Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

To mike_the_wiz: Well, the "contradiction" part is definitely part of my argument in most of my posts (majority of which is on the prayer thread), but "it is the word of man"? When did I say that? Or have you unwittingly classed me with your perception of stereotypical Atheists or Agnostics think and do?In my earlier post on this thread, I did not claimed to have ANY knowledge on this topic whatsoever; I wrote simply because I didn't understand your argument. After reading your post (which didn't explain anything about "fruit of the spirit"), I am none the wiser in regards to this dilemma: [qs] don't understand what you mean by "the fruit of the spirit", nor its relevance to what we are discussing (that is, how you can pick and choose between what rules you want to keep, and what you can't). [qs] So this time, care to shed some light? Good point, I am beginning to understand your stance. If you were never placed under the laws of the OT, then you shouldn't be made to abide by them, conceded. But I thought we were ALL placed under the laws of the OT? Don't the rules/laws of the OT define what it is to sin? If it does, then isn't "not keeping" them still sinning? In other words, aren't the laws, in actual fact, made for everybody?Obey = not sin.
Disobey = sin.Also, if you just stated that you were never placed under the law (as a gentile), why bring up the "fruit of the spirit" in your earlier post at all?Thank you for addressing my questions.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

But surely atheists/agnostic do think it is written by man?? Atleas you've tried to understand my boisterous babble. Since you have been patient with me, I will now divulge what the fruit of the spirit is. I know we have fought in the other thread, but I am pleased and grateful that you are atleast trying to understand my position, so now I'll try my best: Galatians 5:22; But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
Meekness, temperance ; against such there is no lawWhat I mean is, we are not subject to them, in that, when I was a baba, my mother and father were ignorant of these laws, and so didn't obey them, and I was taught also, to not obey them - having never been "subject" to them, as in - for example, I never divided the cloth (Jewish law), nor could I - being a baby. So, I was (before christian) a failure of the law, and in many ways still them. The only way this can be resolved is with the crucial quote from Galatians.I think I said very early on, something similar to this, "If I have the fruit of the spirit, I am not under the law" But you make a good point that the law does show us sin, and we must have the fruit if we are gentile, and ofcourse, we have Christ firstly. I hope you understand, I have chose to explain because of your persistence, and hope you can see my reasoning on this.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-28-2004 04:59 PM

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your response.Reply to your post: But surely you're not insinuating that I'm an Atheist/Agnostic AGAIN? Soooo....the "fruit of the spirit" is a list of attributes? That's my understanding from the quote. What's the context? So if you are incapable of abiding by those laws, or if you have never heard of them, then you have failed to keep them. That seems like an obvious point to make. Have I missed anything? In other words everyone who have never heard of the OT laws would be sinning, from a Jewish/Christian perspective.How is this relevant to our discussion? If all laws in OT describe sinning, and technically speaking, all those who have heard of the OT should abide by those laws, how come (as you say) we must abide by some of the them (e.g. on the issues of homosexuality) while intentionally "failing to keep" others (e.g. on the issues of rituals and compensations)?How exactly does the "fruit of the spirit", now that you have defined it with a quote, resolve that?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Men or women are only reduced to behaving as children when they buck authority and are immature and arrogant. Children usually think only of themselves. Just because the man is the final authority in marriage should not cause the wife to act selfishly or irresponsibly. A humble woman can have great dignity in marriage under the authority of her husband. In my own observations it is the bitchy nagging bossy wife and the hen-pecked man who have lost all dignity and are childish.

---

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

Funny that folks like you always ignore the reasonable middle - a marriage where both participants come together as equal but different members of a team.You know, like my marriage. Like the marriage of everyone I know my age. The kind of marriage intelligent, reasonable people opt for. The kind that offers dignity and respect for both participants.You ought to try it sometime.

CF and HD,You guys can have your concepts of ideal marital relationships, I'm happy to report I get to sit at home and write, read, cook, watch the dog, and check up on this forum while my better half is the wageslave.So she gets more say in how we spend her money; works for me! PS- HD, I still have my dignity... at least I saw it around here a moment ago...

Well, the point is that if you have these attributes then you cannot go against the law as there is no law against such things. Issues of homosexuality? And just what has that got to do with any laws in the bible? Please explain.Also, I didn't say we must abide by some of them, all I mentioned as a side issue, is that in the book, Acts - the Gentiles are asked to observe some laws, but basically, it is nothing that the fruit of the spirit wouldn't fulfill. Also, my main speech was about how I myself have failed to keep the law. So, what then can I do? How then will this pig wash itself clean with only mud at it's disposal? If this dog is incapable of eating from the Master's table, who then can change that?You see, if I observe the law partially or fully, it won't change the failure of those laws I have failed at. Yet, there is an explanation within. Basically, Christ says that love will fulfill the law. I am hoping that you can see, that if I love you my friend, then that is enough for me to unwittingly obey many a Commandment. It would take too long to fully explain this in it's entirety, yet I will use one example, to hopefully convince you. If I love you, surely I can not murder you? What does the Jewish law say? Does it say "Do no murder"? Then surely you'll agree I haven't murdered you? Also, I have not murdered anyone else according to my knowledge. Have you noticed a certain wisdom to this stuff yet? Now if I don't have the fruit, and I don't have love, then according to the bible, I will gain the attributes of the God forsaken, which is such things as wickedness, lust, hate. A powerfull cocktail of evil, which can indeed break many a law. If you like, we can call these things, the weeds of satan. Now, if I don't believe in God, and I don't seek the fruit of the spirit, then surely I am the natural man, rather than the spiritual man. If my lustful hateful rage comes upon me - I can kill you. Surely a person of your intelligence can see that love is good and hate is evil. Surely then this explanation of these things will be taken for what it is. I hope you observe this.edited to add; I think the "weeds of satan" are a bit innacurate on reflection of this post. I think you can ignore the part about gaining the God forsaken attributes, as it is insufficient, in that, everybody can have hate, lust etc. that part was my opinion, sorry about the addage. Nevertheless, if I have the fruit of the spirit, then obviously I will unwittingly obey many a Commandment, do you agree?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-31-2004 10:30 AM

1.Corinthians. Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God ' '...........But the natural man recieveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him.

To mike_the_wiz:Question: Just to clarify, is "faith" referring to faith on the Christian deity? Or any deity? Except faith? Remember, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him. If Abraham had done so, he would have gone against the Sixth Commandment. If he refuses, then he would have displayed no faith in God.(He would also have been charged with attempted murder by today's standards)Also, the countless wars that happened in the OT as a result of God's explicit instructions were ALL violations of the Sixth Commandment. The "crusaders" (defined here as an army in the name of God) have ALL violated the sixth commandment because they had faith in God's instructions.Please explain the apparent contradiction. Very good point. My most sincere apologies. (I have mistaken you for Riverat). I agree. The attributes listed in "fruit of the spirit" may indeed fullfil the ten commandments if explained in this fashion...except for faith (see above). I don't know about that. You seem to imply that non-Christians (who obviously don't have the "fruit") don't love. Furthermore, you seem to be insinuating that according to the bible, they would then be wicked, lustful, and hateful. Please explain. Errrr.....well, personally I would've just promoted the attributes listed in "fruit of the spirit" rather than promoting Christianity.We would then have the benefits of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance without faith, which in itself promotes segregation.Thank you for your reply. I apologise again for my boo-boo.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Well, I refer to faith in Christ. Yet love stopped the killing. You see, love is a gift from God, who is love. God wouldn't of allowed it to happen - and he stopped it. Besides, Christ teaches to love all, enemy and foe. He doesn't teach any violence/killing.I'd rather not get into discussing OT if that's okay. But we can only achieve the fruit of the spirit from having faith in God. It is not something that is gotten on our own. That's is clearly explained on Corinthians. If you are without God then you are the natural man. Yes. This is where I said wrongly. You see, as soon as I stepped away from the biblical teaching, I made an error. I shouldn't have made up the "weeds of satan". I will conced the point. The fruit of the spirit is only available because of Christ and the cross. You cannot buy or obtain anything of the spirit of God. If you want the gifts of God, you can't cut out the one who gives you them. It is by grace we are saved, therefore, if we don't have the fruit, what then? What about all those things I said about being clean? Remember, forgiveness for sins is the key. If this pig is filthy, and has only ever lived in mud, surely his owner can wash him clean? But shall we decorate a muddy pig with a silk hat? First we shall wash the pig, and then place the silk hat. No wash = no hat.

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Ummmm....no. God commanded Abraham not to kill his son. Love has NOTHING to do with it - it was a direct command. I request that you elaborate.Question: If God asks YOU to kill me to demonstrate your faith in him, would you do it? (Hint: this is an analogy with the Abraham case) I insist that you do. After all, you have been successful so far in tying together the commandments (OT) with Jesus's notion of love (NT) as well as the notion of "fruit of the spirit" (NT). Why not try for second base?Also, this thread IS about the "fundamentalist view". From my understanding, the fundamentalist view gathered most of its principles from the OT. How can we even hope to keep this discussion on topic if you won't discuss OT? Sooooo.....what's wrong with being a wonderful natural man? From what you're telling me, "fruit of the spirit" describes a list of attributes, namely "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance".I can achieve "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance" without God's help, thank you very much. I believe that most Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc. can do so as well. I see no need for faith in human interactions, nor in how we uphold laws. So in actual fact, a model Christian and a model natural man differ only in "faith". In that case, natural man sounds like the way to go! Slow down, you seem to be getting way ahead of yourself. As reasoned above, if the "fruit of the spirit" simply denotes a list of attributes, I can demonstrate 8/9th of it without God's help. I see no place for faith in my life so the remaining 1/9th is as good as gone. so tell me, what else makes "fruit of the spirit" so special that it can only be "available because of Christ and the cross"?Regarding all those things you said about "cleanliness": I don't understand it, to tell the truth. Can you use a simpler analogy? And can you explain why cleanliness is relevant to what we are discussing as well? Thanks.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Thanks, I am enjoying our exchange. I think we will be sparring partners for a long time. All I mean is, that God didn't really have the intention of letting Abraham kill Izaac. You see, this is very relevant. There is a special relationship between Abraham and God. Abraham was willing to give his son for God. God was willing to give Christ, his son, for man, and I shall withold revelation. If God sees that Abraham was willing to give his own son, then the comparison seems very poignant. No. I would have to fail God. But the secrets are within. The main thing God wanted to establish in Abraham, was faith. Only an intense trust in God could make Abraham willing to trust God in this matter. You see, if God asked me to kill you then I wouldn't be able to do that thing. BUT, would that show a lack of faith? Would I trust that God surely knows what he is doing? Maybe I should say yes, and trust God knows what he is doing. Okay. It's just that it usually spirals when I start to talk of the OT, and people are never willing to listen, because they despise the OT.You are right that it seems that all the warring is against the Commandment to "Do no murder". What I suggest may well be controversial. But in the NT, Christ says that Moses gave them laws and knew there motives. You see, the Jews were always failing God, but if they only chose to not sin, there would be no more of man's device. I (think) in Jeremiah - they are offered a chance to repent by God, and because they fail, war came upon them. I might have confused the book with another though. You see, there was never anyone to succesfully amount to perfection, except for Christ. HE came to fulfill a law that no man could without God. It really is a case of "Stick with me, cos I know best", with God. It's his way or the hard way - It was the same in the garden of Eden. In Hosea - God says he prefers them who seek him more than sacrifices, yet they sacrificed, and you see, the failure is all man's. The natural man would serve the lusts, and will harbour addictions, lusts, hate. And favour those things more. If you are a natural man who thinks the fruit of the spirit is good attributes, will you keep those fruits above all else? Will you not fornicate, adultery, things like these etc..Or Will you worship the flesh, and live for you and not God?
Not that we are incapable of sin, as I myself have probably failed these things also, but basically the aim is to "sin no more". If you truly worship God in spirit and in truth, then he won't leave you to be given over to your lusts, anti-God attributes. It is the repentful one who is pleasing to God remember. Only with God is it possible to be clean remember. This dismisses the cross and Christ. You forget that I am born in mud, and the failure of law is there. I can ONLY be cleaned from previous failure through Christ. The natural man is not him who is spiritual, for he doesn't even believe in the spirit nor the fruit. Because it is of God. You cannot achieve this perfection without God. You see, everybody has failed and sinned. Even to not believe in Christ seems to be a sin. Where is the atonement for your not dividing the cloth or observing sabbaths etc? Have you ever lied, stole? Even once? Without atonement, your fruit is rotten. For your righteousness is at best "filthy rags" to God. Here's a comparison then.Now only a sheep with a white wool as bright as snow is acceptable to be kept by the shepard, and one who has no mud in his belly. Many sheep are born with dirt upon them, born in mud and with no water to wash them. And those who are born without mud have mud inside them. Those with mud inside them, must be washed inside, and those with mud outside them, must be washed outside. Only the shapard can wash the sheep. Can a sheep with mud outside be counted as clean by starting to avoid mud? Can a sheep with mud inside be counted as clean if he continues to have a dirty inward? Even if both the sheep begin to act clean there old mud sticks.Sorry about the length of this post, you are not obliged to answer everything here.P.S. I forgot to mention, that faith is one of the fruits of the spirit. If the natural man has the fruit, he would have faith. The natural/worldly man is not the believer. Also, Abraham obviously had these fruit, and in his time there was no law.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-01-2004 02:21 PM

Hangdawg,"Men and women are only reduced to behaving as children when they lack authority. . . "If you had stopped there it would have made sense. As a parent, I found that much of my childrens whining, nagging and outright manipulation came from their feelings of powerlessness and consequent frustration. When I treated them with respect, they generally responded very reasonably.It is of course possible to maintain a degree of dignity when deprived of reasonable authority but in a marriage, why on earth should it be necessary? Two mature individuals with love and respect for each other, and a commitment to live together do not need a relationship of overseer and "dignified(!)" drudge.Have you any reason to suppose otherwise, apart from "St Paul said"?

quote:

---

Men or women are only reduced to behaving as children when they buck authority and are immature and arrogant. Children usually think only of themselves. Just because the man is the final authority in marriage should not cause the wife to act selfishly or irresponsibly. A humble woman can have great dignity in marriage under the authority of her husband. In my own observations it is the bitchy nagging bossy wife and the hen-pecked man who have lost all dignity and are childish.

---

Let's change this around a bit and see how you like it...Just because the woman is the final authority in marriage should not cause the husband to act selfishly or irresponsibly. A humble man can have great dignity in marriage under the authority of his wife. In my own observations it is the abusive, domineering, patronizing husband and the beaten-down womanwho have lost all dignity and are childish.Here's another way to look at it...Just because the white man is the final authority in slavery should not cause the Negroto act selfishly or irresponsibly. A humble Negro can have great dignity in slavery under the authority of his or her master. In my own observations it is the uppity, presuptuous, educated Negro and the undignified, deferential master who have lost all dignity and are childish.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-01-2004 08:39 PM

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your replyReply to your post: Does Abraham know this? Is this not an obvious progression of events? Consider:If God is taken to be benevolent (Christian assumption), then He CANNOT allow Abraham to kill Isaac on His request. Abraham knows this (surely he must!) so there never was any doubts that God would stop him before he brings the chopper down.Furthermore, God is omniscient, remember? He never needed to test Abraham: He knows. So why the test? Sorry, but I didn't get that. Is that a yes or a no? If it is a no, is your decision a reflection of your lack of faith? Well, if you don't mind me asking a truckload of questions, we'll get along just fine. I was actually referring to the bits where God DECLARED war or instructed men to start a war or kill in His name. Consider this bit:Moses struck the ground to part the red sea to let his people through. If I consider this true, and was a miracle performed by Moses, then when he struck the ground again to "un-part" the red sea and flash-drown the Egyptian army, I would say that he has commited hundreds of counts of manslaughter/murder.Question: would you see WWI, WWII, Gulf War I and II, Vietnam War, etc. as a result of sins commited in those countries? How can we tell the difference between wars we start ourselves and wars imposed on us by God as punishment for our sins? Given that anyone who is not a Christian falls into the "natural man" category, please explain how this comment does NOT imply that non-christians "serve the lust, and will harbour addictions, lusts, hate". Clarify if this is what you are claiming. Well, I would actually avoid fornication, adultery, etc. because I desire to uphold my reputation as an honourable and dependable human being (as opposed to indulging in the endearing title of "stud"). So I guess the answer to your first question is yes.Your second question is strange because while I definitely live for myself (and not God), I don't "worship the flesh" any more than Christians do (from observation). So I guess your question was inherently flawed in drawing the parallel of "worshiping the flesh" with "living for myself". Errrr.....mike_the_wiz? You have to remember that the "fruit of the spirit" seems Godly (God attributes) to YOU only. To me, it is merely a list of attributes which I can easily possess without God's help. Or are you implying that without God, my love is not "love", my joy is not "joy", my peace is not "peace", etc.? That's exactly my point. I have dismissed the cross and Christ because we're focusing on "Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage". We are talking about social interaction here, not the afterlife. You were arguing that Christians possess the "fruit of the spirit", so they don't break laws. But then you claim that because no body is perfect, sometimes even Christians cannot uphold all the laws.I'm saying that I'm not a Christian, and I possess the same attributes as "fruit of the spirit" (except faith), and I don't break laws. So considering our lives on earth (NOT after we die), what makes you think that the Christians' lifestyle is anymore moral than an Atheist, Buddhist, Shintoist, etc. one? But we're not talking about sinning. We're talking about what is right to do in a social setting. We're not talking about perfection in a spiritual sense, we're talking about morality in a social sense. Please, focus on the physical world.You stated that:1) Christians can do no wrong if they are filled with the "fruit of the spirit".and2) Christians are imperfect, so sometimes they "fail to uphold" laws as well.These two points appear to be contradictory. Please explain.Note to mike_the_wiz: Please remember to stay on topic and discuss the relevance and suitability of the application of NT and OT in our lifestyle, especially in regards to our treatment of women.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"