and make alive again? Does he not know the beginning from the end?

Romans 3:4
Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

Judge God if you so dare!

Regards
TV

Tgirl4real: Sincerely, I still can't fathom that kinda reasoning. I know there are laws and there are rules. But, aint we suppose to look at the greater good? Would God rather prefer u die in the hands of an abusive partner or get out? Is there anywhere it is written in black and white in scriptures that you should seperate when one partner is abusing the other? Are we not the ones recommending this approach?

How do u want a young divorcee (or onr seperated with no hope of reconciling with partner) to handle sexual urges?

Don't mix issues.

First we are talking about a spectrum of abuse. I've said the remedy depends on the variables. You appear to be fixating on extreme physical instances. In those cases separate yourself from harm.

Why concern yourself with what God prefers? He did not intervene to begin with right?

Again, I don't know the history of this divorce or why. I always work to the template. I always point to the foundation. A believer marrying in God should not be getting to that position.

I'll stop this without completing or editing as I have to pop out. I'll tidy it up later

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: More like treating each individual according to what he/she can handle. Wait o . . .what if you fall out of love with your hubby during the process of abuse nko? Let's say you have forgiving and you have healed, but you are not willing to go back probably cos there are still no visible changes from the other party. Won't you want to protect yourself from further abuse?

- He slapped me once after 2 years. I'm divorcing? No more dinners since the baby came, I'm being abused? This approach simply makes it subjective.
- I fell out of love. Forget the committment I made?
- I've said it repeatedly separate yourself from an unhealthy situation, avoid harm.

The Bible is clear

- Marry a believer
- If you claim you are and were a faithful believer before marriage, I need to understand Gods role in all this if you claim you married wrongly?
- In any event if you convert during the marriage and your unbelieving spouse wants to stay, you are exhorted to remain
- There is leeway if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave
- If they choose to stay and you encounter problems, is your get out "you are an unbeliever, I can divorce you"? I would say you go through the steps you would with a normal believing spouse.

Tgirl4real: I agree and that is what I am saying instead of applying a blanket approach.

Be as that may be, the biblical guidance does not change, only the situation. If it's subject to what you can bear, or what you feel, it becomes a free for all. Or as the world says "irreconcilable differences"

Tgirl4real: Are u saying it isn't possible for people to hide their true character?

Are you saying it would remain hidden from God? Which is essentially the crux here. What is it you actually believe? Who is it you actually believe in. Are you a believer and is He truly in it.

Tgirl4real: Fruits of repentance after the abuse.

If he shows no repentance after the abuse it's dependant on what that is, as you are now making it subjective. If it's danger of physical harm, then you stay apart

Tgirl4real: No, you are not. U didn't answer the last question.

Again, I'm talking bible and for believers. But ultimately can you walk with God and be led into a bad marriage, not be given succour and be told to divorce? You are essentially saying faith or not, belief or not you are OYO. In which case forget faith, what is the point of believing?

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: For me, verbal, physical, financial and any kind of abuse leads to psychological abuse eventually. You can't escape it. The kind of treatment I will term as abuse, some might be able to live with it. So, I don't think judging the situation based on the degree, or impact of the abuse is the way to go.

So what is the way to go?

I won't over-analyse it. We should know what is unacceptable behaviour and nip it in the bud if it occurs - both ways. At every point remediation and healing should be sought. If there is the danger of harm, then separation should be considered and at some point 3rd part intervention.

Every instance, situation and couple are unique.

Tgirl4real: What is wrong is wrong because we can't predict humans. If you say it's not in the person's character and he or she later turn violent in the future; thereby leading to permanent disability for the other partner, what happens?

This sounds like the "there were absolutely no signs" premise I've heard pushed. In the absence of serious trauma do people just "turn violent"? As for "permanent disability", even if a person were to change, unless it's the "overnight change into a demon" some are also pushing, then I've noted that if potential harm is perceived, there are steps to be taken.

Tgirl4real: Concerning the first question: you refused to take cognisance of "not showing forth fruit of repentance". If the perceived unbelieving partner is indifferent about the marriage crashing or not, would u still recommend that the other partner remain in the union cos of the faith?

Wouldn't that appear like he is forcing herself on her?

Fruits of repentance after the abuse? or after finding out they are not actually a believer?
The bible is clear where both are believers and if one is a/becomes a believer.

Hope I'm clear
TV

Tgirl4real: Also, can we break down the type, stage and seriousness of abuse?

To what point?

Is it verbal, physical, psychological, financial, a combo? Does it depend on the perceived impact on the receiver? Is it incipient or chronic? Is it characteristic of the person or circumstantial? Each case is unique.

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: Actually, I do share like faith, that is why I asked for your stance. I know u from way back.

Thanks for the response.

Talking from the unbeliever angle, if u married this person thinking he is a believer and abuse sets it (discovered he/she isn't saved after all)...ok, u suggested a seperation with room for external intervention, healing and remediation. If d unbelieving partner isn't showing forth fruits of repentance, would you encourage the believing partner to insist on staying in the union? I believe the bible made allowances for this.

Secondly, I would think the believing party should be allowed to remarry in this case. No?

Lets cut to the chase here. 1st Corinthians 7 abi?

So are you saying they were both professing believers prior to marriage and then one becomes an unbeliever after (or was lying in the first place)?

In any event you are to stay with your unbelieving spouse unless they wish to depart, so abuse would be treated as if the two are believers.

There still remains the question of how you - a believer, faithful and under Gods care - were able to marry an unbeliever in the first place? Even if the spouse is/was not.

This has been the main thrust of a lot of my posts on this topic here and elsewhere. If you are a believer, seeking Gods face, faithful and trusting are you really saying that you will ask for an egg and he will give you a stone? That is essentially to level a charge against God. So perhaps you should be questioning if either of you were believers prior to the marriage.

Now for a believer who came to faith after marriage, there is perhaps leeway. If the unbelieving spouse departs post-conversion the bible says they are not under bondage. Let the believing brother or sister act according to faith/conscience. I certainly will not be prescriptive here.

But as Christians, we are warned not to marry unbelievers to start with, so if you do that, what does that say? After all, your charge is against the offending/unbelieving spouse.

Attempting to use 7:15 as an out questions your belief in the first place or Gods involvement if you insist you did.

For the record, I believe marriage is not only open to believers, but believers should marry with the unique dictates of the faith in mind.

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: U still haven't answered my question sir.

If u effect zero tolerance from day 1 and it happened again like after a year, then it became like more frequently....what would you advise such to do?

U are right, yelling and all is enough to put a strain on d union and with that, it's just a matter of time before it escalates into sum'n else.

I meant zero tolerance against any type of ungallant or ungracious behaviour from day 1 of marriage, not after the first instance of abuse.

If you are saying abuse starts then is dealt with, then starts again and escalates, I would go back to my first response.

That really does depend. The type, the stage, the seriousness

Healing and remediation should be persisted with, but if it escalates to a degree that may be considered harmfull, seperation should be considered and an increase in the external intervention considered.

Just to be clear, I never counsel divorce, as I do not believe it necessarily pre-supposes re-marriage. Hence you are saying "I cannot forgive this person" or "this person can never change" and "I'd therefore rather remain unmarried. Would God forsake Israel? Would Christ put away His bride?



Even if you come to faith after marriage, the Bible says the unbeliever can be won by the conduct of the believer. God can heal at any point if He is called upon. As a believer, I choose to believe that.

Obviously if you don't share or have like faith you may have different views. These are just mine.

Best
TV

Ihedinobi: Bro, I think I've answered your questions in many forms already. It's starting to look to me as if all you want to do is fault my position not evaluate it.

I can do neither unless I first understand it.

Ihedinobi: So, rather than deal with this like the interview that it was meant to be, I am going to turn it into a debate.

I was supposed to interview you Are you like...famous !

Ihedinobi: If you fail to address yourself appreciatively to it, I'll consider your position on abusive relationships unworthy of consideration. But before I do so. . .

I thought you were the one who wanted to state his position on "abusive relationships"?

Ihedinobi: What would you call the multitude that Jesus said will cry to Him on that day saying, "Lord, but we healed, we preached, we cast out devils in your name" but to whom He will say, "depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you"? Are they Christians? When they sin, can it be called a child's (read: Christian's) disobedience to his father (read: God)?

Nor sure what your point is here, but I'll try;
Those who rejected/rebelled against the The Lord in deed.Lip servers.

Ihedinobi: If the "non-marriage" itself is unacceptable to God, don't we already have a problem? Does "repeating the cycle" make the problem in the first intance go away? If it is a false marriage (that is what I more accept it to be), what God wants to do is to heal it and make it true.

But that is why I'm questioning; you stated that it is acceptable, that God recognises them, hence my seeking to clarify.

Ihedinobi: Malachi 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 7:14b hold the answer you seek.

Perhaps it would be best if you just got on with posting an exposition of your views on "abusive relationships"which is where this is heading is it not? A clear narrative outline of your view on marriage may help, but then again might not not be required

Ihedinobi: Your next response, my brother, will decide a lot. I suggest you give it good thought.

Decide a lot? Like the outcome of the presidential poll? My bonus numbers?? Dude we are free men on a public forum. Think about that.

Best
TV

Ihedinobi: As for what I said, yes, there was not a real covenant in the first place to break, thus what we see as and call divorce is, in God's eyes, essentially an acceptance of the reality of the absence of the true covenant. Hence, it is acceptable.

So you've said as follows;

1. Men are allowed to take marital vows and enter into the marital covenant and God recognises that?
2. However if it's not "cemented" by God - before or during and agreed by both partners - it's not really marriage?
3. As it's not really marriage, they can separate and it's not really divorce? No harm done?

This of course begs a whole heap of questions;

1. Are they fornicating? And if they are "unfaithful" does it count as adultery, or still fornication?
2. They can presumably repeat this cycle of "non-marriage" marriage ad-infinitum, as it's not of God. No problem?
3. Please explain God's purpose for marriage for mankind in light of this.

Ihedinobi: @TV01, I appeal to you to make your responses a tad more timely so that we can delve into the real issue in good time.

Apologies, I did say.

Tgirl4real: I also had the mind of calling TV out to ask what abused women (or partner as the case may be) should do when faced with abuse in marriage. I guess he can answer me here as well. And it is also directed at the OP since he believes marriage is a do or die affair.

That really does depend. The type, the stage, the seriousness - first slap after 2 years or daily attacks with blunt instrument - every situation is unique.

My stance is first get the foundation right. I know the question is "the marriage is in effect na and abuse is happening", to which I would say this; Nip it n the bud. A slap after 2 years should be easily remediated. Does it go from lovey-dovey to "death-match showdown" overnight? I'd also say - and I know it's foundational still - not only should you effect zero tolerance from day 1, but like we did, beware of the small things like yelling, little jibes etc, all which can escalate. Even if not to outright abuse, but to a kind of frission between the couple.

Best
TV

Tgirl4real: hahahahhahaha oops!!! Sorry sir

Ermm . . . just check your mail i.e. the one you get your NL notifications on.

If u can't find it, please check your spam folder.

Ok I got it now - it was in my Junk folder lol! I though there was some funky NL "messenger" type functionality where people could ping each other on/in NL. So a NL "PM" actually goes to one's e-mail address?

Thanks again.

TV

Tgirl4real: Well said!

I sent you a mail sir.

Thanks TG. Errr....I'm so embarrassed . How do I access it?

Long One: Question for you; how do you explain these ‘unbelievers’ that get married and are still able to sustain their marriage till death do them part?

Not that I am trying to dispute your statement, rather, I agree, but it’s one of those few things that puzzles me.

God gave marriage to mankind. Marriage is for all - not to say that everyone will. However, in a "Christian context" there are some faith-specific peculiarities about it. You don't have to be a Christian to marry or to marry successfully.

Best
TV

...SIL came from upstairs enraged and screaming threats, she then stood in front of BIL and cursed some more. There was enough time for some sharp well-meaning fellow to sense things could escalate and quickly step-in...

Ihedinobi: @TV1, do you have more questions or can we go on to look at abusive relationships in the light of my answers?

Not quite, I'm sure the discussion will flow, but I'd appreciate if you could first clarify the following;

Ihedinobi: This is what marriage is. God takes two people and bonds them so that they become one and produce one kind of thing, not two.

This means that in a situation where this is not the underlying reality, there is really no break when the two "in covenant" walk away from each other.

Are you saying where God has not Himself done the grafting it is essentially a "non-covenant" and therefore divorce is permmisable? Infact, it's not actually divorce per se - or not actually divorce spiritually?

Please forgive my tawdriness in response and my general slowness.

Regards
TV

mazaje: There is such a thing as reflex action and anger. . .Some people can control their reflexes and anger others can't. . .Even if we are to go by the religious line. . The bible says anger is cruel and destrcutive. . .Bottom line is don't go about hitting men that are much stronger than you as a woman thinking you will get away with it. . .If a woman hits me in such a situation as my friend's younger brother's wife hit to him(In public in front of kids and adults alike, what the hell was she thinking?). .I will hit her back and she will never try to hit any body in her life again. . .At least not when she is obviously wrong and feels she can get away with it. . .

Point taken. In the heat of the moment who can legislate for what may happen?

On balance the Bible leading is to sue for and keep the peace. And in all humility with a real desire for forgiveness and reconciliation.

I know of one such instance where the SIL slapped the BIL. Quick action by those in attendance - it was at an "event" -stopped his intended retaliation. Till today they haven't been able to settle it. How much more exacerbated would it have become if He'd manage to beat her to the point of unconsciousness?

A slap for a slap? Hmmm perhaps, but to beat ones brothers wife unconscious And to be able to consider doing that in the cold light of day. Please.

Even a cursory glance of the scenario you outlined is shivery.

1. Beating to the point of unconsciousness??
2. He administered the beating in front of children?? (not to mention the hot salvo administered to his nephew 0!)
3. You only got involved when she appeared as dead??
4. He's an MD - in the UK this sounds like a quick-fire striking-off if reported.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.

Best
TV

mazaje: No one has a monopoly of violence. . .Women are physically weaker than men as such they should never be the once to throw the first punch. Not long ago I didn't stop a friend's younger brother from giving my friend's wife the beating of her life when she slapped him in our precence and also in the precence of her kids and some other kids for correcting her very stubborn child who was just so unbearable. The child was all over the place beating other kids and cursing out at the adults(House maid and another lady) that were trying to calm him down. When the uncle came in and tried to calm him down the child insulted the uncle and kicked him . The uncle then beat him up. The child ran to his mum who came down screaming and swearing(she wasn't interested in knowing what had happend) and gave her husband's younger brother two dirty slaps in our presence. Imagine the stupid woman slapping a medical doctor because she feels she is crazy. The guy gave her the beating of her life. I only intervened when I felt she was dead because she was unconscious for a while. She passed out and I quickely went and pulled the guy away from her. She ended up being sick for about a week because of the serious beating she recieved. If I find my self in his shoes I will do the same thing he did. If any woman slaps me in that kind of circumstance I MUST slap back and beat her up. Animals need to be treated as animals and human beings need to be treated as human beings. If you behave like and animal thinking because you are a woman you will get away with it then be sure to be treated as one. My two cents. . .

Some may consider that approach justified and the action provoked, but my counsel would be to take no more than "defensive" action and "evasive" steps if possible. I'd hate to think I'd beat anyone to the point of unconsciousness even if they provoked it or seemingly deserved it. Male or female.

If say a man's wife loses it - for whatever reason, would he be demonstrating headship, maturity and cool (not to mention Christlikeness for those of like faith) if his considered response was to beat his wife unconscious? I think not.

@OP without venturing into extremes, I'd have to say no, but extreme stuff does happen.

Best
TV