The Bible on Sex, Love, and Marriage

quote:

---

Lastly, I don't know if you're aware of the inherent mysoginy of your writing. True, you state that God created man and woman equal, but within the same paragraph you clearly denote man as "serving the function of headship", and woman as "functioning as a submissive helper", which pretty much blasts out any ideas of equality.

---

It's more of a role assigning lesson from the Bible's perspective. The man is equal to the woman but with a different role like a laptop computer would be to a marriage. You have a display and a CPU section. You need both to work or you don't have much of a laptop, especially if you want to work on word processing or a PP presentation while flying to your next meeting. The display and the cpu are equal in importance to this task but each serves in a different capacity. Now the example isn't a one for one linear comparison to all of the dynamics of traditional marriage so don't over-scrutenize the piss out of it, but I think you get the idea.To find someone who is exactly an equal to you would make for a good friendship but a troublesome arrangement in marriage. If you are equals in a democracy, then either you both agree all of the time or you will have a war on your hands. The second that one or the other submits his/her will to the other, then you are practicing the marriage relationship according to a Biblical perspective, reguardless if you choose to acknowledge any authority to the Bible. You are practicing Biblical marrital love for each other even if that submission means you meet somewhere in between both of your positions as a compromise.In Post-Bibilcal USA, marriage is not a good idea because of the mindset that everyone is looking for someone to be their perfect equal instead of a very good compliment. I think that once you get outside of the tax benefits that marriage gives, it offers little additonal benefit to modern thinking Americans. Long term committed relationships flourish outside of marriage in this country, even with children involved, and when the split arrives, it's easier on all if traditional marriage complications are not present. Biblical marriage survives on the premise that it's 90% give and 10% take on both parties and to stay together gives honor to God.Once you get away from the idea of there being a creator or god, then the Biblical scale of economy becomes apparent as impossible and flawed and a 50/50 give and take equation is adopted as being more attainable and certainly more fair. Since there is no creator, there is no need to honor the creator by staying married even when it gets rough.(Usually this occurs when one or both parties believe that the equation has tilted 60/40 or worse to the other's side) You can very much honor the other person in a long term committed relationship outside of marriage as is happening in this country, and when the going gets rough and the split is around the corner, it becomes a dis-honor to try to keep each other saddled in a bad relationship when a better one could be just around the corner.From an educated, progressivly thinking, post-biblical American perspective, the Bible's instruction on love and sex is equally limiting and constraining.

I gotta tell you, guy... I can't imagine the idea of marrying someone I couldn't also be friends with. See many, many previous posts on the value of compromise. Except, of course, that the Bible does not reccomend that you meet somewhere in the middle, submitting to one another. It reccomends that the woman submit to the man.That's not a compromise; it's one person telling the other how it's gonnna be.And honestly people, can we put this "she has to submit to him, but they're still equal, honest" idea to bed? The word "submissive" is right there in the Biblical woman's job description, for crying out loud.

Which plan might deserve a thread of its own: in a "pre-Fall" world without death, just how long will everyone be able to keep on poppin' out babies? Particularly if the cockroaches are doing it, too?

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. Perhaps if you have the silly notion that each partner gets a single vote on an issue - that's not how real (healthy) relationships work - you communicate and compromise out of respect and understanding.I would argue that giving one person the final say on every topic in a relationship can only harbor resentment and loss of respect.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?

Another question, if you don't mind.Do you get proof of negative AIDS and STD tests from all of the people you sleep with?

You didn't read all of my post and you are quoting some of it out of context.

quote:

---

I gotta tell you, guy... I can't imagine the idea of marrying someone I couldn't also be friends with.

---

Find anywhere in my post where I said that you should't be friends with someone who you are going to marry. You know what I'm saying and instead of responding to it you are trying to play a game here.People who are exactly equal make good friends. People who compliment each other well also make good friends. The latter can also make a good marriage if the other dynamics are right. I would not recommend someone getting married unless they were friends with the person first. This actually happens occasionally in our society when people marry a body rather than for a relationship and then they find out later on that this person is not a good companion for the long haul. That's why marriage in our society is a dead institution. The media has placed unrealistic expectations on women to obtain a physical image and have planted a notion in men of what they should be looking for in a wife. Unfortunatly, what they say men should seek in a wife is little different than what they should seek in a one night stand.

quote:

---

Except, of course, that the Bible does not reccomend that you meet somewhere in the middle, submitting to one another. It reccomends that the woman submit to the man.

---

You read the Bible like you read my post. The Bible is clear on the roles of each in a marriage but it does not infer that the woman is in a lesser position than the man. The theme in marriage according to the Bible is that wives submit to the husband and the husband love his wife sacrificially. The second part of that is ALWAYS convienently left out when people are trying to slam the Bible.I'm not saying that the Bible is the way for our society in America since our culture has evolved futher on from it. But knowing that, it is incorrect to pull choice phrases out of it and then either try to force a partner to adhere to it, or use the choice phrase to attack it.The Biblical equation (however non-applicable it is to us today) is that the wife submits to the husband - 90/10, and the husband loves sacrificially the wife - 90/10. That is the Biblical perspective and if the husband is loving sacrificially, then he is giving 90% and taking 10% which means that both partners come out equal but in different roles.

Perhaps you should take the fact that two of us read your post and misunderstood your intent as less an indication that we are "playing around," and more of indication that your post was less than clear...

What does "sacrificial love" look like?How can you love another adult in a mature way if they submit to you 90% of the time.That sounds like a wind-up doll to me....or a dog.

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.

---

The problem comes from the fact that you are using the term "equality" in place of "exact equal" to sumerize my post which is not what I was trying to say. So let me attempt to convey a seemingly easy idea again and see if I can do no better.I believe equality in a relationship is a healty thing. You will probably find that people who are good friends before they marry are of similiar mind set, have similiar intellegence, enjoy some of the same activities or atleast enjoy each other's company reguardless of what they are doing. That is an equality where both are contributing at a healty degree to the relationship.Exact equals refers to if both of you were alpha male type personalities, both craved the drivers seat in all situations, both felt that their intellegence gave them the leg up on every issue, or both were exactly the same amount of submissive and neither would take the reings in a situation no matter what. So exact equals would amplify the faults of both parties and drown out the positive attributes of each.Like in a V-Twin motorcycle engine where the timing is set so both pistons are driving down on the crank at the same time and no power is made from the fuel but the internal parts begin to stress and break. But in a V-Twin with the timing set for optimum power and torque, the back piston leads and fires first and determines the firing order but the front piston always gets to fire and recieves a benefit from the momentum of the crank from the lead piston's action. The lead piston then receives momentum from the second and it fires contributing to the back pistons next stroke.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. For women who are in relationships with men where the man is NOT giving 90% and taking MORE than 10%, it takes very little effort and just a few choice phrases given at the right time by another man, to work his way in to the scene and reak havoc on the relationship.

quote:

---

It may be my own craziness, but I don't see this as a particularly healthy view, conducive to a lifelong partnership.

---

You are exactly right about that. According to the Biblical model of marriage, whenever one party attempts to subjugate the other for any reason, you end up in a battlefield and if one emerges as the victor, by default both loose because the Bible claims that the 2 become one.

quote:

---

The further implication is that marriage, by its very nature, is a battlefield. Sure, you lay out a plan for marriage to work despite its being a battlefield, but that plan is simply that one side has to surrender. This, of course, does not change the husband and wife being forced into the role of adversaries, it only proclaims one the victor.

---

I think that this result is a product of human selfishness more than any Biblical aftermath. 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. At best, a girl might notice something that she doesn't like about the guy but thinks "I'll change that in him once we're married". Problem is, she'll never do that no matter how much work she puts in to it. People are on their absolute best during the dating phase and if it's troubleing then, it will be a monster when the normal person appears and the dream person dissappears.It's kind of like the flea and dog relationship. The flea gets a free home, a free ride and a free meal. The dog gets nothing. But in American marriages, it's mostly made up of 2 fleas so you can see the battleground when neither gets what they hoped for out of the relationship but niether ever planned on how to put in to the thing in the first place.The Biblical model, (for what it's worth today) places emphasis on the putting in to the relationship and speaks far less about taking out of it the reward.This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-22-2004 07:23 PM

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. 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? You'ld look down on her for being that committed to you? You'ld loose repect for her? You'ld think less of her for thinking the world of you?

quote:

---

How can you love another adult in a mature way if they submit to you 90% of the time.

---

Hell no you wouldn't. You'ld know everything there is to possibly know about her or as much as is humanly possible and you'ld be doing everything you could for her to make her feel secure, happy and loved according to how SHE views those nessesities, even if it means that you have to sacrifice some of your own wishes out of life.That is the 90/10 equation from the Biblical perspective and since the Bible says that the man is the head of the house, it is his responsiblilty to lead by loving his wife sacrificially FIRST, without the expectation of receiving in return. But the Bible also states that if the man follows the precepts faithfully and intently, the wife will reciprocate by natural design.This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-22-2004 07:36 PMThis message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-22-2004 07:37 PMThis message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 10-22-2004 07:38 PM

Sorry I missed your previous post purpledawn,

quote:

---

The only plan I see before the fall is procreation.

---

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.schrafinator says,

quote:

---

I suppose you haven't looked.

​

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4642/

---

I stand corrected, I'll have to review that last in greater detail...Hey, I'm all for the equality of men & women, I believe that is how God intended it. I don't believe women should be doormats or anything less than equal rights. But I do hold on the authority of man making the final decision between 2 equals. Dad has veto powers over mom!schrafinator says,

quote:

---

Maybe dpardo and asciikerr can get their wives to post.

---

She doesn't do forums, but she reads most of my posts on different forums that I visit. She helps me with the Website I'm working on, she proof-reads everything. If she doesn't like how something is worded or the message it conveys, then she will help me change it. She's strong willed and resiliant, when I met her she was already the mother of two and finishing up her degree. She was definately not looking for a man to support and I wasn't looking for a woman to support...God brought us together and its been happiness since!
Yes, she makes more money than me too...I'm very proud of my wife. I've been busy, so I haven't had a chance to read up on how this thread has been progressing...and I don't touch the computer on the weekends, that's sacred family time.

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.

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