Observable fact is materialism.
I have given an example that I will give again: i can write something on a piece of paper, and then destroy the paper. No one knows what was on it but me. That is fact. It is not any less fact because I cannot show it to you. It is fact because I know. You may call it opinion yourself as there is little else you can do. You see it from your own point of view. But it lessens it not... it is still fact.
It is still a fact we can find traces, even just the ashes, of the paper.
How do you know he could have prevented his death?
Well, since there are no other dead person stories where he prevents it, we can at least say Jesus could theoretically return John to life, since that talent WAS mentioned.
The point is, I know, and therefore it is fact: but I can't prove it to you, AND that is the very thing that your case rests on. I know what was on the note. Yes or no?
When a man says some black teenager beat him to a pulp and no one was around, we were to take his word for it, despite the FACT that such a beating would have FACTUAL medical injuries provable to everyone who assessed him. And guess what? Based on FACT, he was lying. He wanted us to believe in him because there was no one to call him a liar, but his claims defeated him even though the law was stupid enough to believe him.
I mean, there's this little thing called forensics, a systematic assessment of the environment, etc, to determine what really happened. Or are you of the opinion that we cannot know what we did not personally witness at all? If that is the case, since hardly anyone called an author in the bible was actually there for a good majority of the anthologies, why should we believe them since they weren't there?
Not many people choose to marry an abuser. They get tricked into the marriage. Therefore, I think God would call separation from such a person an annulment. You did not marry the man who would abuse you! So by God you may remarry.....but be more careful next time.
For nearly all my life, I figured my mom for this: an ignorant woman who was tricked by my abusive father. Turns out, we learned recently that he had specifically told her he could never love her and that he liked to hurt animals as a kid, etc. So, "tricked" wasn't what happened. She CHOSE this ***. I cried for hours with that revelation. I suspect she's a masochist and he's a sadist and while they didn't do the leather and other kink, it was a given that violence was chosen. Because my mother was raised Southern Baptist, her cognitive dissonance won't let her accept she needed his aggression, so ....
Also, it gets more complicated because my mom was diagnosed after the divorce (TN mandated counseling at the time) with borderline personality disorder. The shrink was on my father's side and most definitely would say whatever my father told him to say, but reviewing the symptoms ... yeah, she has it. Still, better to be living with crazy than evil, right?
Brought about through feminism destroying the family and men seeing their true value in the eyes of women. Interestingly it seems, men have feelings too.
When men were allowed to kill women and children, even their own, before feminism was invented, was it still our fault the man couldn't be a man?
Why more women suffer compared to the men in West?:
Nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning.[ii]
Nearly, 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men have been injured as a result of IPV that included rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iii]
1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iv]
More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[vi]
Females ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 generally experienced the highest rates of intimate partner violence.[viii]
From 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female.[ix]
Most female victims of intimate partner violence were previously victimized by the same offender, including 77% of females ages 18 to 24, 76% of females ages 25 to 34, and 81% of females ages 35 to 49.[x]
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
Why more women suffer compared to the men in West?
It is neither equality nor equitability.
Regards
We must also acknowledge, though, that due to the West's insistence on manly manhood, men are less likely to admit they got beat up by women.
Then, why should not men start taking adopting birth control remeasure instead of the women, if later on they cannot support the mother and the child? Why should such men have sex with women?
Yeah! Why would I be demonized for taking birth control (no sexual reasons, just have painful periods) and yet I see constant commercials demanding men pick up little blue boing boing pills?
Feminist stated that they went out to destroy the family. That is their boast. Why? Because the man is the power in the family. Destroy the family, the woman is free. To do that however, she needs the vote. Then she has a job. Then she can leave. Feminism destroys the family. Period. That does not negate however, that men were not doing that good a job of valuingthem in the first place, considering they obviously had tendancies to greed
Wow. Not, "maybe men should rethink their hardcore and baseless patiarchy", but "let's blame women". Combine this with your callousness regarding abuse ...
They would both be victims though
Yes, my father often told us we were the cause of his fits of temper. Even now, he wants US to apologize for HIS abuse and cheating. As a narcissistic sociopath, he is the victim any time he does not get his way, and when he does not get his way, he slams you against the wall or stalks you or ...
When did I say I was on higher ground?
Aren't you the one who says he knows the Son or whatever and that it is a fact?
Why tough to prosecute? In stead of giving check to the fraudulent women, the governments could make laws and provide lawyers to the victims and save money getting fleeced by such deceiving persons. Proper legislations could always be made.
Regards
Well, we as kids had all the red flags of being abused by our parents, but did anyone help us? No. My father was a "good ol' boy", it's the woman's fault anyway (probably wanted "rights" or some crap like that), and Mom was obviously teaching us to hate poor, poor Daddy. I can never forgive the state of Tennessee for never coming to our rescue. If the country cared about children, we wouldn't ignore abuse or underfund social services or whatever else would be needed to fix the problem. We have news stories in this country where parents STILL claim religious exemptions for clear situations of abuse, from forbidding education to starvation to death. They SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that God told them this was okay.
We are arguing on the internet. Abuse?
This explains a lot of fundamentalism's issues with debates in general.
So we have an ungodly society and a family unit that doesn't function.... where then are the grandparents? Grandmothers used to hlep.
My paternal grandparents took Daddy's side, naturally. My maternal grandparents would let us stay at their house. Closer to the death of my maternal grandfather, he told us he didn't remember our lives being that bad. That stunned us, since we would come to their house, sometimes at night, fleeing the situation between our parents....
I hate this. I think the father should have the same rights - if that's the right word for it.
I mean, if a woman can decide to abort her child despite the father wanting to keep it, then why can't a man walk away from all responsibility for that child if the mother decides to keep it?
Or if we're going to say the father must take responsibility for the child, then he should be able to prevent the mother from getting an abortion and he should get full custody of that child.
This would be a lot easier to work out when men can get pregnant. Until then, the onus is on the woman to bring the kid into the world. As soon as men invent artificial wombs, by all means, let them have equal say.
As I said though, it really isn't all that pervasive. Most men in this country do not make such exorbitant amounts. One would have to look for and manipulate wealthier men to come out on top of the financial equation. The average for child support in this country is about $5000 per year. One simply cannot live on that. Deduct food, clothing childcare and/or school, medical, dental, and the numerous other little things that you just put into the child and there isn't a whole lot left. Certainly not enough to benefit from by having a child. The ones that could make out well are the rare minority. Thus, like I said, not a pervasive problem.
My mother got 750 for two kids per month. I taught fourth grade getting my masters' in education, and I spent WAY more than that on just school supplies for my impoverished students.