|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible on Sex, Love, and Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't care how well I was taken care of, gold plated handcuffs are still handcufs. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: No, not to the letter as the Bible has instructed. I follow it about like I follow the speed limit. I know exactly what I should be doing because the signs are posted, but as in speeding, I deem my own determination on how fast I can go in my vehicle over what the law says 40% of the time. It's my own selfishness and pride that allows me to speed when the sign says 65mph. And I can say, "well, everyone else is doing 74mph" and even "I would be unsafe to others if I only go 65 because I would impeed the natuaral flow of traffic", but the law still says 65 mph and if everyone obeyed it there would be less accidents. In like manner I apply the Biblical principals but my own selfishness prevents me from completeing the 90/10 equation correctly. Actually, I'm further from it than closer to achieving it. But I do sacrifice for my wife on many occations and on the big issues of life along with the small, I just don't have the ratio down yet. I can also say that when I do give sacrificially to her, the results are not always imediate but there are results and I can always trace it back to my leading by sacrificial giving to her. I can also say that she is my intellectual equal and follows the precepts better than I and so when I do sacrifice for her it means more because it came as sacrificial giving and not sacrificial negociation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: That's fine, then don't get married. Keep the relationships more along a loose co-habitation type of arrangement with the trading of financial benefits, sexual favors and meaningful companionship as the forces that hold the relationship together instead of a legally binding document. This way, she doesn't loose anything in the decision making process and when a real difficult ball breaker issue arrises, she can vote out the party and vote in another. If both parties want to maintain total autonomy in all issues, then why do they choose to model their relationship after a Biblical covanent that more resembles a King relationship? If you hold to what the Bible says, Marriage is a Biblical doctrine started in the garden of eden with God marring the first 2 human beings on the planet - Adam and Eve. It's not a secular covenant although it is practiced as such worldwide. 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. You will not murder, You will not steal, You will not commit adultry, You will not lie, You will not covet are all offensive to our society. That's why we are moving away from adultry being wrong as the most popular show on TV is Desperate Housewives. It's not wrong to lie anymore if it benefits you - especially in bussiness, stealing is OK, it's getting caught that sucks, we are taught to covet by the magazines that are oriented to each genre, and murder is slowly loosing ground as bad by the prision terms that are actually being served. So you get rid of the 10 commandments and shape society accordingly. That makes perfect sence from an evolutionary viewpoint, which is the predominant viewpoint in our education system. So why not do away with Legal marriage and just co-habitate? The only benefit is the Tax breaks from the government. Get rid of them and from a secular point of view, there is no benefit to marriage especially due to no-fault divorce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Your last two paragraphs are totally off topic. They have no place in this thread.
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: That's right. The healthiest MARRIED couples are best friends. That's common sence and I agree with you there. But something on the order of 60% of all marriages in this country end in divorce. Of the remaining, how many of them are healthy? Not all of them I know. How many more failed marriages would there be if the co-habitating couples chose to get married instead of keeping it a looser arrangement legally? And these are marriages who are doing this on a 50/50 give and take basis. Again, when one party has finally had enough of their 50% being the smallest - see ya. So my arguement was not that Biblical marriage is better. It is much better for those who can practice it faithfully but the divorce rate in the Christian church is worse than in the secular world so what does that say about how well they are practicing it? It says that they arn't doing it any different than the secular world but their expectations are higher which is like lighting the firecracker from both ends. The original question that I started responding to was what does the Bible have to say about marriage and I was attempting to represent the Bible's view on the subject. But I also said that Biblical marriage is non-applicable in today's American Post-Christian society because of what it calls for vs. what people are willing to give. Trying to adhere to a Biblically based form of marriage in a modern liberal, logical and secular society is borderline schitzophrenic. And once you get the government out of the bussiness of marriage, there is no benefit to it. Even from a security point of view it's not nessessary because our govenment has provission for anyone who is impoverished, and it sounds like the role of government in entitlement distribution is going to grow even more prominent in the short term.
quote: Show me one person who would not be fustrated by something like that and I'll show you a liar. They're called relational problems and even following the Biblical precepts to the best of your ability does not guarentee a problem free ride. Only if you are perfect at it will this happen and you will not find any perfect poeple on this planet. This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-24-2004 04:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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: ...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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
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. I was using the 10 Commandments as an exapmle of our society doing this by removing them and then modifying our culture to be more accepting of the acts that the Commandments spoke of not to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
But even there you simply made an unfounded assertion, several in fact. If you wish to discuss such questions, propose a new topic. But it has no place or point within this discussion.
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
OK, I see what you mean. I'll abandon that part of the disscussion and get back to what Biblical Marriage is and what the Bible says concerning it and let everyone else decide (through debate) it's legitimancy and relativity.
Sorry for the straying and I hope I didn't turn anyone off from this thread. Lizard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: They don't have to be. But the Bible's example and instruction for marriage does not change through time although cultures bend around it. Traditions change but the Biblical instruction of the 90/10 equation remains the same. Secular marriage has an evolving doctrine defining it as has been witnessed in our own country in recent history. 50 years ago, pre-nums were rare but now in many 2nd marriages they are present. I have seen on one bussiness TV station that a woman has a show about marriage in the corporate world and highly recomends pre-nums to protect assests. So going into the marriage, the protection of assets is paramount to the individual, verses the longivity of the marriage. Getting married today has evolved into something like buying car insurance with a Tuxedo on. So if marriage is constantly evolving in the secular world, there must be a reason for it, and I say it's because the 50/50 equation isn't working. The Bible says that the 90/10 equation works but it is impossible for a secular person to subscribe to it because it means that you are held to a higher standard than yourself or your spouse. The secular standard has no higher authority because there is no grand design or creator to assume that role. The closest to it is government. So, will government keep people on the 90/10 equations in their marriages? YEAH, RIGHT. This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-24-2004 05:00 PM This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-24-2004 05:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
LB writes:
That's what they said when slaves became free, that it meant far less to be a white man. Then, they said the same thing when schools were desegregated, that it meant even far less to be a white man. 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. 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?
He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's fine, then don't get married. 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.
If both parties want to maintain total autonomy in all issues, then why do they choose to model their relationship after a Biblical covanent that more resembles a King relationship? 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."
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. You will not murder, You will not steal, You will not commit adultry, You will not lie, You will not covet are all offensive to our society. 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.
So you get rid of the 10 commandments and shape society accordingly. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. Why? Why does it have to be your way or the highway? What arrogance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So if marriage is constantly evolving in the secular world, there must be a reason for it, and I say it's because the 50/50 equation isn't working. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024