The Bible on Sex, Love, and Marriage

quote:

---

It means that they are not giving you carte blanche rule over them but that they reassure you that no matter how bad a decission turns out that you make or how hard things get, they will be right there along side with you pulling the plow as a team and reasurring you the whole way.

---

That's not submission, that's personal support.It's what people give to each other in a relationship.Of course, in an egalitarian relationship, you make big descisions together.

quote:

---

Now if your spouse was like that and you knew she was committed to you like that and would do anything for you to the point where it caused her to sacrifice her own wishes, you are telling me that you could not look on here with complete mature love?

---

That's kind of sliding into doormat mode, sorry.I want my spouse to be involved in every descision because we are a equal partnership, meaning we each have equal responsibility for the relationship.

quote:

---

You'ld look down on her for being that committed to you?

---

I'd feel kind of sorry for someone like that. I mean, loyalty I would expect, but supporting me and reassuring me even though I repeatedly screw up sounds like an enabler or a permissive mother.

quote:

---

You'ld loose repect for her? You'ld think less of her for thinking the world of you?

---

I think the world of my spouse; I just don't automatically support everything he does just because he is a male. I would especially resent it if he thought he had the right to simply overrule me when we disagreed about something.It wouldn't matter how much he loved me. He still doesn't have the right to always overrule my will in disagreements. That is a huge sign of disrespect.

quote:

---

Considering that in Biblical times, women were considered chattel and all marriages were arranged, and many women were taken as spoils of war, I fail to see how Biblical advice on modern relationships is any more relevant than the advice on how to stone to death rebellious children.

---

Before the Fall is what God intended for us, after the fall is us making the most of our fallen world. Spoils of war included...much like the view of a caveman beating his new wife into submission w/a club & then dragging her over to check out his crib. We could take a look at those Levitical Laws, they just might put a smile on your face.Leviticus Chapter 20 The people felt since it was their children, they had the right to sacrifice them to the god Molech, but God being all up in their business and ruining their fun made it clear they would surely be put to death if they did these things. No mediums, no contacting spirits on the other side, or talking to great-great-great aunt becky. So according to the Bible, there were mediums, ghosts & people who practiced witchcraft (Witch of Endor). **Keep in mind, these people were already sacrificing their children to a pagan god. When I was a kid, cursing your parents or adults was just something you didn't do. In the East, the children are raised to be cordial and use "yes maam & no sir." I'm sure teenagers in Biblical Times were more focused on obeying their parents & God, and they certainly weren't looking to get stoned on the weekends! How times have changed... Adultery has always been a big "NO-NO" even 3000yrs later, it still holds very much true today, yet so many continue to ruin marriages and then act surprised when their spouse is all broken up and feeling betrayed. Incest was also something you didn't do, even though many still partake in this timeless sin. An abomination is the cause for abhorrence. To abhor is to have utter disgust and loath something utterly. So God really-really doesn't like the act of fornicating between gays. Maybe that is why Canada has their "Hate" laws, so peoople don't ever hear what God thinks of their activities. Keep in mind, its not the Gays He abhors, but the sinful act itself. God still loves his people, if only they'd turn from their lusts and come to Him. I did a complete study on this and at the moment I'm drawing a complete blank! - sorry This happens more frequently than one might expect. When I was in the Military, we visited a foreign country where they still performed "The Donkey Show." The most beautiful girl you could lay your eyes on doing the most incredible and despicable acts of perversion imagineable. Yeah, they served popcorn during the shows. Sounds like Puberty..."Hey Sis, what you got going on over there!?" I can't find anything on this at the moment. Not supposed to have sex when the woman is cycling on her period, just not a cool thing to do. More redundancy...can't say you didn't know huh!? This has more to do w/rules of he levirate marriage. They stoned their witches to death. Well, I hope you enjoyed that..I surely did. God has certainly placed a lot of laws on our lives which most people feel are nothing more than restrictions.

Wow Lizard Breath,You explain things so eloquently, your message comes across clearly. Even if I don't agree with you on everything said, you do make things much clearer. I commend you good sir.Pink Sasquatch says:

quote:

---

I don't see why equality is troublesome - perhaps you could explain. Since equality makes for a good friendship, why doesn't it make for a good marriage - your spouse should be your best friend, after all.

---

Of course, the Bible is also against the husband dealing treacherously with their wives (best friends in youth). Marriage is sacred and joined by a covenent (contract). This also goes for the ladies. So the only major problem people have with the Biblical Blueprint for marriage is the whole Headship/Submission Roles!? Or for some, they also like to have an open-ended relationship? Just curious why this seems so hard to grasp...Do people find it restrictive, or...?

the problem i have with the bible's "plan" for marriage is that it originates as the curse on eve for her part in the fall. i think we have moved past that.

brennakimi says,

quote:

---

the problem i have with the bible's "plan" for marriage is that it originates as the curse on eve for her part in the fall. i think we have moved past that.

---

I think the Thread has moved past that point, but have you?

---

Acts 17:11 "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."

That was, indeed, fun.However, you didn't actually answer my question.Since why people get married and the status of women in society are both hugely different now, compared to when the marriage rules and guidelines in the bible were writeen 2,000 years ago, why are they relevant now?

quote:

---

I refute that idea...lets look at the actual translation(s) used.
"Therefore a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph 5:31). The Hebrew word dabaq translated "cleave" in this verse means to adhere, stick or be joined together. The Greek word translated "cleave or join" in the New Testament is proskolloa, which also means to glue, stick or join together, where marriage is bringing two people together with the expectation of never being separated. Also, if you'd like to take it a step further. The Hebrew word "basar" is flesh, much like Adam's term of "flesh of my flesh" when describing Eve. The Hebrew word "echadh" is used for being numerically "one." So here we have two people cleaving/joining together as one flesh (Basar' echadh). Yes, they were also commanded to multiply & fill the earth, but in their marriage specifically (Gen 2:24) they were to have complete unity.

---

1. Dabaq: They join together physically for reproduction. They can't literally become one flesh.

quote:

---

So here we have two people cleaving/joining together as one flesh

---

They become one flesh not come together as one flesh, which would be a baby.Same word is used in Ruth, but it doesn't make Ruth married to her mother-in-law, make them one flesh, or constitute sex. It does show that "dabaq" describes physical proximity which is not necessarily permanent. IMO the phrase "becoming one flesh" is what adds the sexual inference.The command to multiply or fill the earth came in Genesis 1. So the job God gave them was to subdue and reproduce. Genesis 2 needed to have its reproduction plan also. Doesn't sound like a ruling, but a statement of fact. Sex is a natural inclination, marriage is not.When you consider that Genesis was written during a time when marriages were arranged and men had multiple wives, it makes one wonder how one man can become one flesh with several women. He can contribute to a lot of babies though.

quote:

---

but in their marriage specifically (Gen 2:24) they were to have complete unity.

---

Genesis 2:24 is interpreted now as unity in a marriage, but during the age of arranged marriages, were all women agreeable to the marriages arranged for them? Some got a good deal and some didn't.So in the Genesis verse I see mating created by God before the fall and marriage created by man after the fall.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Yes, giving man and woman the duty to reproduce and fill the earth would definitely cause an overload if nothing is supposed to die. I assume since it was paradise there weren't any natural disasters either. But yes that would be another thread.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Any student of math would know that "exact equal" is redundant. "Equal" and "exact equal" mean the same thing. So, if both people in a relationship are equally complete assholes, then the relationship won't be very good. I'd agree with that, not because of the equality part, but because of the asshole part...If one partner is incapable of letting the other make a decision, and the other is incapable of making a decision, it may seem like a good match, but that doesn't make it healthy. I believe the term for that kind of relationship is "codependent" and is deserving of some therapy... First, where does the Bible comment on this specifically? Second, the majority of long-term couples I know do consider each other their best friends, so I'm not sure what you are basing your 'society' idea on...Really, I still don't understand why you are seemingly arguing in favor of the 90/10 model over the 50/50 model.Have you had a chance to thing about:
Ever have a boss or other authority figure demand you do something pointless, despite your logical arguments to the pointlessness of it? How did you feel? Frustrated and annoyed, or full of love and respect?In any case, I think Schraf's comment sums it up best, and is deserving of reposting: This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 10-23-2004 05:23 PM

I think that you agree with me at least slightly then that Biblical marriage is non-applicable in Post-Christian America. The problem is, even in the majority of so called Christian homes, the husband is not taking the lead as per the Bible's specification and sacrificing himself for his wife. If in the case of your husband, if he was doing this for you on his own without expectation of anything other than the satisfaction of knowing that he is following the Biblical principal, then you would have little to fear about being disrespected by him in the decision making process.

quote:

---

I think the world of my spouse; I just don't automatically support everything he does just because he is a male. I would especially resent it if he thought he had the right to simply overrule me when we disagreed about something.

---

See, your spouse hasn't been a leader to you according to this Biblical equation of 90% give and 10% take because you are very protective of your rights and power in the relationship. The Bible spells out very clearly of just how much power the wife has in the relationship and it is immence. The wife is to be a conselor and advisor to the husband and the family's financial accountant. The wife is to be imtimantly involved in all of the planning and execution of matters within the household. The Bible infers that the wife is to be an intelectual equal to the husband but not an executive equal.So from the Biblical perspective, if you as a wife are intimately involved with every faccet of the family daily matters, an intelectual equal to your husband, a conselor and advisor to him and he is practicing the equation of 90% give and 10% take in the relationship and his primary responsibity to you is your welfare and security, then being disrespected by him according to the Bible would be as big a concern to you as being traded to aliens for a glass of cactus juice.I'm not saying that your marriage is not doing it right or wrong, I'm just explaining the Bible's instruction on it. From a modern American perspective, there really is no right or wrong marriage. Just if the situation lends itself to be better in another arrangement, you are wasting heartbeats staying in the current one. You only get so many heartbeats in life and you don't know what that number is, so plan for the future but live for the here and now because that's the only thing you can verify.That's the difference between the Biblical perspective which states that there is an eternal accounting for what happens here verses a logical modern scientific perspective which states that an eternal consequence is ridiculous. If the Sun were to supernova tomorrow, then Hitler's life and deeds are inconsequential, however from the Biblical perspective, he's got some splain'in to do.But in America, few have use of this antiquated Biblical formula and again the 50/50 rule applies. Your concerns as you posted them are very well warrented and you should be on guard even though you think the world of each other.That is why if people insist on marriage for whatever reason in this country, things like pre-nums are a good idea to protect your assets that you've worked hard for.

quote:

---

Second, the majority of long-term couples I know do consider each other their best friends, so I'm not sure what you are basing your 'society' idea on...

---

Best friends do argue and fight and disagree. But it's rarer for best friends to drag each other into court and fight over assets than it is for married couples to in divorce court. Look at the stats in this country and ask yourself if these people are truly "best friends" or if it's just a cute title that's affectionately given to each other just like "For better of for Worse". As soon as the better leaves and worse starts to barely come into the picture, the "till death do us part" gets re-written to "I swear I'll take every last cent from you, you rancid worthless piece of crap!!"

quote:

---

First, where does the Bible comment on this specifically? Second, the majority of long-term couples I know do consider each other their best friends, so I'm not sure what you are basing your 'society' idea on...

---

AS far as the Bible's prediction of a "best friends" type relationship between husband and wife, read Genesis chapter 3 concerning God's decree to Adam and Eve during the post forbidden fruit eating episode.

quote:

---

Any student of math would know that "exact equal" is redundant. "Equal" and "exact equal" mean the same thing.

---

I'm not a math student so my terminology was not filtered through that type of mindset. But if you had an orange on one side of a balance scale, and several calibrated weights on the other side and the scale balanced, then they are equal. Are they exact equals? Well, I'll let your math student take a bite out of the calibrated weight and I'll eat the orange. That's what I ment by equal as far as importance without being equal in construction.

quote:

---

Really, I still don't understand why you are seemingly arguing in favor of the 90/10 model over the 50/50 model.

---

I'm not argueing for any equation. I'm just explaining the Bible's position on the matter. I think that you will find that I said that I'm not in favor of marriage in this country, but rather loose co-habitation arrangements in order to cut down on the legal mess of divorce. If children are involved, then the courts decide who pays for them because your daughter is always your child but your wife and husband can change easily through the legal system.

quote:

---

Have you had a chance to thing about:
Ever have a boss or other authority figure demand you do something pointless, despite your logical arguments to the pointlessness of it? How did you feel? Frustrated and annoyed, or full of love and respect?

---

I'm a carreer military person so yes, this happens on an hourly basis while on duty. But I do not overlay a worker/supervisor relationship to a marriage. The Bible says the 2 become one in marriage but not in any other contractual agreement. So a 90/10 relationship in a work place would mean that I could not fulfill my 90/10 obligation to my spouse. I give my best at work and am compensated for it and expect to be. But Biblical marriage requires me to sacrifice myself and my wants and desires for the desires of my wife which is in a different echeleon from my work requirements.You keep critisizing the 90/10 Biblical equation but I am doubting if you've read the text enough to understand what it is requiring. It's easy to scuff if off as rediculous when you just read about it in a post, but to read the text thouroghly and then comment is something different. You are making the assumption that it doesn't work.It doesn't work in America because if someone can even say that they are giving 90% and only taking 10%, they are already filled with too much self pride and it betrays a more accurate equation of them taking 75% and giving 25% but with great fanfare whenever even 1% is given back.

Well, it's fairly rare for best friends to jointly own property and assets. The word you're looking for is "equivalent", as in, of equal measure without being indentical in compostition. Not trying to make you look bad, here, just offering a suggestion on word choice.

quote:

---

I think that you agree with me at least slightly then that Biblical marriage is non-applicable in Post-Christian America.

---

I think so, yes.

quote:

---

The problem is, even in the majority of so called Christian homes, the husband is not taking the lead as per the Bible's specification and sacrificing himself for his wife. If in the case of your husband, if he was doing this for you on his own without expectation of anything other than the satisfaction of knowing that he is following the Biblical principal, then you would have little to fear about being disrespected by him in the decision making process.

---

You don't get it.The fact that he would be making all of the final decisions is, in and of itself, disrespecful.

quote:

---

See, your spouse hasn't been a leader to you according to this Biblical equation of 90% give and 10% take because you are very protective of your rights and power in the relationship.

---

I am protective of my rights and power as a human being.

quote:

---

The Bible spells out very clearly of just how much power the wife has in the relationship and it is immence. The wife is to be a conselor and advisor to the husband and the family's financial accountant. The wife is to be imtimantly involved in all of the planning and execution of matters within the household.

---

I don't want to run the household myself. That's boring. I enjoy my career much more than running my household.The running of our household is something my spouse and I do together out of necessity most of the time.

quote:

---

The Bible infers that the wife is to be an intelectual equal to the husband but not an executive equal.

---

OK, where does the Bible say anything about wives being inteelectual equals to their husbands.Mostly I seem to recall women having to ask their husbands if they have questions about things.Not the other way around.

quote:

---

So from the Biblical perspective, if you as a wife are intimately involved with every faccet of the family daily matters, an intelectual equal to your husband, a conselor and advisor to him and he is practicing the equation of 90% give and 10% take in the relationship and his primary responsibity to you is your welfare and security,

---

See, I have been supporting myself AND my husband for most of the last 12 years while he has been a student. I am responsible for my own welfare, first an foremost. I have agreed to this arrangement because getting his PhD is very important to him, and therefore it is important to me, too. When he graduates, he will most likely get a post doctoral position, at which time our yearly incomes will probably match. After that, he will hopefully get a faculty position and then I will take some time off before looking for a new position or deciding to go back to school myself because he will be making more money.I have a Mormon friend who has a masters degree. She is married to a man who barely made it through high school. She has ten times the earning power that her husband does, but he is the one who works the third shift at some factory, making just a little over minimum wage, and she stays at home with the three kids. Because of their religious convictions, they are having more children than they can afford and are on public assistance at the taxpayer's expense.

quote:

---

then being disrespected by him according to the Bible would be as big a concern to you as being traded to aliens for a glass of cactus juice.

---

Like I said above, just the idea that I would not have the weight in the relationship to make joint descisions with my husband is disrespecful to me on it's face.I don't care how well I was taken care of, gold plated handcuffs are still handcufs.

quote:

---

But in America, few have use of this antiquated Biblical formula and again the 50/50 rule applies. Your concerns as you posted them are very well warrented and you should be on guard even though you think the world of each other.

---

The thing is, I don't really need to be on my guard. I know my husband views me as completely equal in status to himself, and vice versa.The time to be on guard is in the choosing of a mate.

quote:

---

That is why if people insist on marriage for whatever reason in this country, things like pre-nums are a good idea to protect your assets that you've worked hard for.

---

We don't have a pre-nup. We are working for the best interests of each other, and are answerable to each other for every descision we make.

Hi Lizard Breath,You have incredible insight on biblical marriage!Just out of curiosity, are you following the biblical marriage model and how is it working for you?

A silly analogy, since it's "rarer" for best friends to share assets. Besides, I would argue that married couples who are also best friends are less likely to divorce, and if they are best friends but nevertheless get a divorce, there will be respect through the break up. Overall divorce stats say nothing regarding the argument at hand, which is whether being best friends (or equals) in a marriage supports a healthy marriage. I could easily counter with, "The high divorce rate in this country shows that people aren't taking the time to find a potential spouse who is also their best friend, and so those relationships are failing."From my own personal (anecdotal) experience, the healthiest married couples I know are best friends. These are not self-declared best friends, as you've described. While they've never said "Hey everybody, we're best friends!", it is obvious from their love and respect and communication and trust, and perhaps most importantly, how they look at each other. While obviously the divorce rate is high in the U.S., not all of them end on a whim as you describe, and not all of them end with the former partners thinking of each other as a "rancid worthless piece of crap." Do you have stats on how many divorces proceed in this way? They are exact equals in terms of mass, yes. We were talking about equality in a specific instance, decision-making. Given your analogy, next you'll prove that a man and woman could never be "exact equals" because one has a penis and the other a vagina. You can explain your interpretation, if you like - I don't have my Bible at hand. You didn't really answer the main point of the exercise, (not that you have to), which was whether or not being forced to follow through on a decision that you deem pointless makes you well up with respect and love for the person that made that decision, or does it cause frustration? Right, because I couldn't possible disagree or find fault with it... Again, your generalizations only work when one or both members of a relationship are complete assholes. I don't think in terms of what percentage I owe my wife, or how great I am because I've done something for her. Instead I support her with what she needs, and she does the same for me, because we love and respect each other - not to support our egos or fill a Biblical quota.Here is the problem with your arguments, in my opinion: You are basing all of your arguments for what makes a healthy relationship on what makes relationships fail, rather than what makes relationships succeed.Most of your points fall apart if you remove "the asshole factor".