The Bible on Sex, Love, and Marriage

Maybe you should read his comment again: Did you not read it the first time? Or maybe you don't consider it harmful to torment your wife?

You make the same mistake Buz often does - you've confused the fact that men have contrived to place themselves exclusively in positions of authority as evidence that it is good that they have done so.But I don't understand how you've missed seeing women in authority; women run countries and corporations all over the place. Women are politicians and lawyers and soldiers. Just this year I'll be voting for a woman for the governorship of Missouri. Is that enough authority for you?Women fill the same positions of authority that men do. They just aren't allowed to fill as many of them, yet. That's changing. I don't get it. You're saying that you've never seen a female politician? Bush's National Security advisor is a woman; Dr. Condoleeza Rice. National Security sounds like it has a fair bit of authority, don't you think?

Oh, right. Since he's in a marriage that you say won't work, he must be lying when he says it is.How insulting. Does it work the other way, too? Are we unable to conclude that your marriage is functional and happy without interrogating your wife? Ah, no, of course not. You're on the Biblical model, after all, so it goes without saying that your wife must be happy; or if she isn't, then she's not following God's will and it isn't in any way your fault, anyway.

So, his word that it is is insufficient?If so, why must we take your word for your own marital testaments?

Fair enough, now that I see he has done that.I'm married too, though. And my wife and I have a marriage where we're equal partners, not leader and follower, as you suggest. I guess you could ask her how well that works for her - she posts here, infrequently, as Entomologista - but I have to warn you, if you give her the impression that you doubt our marriage works for us... well, you know that scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark where all the Nazi's have their faces melted off? That should give you an idea of what her response is liable to do to you.

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.

By way of elucidating Chraf's imagery - LB, you're in the service, which means you help protect democracy and the principles of our government. (Which I'm sure we all appreciate.) Presumably, those principles mean a considerable amount to you.Suppose that someone proposed to you that we end democracy in this country, suspend participatory government, and install a king. "Don't worry," the guy says. "This king is such a good guy that everything he does will be the right thing. You never have to worry about him making a bad decision."Does that sound like a good trade to you? It doesn't, to me - it sounds like a betrayal of everything our country, and you, stand for. I think that's what Schraf is getting at - it doesn't matter how much she might benefit from someone else making the final decisions - she still loses so much by not making decisions.

Here's another idea - I'll get married if I choose to (as I did), and be married in the way that my wife and I choose. We didn't. We modelled our relationship after a civil, government-sponsored union where all parties maintain equal input in the decision process.It's called "marriage." Nobody gives a rat's ass about those commandments. It's that tricky First Commandment, which you rather pointedly ommitted, that can't be displayed on public property.Why don't you read it, and then read the First Amendment, and then explain to me why there's no conflict. Nobody else has been able to. Who's getting rid of them? It's still illegal to kill and steal, and it always will be - those injunctions serve a legitimate, obvious secular purpose.But explain to me why the government that cannot establish a religious position somehow gets to say "Nobody shall have any God but God."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-24-2004 05:32 PM

Why? Why does it have to be your way or the highway? What arrogance.

But it's obvious that the reverse must be true - marriage is constantly evolving because the Biblical model you espouse doesn't work. The evidence for this is that marriages under your Biblical model have a greater likelyhood of ending in divorce.

Says you. Care to back that up?

I might believe it, but I'd need more than your say-so. Certainly, what you say hasn't at all been my experience as a youth in the Christian church. Among my church community, which I have no reason to believe was much different than any other, attitudes towards dating were very, very different than secular attitudes. Well, if they're not, LB, who is? Even if only a small fraction of Christians were doing it "right", LB, we would still expect less divorce from the Christian group. After all I think we can be pretty sure that no non-Christians, or certainly not any stastically significant number, are doing it the Biblical way.Here's the thing. Christians who do marriage the secular way shouldn't have a different divorce rate than non-Christians who do it the secular way. If the divorce rate for Christians is higher, it can only be because the Biblical model, which no non-Chrisitan is following, is actually worse.It's inescapable. That's the only reasonable conclusion.

That doesn't even begin to constitute advice on sex. That's advice on marriage.Advice on sex would be something like "my wife and I can't seem to find a position that provides enough friction for me and enough stimulation of the clitoris for her. Any ideas?" Boy, I'd like to see the Bible answer that.

I don't understand why you think the "expectations" would be substantially different. We do, after all, still live in a culture that tells us you're supposed to be able to find one everlasting soulmate and be able to stick with them, and if you couldn't, it's your fault, somehow.