Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible on Sex, Love, and Marriage
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 209 of 302 (152151)
10-22-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Lizard Breath
10-22-2004 8:08 PM


Re: Biblical Perspective
quote:
I also agree with you that your spouse should be your best friend but the Bible predicts that this will be difficult to obtain and it seems in society that this is true.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-22-2004 8:08 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by asciikerr, posted 10-22-2004 11:33 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 210 of 302 (152152)
10-22-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Lizard Breath
10-22-2004 8:22 PM


Re: Victor's
quote:
In the vast majority of secular relationships, both parties go into it thinking mostly of what they are going to get out of the relationship and not how much work they are going to have to put in to the relationship.
Oh really?
Upon what do you base this assertion?
I mean, athiests and agnostics have a lower divorce rate than strict, born again-type Christians.
So, which group do you think is more likely to have realistic expectations?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-22-2004 09:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-22-2004 8:22 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 211 of 302 (152154)
10-22-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Lizard Breath
10-22-2004 8:34 PM


Re: Biblical Perspective
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-22-2004 8:34 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 2:25 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 216 of 302 (152253)
10-23-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by asciikerr
10-22-2004 11:33 PM


Re: Levitical Law Review
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by asciikerr, posted 10-22-2004 11:33 PM asciikerr has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 302 (152545)
10-24-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Lizard Breath
10-24-2004 2:25 PM


Re: Biblical Perspective
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 2:25 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 10-24-2004 3:39 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 302 (152566)
10-24-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Lizard Breath
10-24-2004 4:52 PM


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.
quote:
That's fine, then don't get married.
...or change what it means to be married.
Where is it written that ALL marriages, everywhere in the entire world, MUST be based upon a certain interpretation of the Christian Bible?
quote:
The 10 commandemts are found to be an offense to the vast majority of people in this country and the courts reflect this majority stance by consistantly removing them from public property.
Wrong.
The reason the 10 commandments are removed from public property is because public buildings are built using taxpayer money. The prominent display on government buildings of religious doctrine constitutes a clear appearance of endoresement of a particular faith by the government, which is in violation of the Constitution.
quote:
from a secular point of view, there is no benefit to marriage especially due to no-fault divorce.
Wrong again.
There is a great deal of benefit to marriage for a secular couple. Being legally married is a big, real commitment that keeps people together during the more difficult times that all marriages go experience. It is a long, long tradition that makes us feel part of a cultural and family continuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 4:52 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 5:43 PM nator has replied
 Message 236 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 5:57 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 262 of 302 (152763)
10-25-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Lizard Breath
10-24-2004 5:38 PM


quote:
What I am trying to convey is that if the Biblical Marriage model is bad for women as is being supposed by those debating me, then abandon the covenant of marriage.
...or change what it means to be married.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 5:38 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 263 of 302 (152766)
10-25-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Lizard Breath
10-24-2004 5:43 PM


quote:
I think that we are in the process of changing what it means to be married right now in the last 25 years by making it very easy to get divorced and possibly re-writing the boundries of who can become legally married via the Gay Marriage initiatives.
What it means to be married has always been in flux.
women used to be chattel, and men could have many wives, like many cattle.
Women used to have no legal rights, or only the rights of a child, in marriage or a s human beings.
Women used to be completely dependent upon men for their survival.
Etcetera.
quote:
So from my perspective it means far less to actually be married now then it did 25 years ago so fast forward 25 years from now and where might we be?
From my perspective, it means much MORE to be married now, because it is a choice and a commitment to get and stay married rather than something that you do because you are expected to and can't undo.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-25-2004 10:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-24-2004 5:43 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 292 of 302 (153271)
10-27-2004 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by dpardo
10-26-2004 6:23 PM


Re: Why Do "Christian" Marriages Fail?
How long were these couples married before they became unhappy/divorced?
How long did they date/court before getting married?
Did they live together before getting married?
Were these first marriages for each spouse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by dpardo, posted 10-26-2004 6:23 PM dpardo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024