Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Luckie Wrote: Sorry it's taken me some time to get back to this thread; it's the only one I follow, even.
Anyways the above has been highlighted by me. :
Why would having dinner with your sister and mother be considered a harmful influence, to be avoided?
Scripturally speaking for someone very young in the faith one must avoid anything that he may see as sin or may cause him to sin. This also includes permiting sin. He may feel if he was with you he would have to 'convert' you or bring you to the point of repentance. Which either he doesn't feel like he could do right now, or more likely doesn't want to completely alienate you.
Quote:Even if I am a non believer (amazingly my mother is still)--he's the one going out of his way to control our interactions. As a matter of fact, he's going out of his way to ensure I don't even make it to the party and feel blame free about it. It's his way or the highway. My dad does the same thing; he won't have a conversation with me about politics or the bible unless it's mouth to mouth, won't accept letters (I've been given back ten years worth of Unopened birthday cards and christmas cards in past, just take a moment to imagine that), won't accept an email conversation, won't accept a phone call conversation.
My dad and I went 8 years of complete silence, would have gone 12 if I had not gone more than 1/2 way to try and make things right. So I can imagine what that's like because I picked my (at the time drug addicted) wife over his authority/him. So why does your brother act this way? it sound more like a family thing than a scriptural thing. Scripturally speaking all of the NT (the praises and rebukes/ The good and Bad) were letters to one group of people or another. We are meant to communicate with each other, the denial of that communication anyway possible, Reserving it to one form or nothing at all is not something we are not ordered to do.
Quote:It has to be on his terms, when I am at my weakest (without the proof needed to refute his assertions), face to face with no referee to ensure a fair fight against his overbearing personality.
I'm the same way. I need my research and time to think about what is said. I don't like face to face stuff because I will speak from the cuff and that usally ends up in a fight, and most of the time nothing is accomplished. Not to say we don't fight here, its that more often than not said fights include topical content, and not just empty shouting.
Quote: Because that is what it becomes, with him. A fight. I grew up nodding like a good girl, crying when mom wouldn't/couldn't and they'd fight. Can you believe he held her hostage with that one verse about how she'll go to hell if she divorces him while he still breathes, whether he refuses to go to counseling or not?!
Then He will have much to answer for, because if he bothered to keep reading he would note the other 1/2 of the command given to Wives AND HUSBANDS. It's a two part message. Wives do ABC and HUSBANDS must XYZ. This is what the marriage covenant is based on, not a 'I can do no wrong, and you must do all that I say.' A one sided biblically based marriage is not a biblical marriage.
Quote:For twenty years she was verbally abused, berated, and humiliated. All because a book says so (and yes, he'd pick that book up and hold it in his hand when he told her how she should act).
He should have kept reading: Eph 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives the same as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. 26 He died to make the church holy. He used the telling of the Good News to make the church clean by washing it with water. 27 Christ died so that he could give the church to himself like a bride in all her beauty. He died so that the church could be holy and without fault, with no evil or sin or any other thing wrong in it.
28 And husbands should love their wives like that. They should love their wives as they love their own bodies. The man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 because no one ever hates his own body, but feeds and takes care of it. And that is what Christ does for the church 30 because we are parts of his body. 31 The Scriptures say, “That is why a man will leave his father and mother and join his wife, and the two people will become one.”[a] 32 That secret truth is very important—I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 But each one of you must love his wife as he loves himself. And a wife must respect her husband.
How can one die to self for another if they do not respect the one they are to serve?
Quote:They divorced when I was 14. At some point (17, I believe it was), I just decided that despite his mental illness I was going to do what I could to be a good daughter to him. So I let him talk. I'd listen, and not respond to obvious prods as best I could. I'd hug him even when he'd get himself so worked up at me that I wouldn't agree with him that gay people are pedophiles or mosques should be bombed, etc. and I'd hope that having at least one person in his life would make the difference between life and a noose. Well, he's chosen the slow noose and I can't be there for him for that, and my brother seems to be on an accelerated rate of mental illness than my father was. He's also inherited the book and is bound by its' words.
Then a warning should be heeded found in Heb 4:
12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
The word spoken here is the same 'word' of John 1:1. That 'Word' is another name for Christ. This passage basically says that Christ will take everything we do and cut it down to deli thin slices and examine everything we do and more importantly why. This includes using the bible for personal gain, and promoting our own agendas and self centered doctrines. It is to him we all must give an account, this includes popes, elders, TV ministers and indivisual leaders of a given house hold as well as those in said house hold.
Quote:I don't want to fight. I don't want want to even talk about the bible, or their opinions on things we disagree about. For me they can believe what they want and I'll still try to enjoy their company. The feeling of being with them as people--not representatives of viewpoints-- is what I seek. Why must they run from such a simple thing as being themselves, and only themselves, with other people who love them? Why can't there just be peace? I feel like it's because they've built mental walls that cannot be brought down because then they'd remember that they used to have free wills, and thoughts of their own. They're afraid of the thought police but at the same time it's frightening to be alone. I see it time and time again in "believers" everywhere, of all denominations and religions. They have their comfort zone; they feel they know who they are in that zone, and can identify the corners of the field and where they are within it and it's completely in their control.
But again, what if the Religion does not afford them the power and control they are using it for?
Is it then the fault of the religion, or the heart that manipulates it to ultimately gain the control they are seeking? Again your Father's verse was out of balance with the rest of the chapter, and Everything else Paul had to say about marriage. Those who following the teaching of Christ/The bible know they can not pick and choose from it. They must strive to reconcile all of it, not what they want to hear. Another example would be How you Father chooses to only engage in a 'barking contest' verses any other form of debate where one has to slow down and think/Verses letting emotion fuel his efforts, this is also not a religious/Christian mandate. Nor is your brother following suit if that is indeed what is happening. Christ and His followers had serious warnings for people who did such things.
This is no different than supposed 'christians' waging war to take the holy land.. Nothing in the bible commanded this, Nothing Jesus ever said that his followers must maintain control over Israel.. This was the selfish desires of men who used 'religion'/Not the bible for their own ends. The definition of a believer is one who acts in accordance to what has been written, not one who simply professes faith. "It is by their fruits that you will know them." Their fruits meaning their Spiritual fruit or the signs of the Holy Spirit living in them.. Meaning when God Himself lives in you, you exude/radiate the attributes of God. One can not help it. One can not also help following ALL of what scripture says, and not what appeals to just them.
Quote: Without their religious persona, they'd feel naked. For some, they would be naked; totally incompetent to make decisions on their own.
I have no doubt that you are right. But at the same time from what you have said I can not attribute anything they have done in your post so far to God, or biblical Christianity either. Again, it is by our Fruits that we can identify each other, and all you've described so far are thorns and thissles.
Quote:Luckily I was able to take some of the good lessons from the bible and keep those, and priorly deciding to be good willed, I am still. They're more life lessons, than anything though. Do unto others as you'd have done to you, etc. Since I dropped Christianity altogether, I've tried things and failed at other things since then, but I'm still me.
Do you think your Father and I would see eye to eye on His defination of the word "Christianity?" I say His definition because unless you went to school and studied Christianity someplace else that will also be where your understanding of the word comes from as well. If no, then what you 'dropped' was what Jesus refered to is a house built on sand. It is Religious nonsense that collapsed because it had no foundation.(God does not support that belief) This is by design per what Christ said about the wise and foolish builders.
Let me ask.. If your experience was completely different. Like say if you mother want to goto marriage consouling your Father made the appointment and not only went but changed some things and made the marriage work? Or if he did not use the religion to get his own way. Or if you saw God's qualities just pouring our of Him no matter what he did, would you have the same view? Would you 'drop Christianity all together?' What if the 'religion' of Christianity was nothing like what you knew of it, or better yet the complete oppsite of what you knew? In essence what if you could truly see God in Christianity would you abandon it?
Quote:My opinions and decisions are my own.
My decisions are inservice to God.. But that is ALL I want. Therefore my opinions and decisions also belong to me. I spent the first 1/2 of my life doing things myway, and it got me no where. Then I signed on with God, and now I am a company man. Why? because my life is so much better than it was before. As a Result I not only believe in the produce I use and want it as well. no matter how it ends I know it will be better than the mess it would have been. My dad lives a life of his own doing, and it is only by the grace of God in those who lives around him that he has anything at all. I don't see me falling too far from that tree, if not for the grace of God.
Quote:I consider myself a better me. I've lost a lot of baggage. Like ghosts? All believers I know constantly remark about how their houses are haunted, and push as far as they can any physical anomalies they notice.
Yeah, I don't have ghosts either.. But there was this one time my sister and I (Pre Christianity) made a ouji board and we were trying to summon a spirit and the kitchen pantry door slamed open and all the bread flew out, while everything else remain undisturbed.. We figured it was demonic and not a ghost.. Or like you said it could have been just the wind... a bread targeting wind.. a bread targeting wind in a closed up house.
Quote:Instead of assuming there's something I can't see or touch or feel in the room with me, I don't fear anymore when the door blows the door shut. The wind, just blew, the door, shut
The thing is God's people don't have to worry about stuff like that. When were the apstoles chased out by ghosts or demons? It's when one doesn't have the authority of God behind them that one is subject to such things.
Quote: I have had to look at every issue and re-assess what I believe to be true or false and I do it as informed as possible. I'm a better person now because I'm no longer in conflict with what I was told I should believe vs what felt right in my heart. I considered myself a bad christian for not proselytizing, or being confrontational with those who obviously needed "saved". Or say, talking to an atheist (the first one I eventually married mind you). That wasn't me. I'm non confrontational in real life, and open minded to the core. These are only a few of many examples of the many contradictions I felt with the bible.
That's the thing. we don't all have to 'proselytize' as all haven't been given the same gifts. Paul tells us we are all members of the body of Christ and as such we each have our different functions. The whole body is not a hand, nor is it an ear. But, rather all of these different parts make up a body. So one member of the church can not look at himself and say everyone should worship as I do or they are not truly worshiping God. Now to those in whom God has given the ability to 'proselytize' they are expected to do so, and those who have been given the gift of loving and nurturing, should do that. We are only complete when we all come together and use our indivisual gifts to a single end. That is the picture of biblical Christianity, not turning everyone into a high pressure sales man.
Like for instance my calling is here doing this. however my wife seems to work better in the church's pantry providing food for those in need. (Something I am not a big fan of.) I can't say she needs to do what I do here, nor can she say I need to do what she does if I am to be a follower of Christ. We working in our own little areas along with the rest of the body of believers is what makes the biblical church work.
Quote:"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
How can you possibly reconcile the above verse, and what the OT says to do with regards to people like me, or LGBT, or a starving man who simply wants to eat some meat that was being wasted on an altar?
Because "The Law" extends beyond a list of do's and dont's. an entire 1/3 of the Law focuses on atonement for sin. (how to get right with God when we break the list of do's and don'ts.) This is the critical thing most people forget. Even though Christ said The WHOLE LAW is what he came here not to abolish but to complete it. The whole law most definatly includes what is written in it about attonement.
To abolish the law means to get rid of it completely, the does and don't and the atonement.
To complete the law means to cast a blanket atonement for all sin for all time. Just like how Adam's one sin cascaded down causing 'death' for everyone, Christ's death (and our acceptance of this atonement) Brings us back to where Adam was post fall, or so says Paul in Romans 5. (the whole Chapter) Being found righteous before God not because of what we have done, but because of what Christ has done for us. No one in heaven deserves it. matter of fact the oppsite is true. we are only there because Christ traded us His spot in glory for ours in death.
So then what becomes of the list of do's and don'ts? According to Romans Chapters 2, and 3. The list of do's and don'ts become a way for us to identify sin in our lives. it for the honest man shows us that in no way can we ever be who the law demands we be inorder to warrant the righteousness needed to stand before God as Christ does. So then it pushes us to find 'another way' to obtain this righteousness. This "other way" Paul talks about in Romans is through attonement.
So how can I be a Christian and not stone you? Romans chapter one and two tells us. Chapter one basically asks the question and points out unbelief and Gay relationships (like you did along with a whole list of other sins) and asks in chapter two how it is we feel we can judge those people when we too are covered in sin? Paul then uses the Law to identify sin in the Beleiver's life. Thus disqualifying us to "do what the OT says do." Subjecting us to "Being judged as we have judged others."
Which is what Christ warned us about when we were told to take the plank out of our own eye before we concern ourselves with the spec in the eye of another.
Notice I did not cherry pick scraps of verses from 10 different places. I am paraphrasing whole chapters in sequencial order (well out of order to answer your questions as you ask them) because these topics are all tied together in biblical Christianity. It sounds like your father's version of Christianity did not include the book of romans. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch...ersion=ERV
The first time I read Romans I was shocked to find out that most 'christians' haven't reconciled romans in their beliefs. Most Christians are modified Jews in practice.
Quote:Furthermore, how can you say that those young ones are wrong? Jesus made it pretty clear. What my brother believes is valid per the word of the bible--Actually per the word of god himself, Jesus Christ. What you believe about the bible being one thing to one person and another to another is true--but by what measure do you say your interpretation is the correct one?
I am assuming your talking about what Jesus said about bringing division. To which I said something to the effect "That we don't Have to hate our family.." I did not say that some of us wouldn't nor did I say that our families wouldn't hate us.
I was simply pointing out that Jesus in General does not tell us/command us to hate our families, but rather warns us that for some the act of Loving God first will bring division, and if push comes to shove we are indeed to pick God over our lost loved ones. In that culture it was customary to follow the lead of the patriarch over all else, and Christianity is about following God first. For the Proud Father this is a cold slap in the face.. That said, from the 'fruit' you have described that your father and brother has produced, it does not sound like what they are involved in is anything near biblical Christianity/What Jesus was speaking about.
If the bible was their corner stone, then they would have to yield to what Paul said in the book of Romans just as I had to with my own father and all the evil he has rained down on our family over the years.
Quote:You can't pick one thing Jesus says to be truth and another to be sorta truth. Either it is or it isn't, because we aren't talking about a man here--we're talking about what you and others consider to be the literal words of god written down on paper in a book meant for believers to follow to the T with the threat of eternal damnation at stake.
Your absolutely correct, but at the same time I do not have to accept your Father's interpretation of those words. I can freely look at them and observe what it is Jesus specifically said and what he did not say. In this case Jesus was not issuing a command, but a conditional warning. We know this was a warning because of two things. one the context in which the passage is found, and if it were a blanket command it would directly conflict with other commands given in the NT to love and care for our families first, before we do anything for the church. Despite what some believe we do not have conflicting commands. Granted some OT Jewish command conflict with NT Christianity, but that's not what I am saying. Jesus has not issued any commands that conflict with anyother NT commands. That makes what He said a warning/observation not a blanket command to abandon everyone if they don't see things our way.
Quote:I'll take you up on the first offer.
The bolded, I have trouble seeing how you will be able to pull off but I'm open to using any way possible to be able to see my brother. The last time I saw him he was very sick (strung out) and I sobbed uncontrollably afterwards, but I wouldn't take back having dropped in on his cave just to give him a hug, for the world. I live for hugs.
Hope you're well,
Luckie
I'm doing good, fell out of the shower and hurt my back last sunday, but other than that I'll be ok till 12-18-15 (if I remember correctly) this is the day I go in for more tests. Then once a year forever after that, till something shows up iguess.
If your brother has objections write them down (book chapter and verse please) or just ask him how does he reconcile his verse fragements with a contextual reading of the book of Romans.
If he dismisses the book or Paul, then that is the goal you are looking for. Because at this point he has admitted to not following Biblical Christianity. If this is the case then ask what seperates him from a David Koresh of wacco Texas? or a Joseph Smith, or even a Mohammad?
Once one leaves contextual Scripture then he leaves Christianity as the bible/God intended, once you leave that then by your fruits, you can not be counted among the body of believers..
(September 21, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm doing good, fell out of the shower and hurt my back last sunday, but other than that I'll be ok till 12-18-15 (if I remember correctly) this is the day I go in for more tests. Then once a year forever after that, till something shows up iguess.
Oh, man, I hope you feel better soon. Back injuries suuuuuck! The older I get, the more I realize that using a quadruped-type spine in a biped may not have been evolution's best outcome.
I'm sorry you're in pain.
Also, though I'm not a part of that exchange, I read it, and while I agree with most of your scriptural interpretations as presented there (though you left out a few of Paul's writings about female submission, I can understand why, as it might've created a distracting discussion of modern feminism vs. Paulian values), and disagree with several of your social conclusions, I want to say thank you for speaking to us respectfully and as equals, capable of understanding the verses (few Christians will do this, here), and wanting to have a real discussion about it. I hope that it remains civil on both ends.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
September 22, 2015 at 10:40 am (This post was last modified: September 22, 2015 at 11:28 am by Drich.)
(September 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:
(September 21, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm doing good, fell out of the shower and hurt my back last sunday, but other than that I'll be ok till 12-18-15 (if I remember correctly) this is the day I go in for more tests. Then once a year forever after that, till something shows up iguess.
Oh, man, I hope you feel better soon. Back injuries suuuuuck! The older I get, the more I realize that using a quadruped-type spine in a biped may not have been evolution's best outcome.
I'm sorry you're in pain.
Also, though I'm not a part of that exchange, I read it, and while I agree with most of your scriptural interpretations as presented there (though you left out a few of Paul's writings about female submission, I can understand why, as it might've created a distracting discussion of modern feminism vs. Paulian values), and disagree with several of your social conclusions, I want to say thank you for speaking to us respectfully and as equals, capable of understanding the verses (few Christians will do this, here), and wanting to have a real discussion about it. I hope that it remains civil on both ends.
Here's the thing.. Most of the core members know that I make a very great effort in speaking to everyone on equal terms. When the conversation is respectful I in turn show that same respect. However when it becomes harsh I to also become harsh. It is a 'do unto others' in practice.
That said I have no disillusion about Paul mandating a man's role in the marriage is to be over the woman. I am simply pointing out that this dominance is not to benfit the man for his personal gain. That we take on the role of Christ and the wife takes on the role of the church. We are supposed to love, respect and direct our wives as Christ so loves, respects and directs the church.
What was going on with Lucky's dad, was not a biblical example of the mandate Paul set fourth. In said mandate we are not meant to be equal partners. We are to fill roles, and these roles have guidelines and responsibilities we must honor. If we each fill our role correctly no one person rises over the other. But rather the two separate people become one whole unified being that brings honor love and respect to God and to ourselves.
(September 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:
Oh, man, I hope you feel better soon. Back injuries suuuuuck! The older I get, the more I realize that using a quadruped-type spine in a biped may not have been evolution's best outcome.
I'm sorry you're in pain.
Also, though I'm not a part of that exchange, I read it, and while I agree with most of your scriptural interpretations as presented there (though you left out a few of Paul's writings about female submission, I can understand why, as it might've created a distracting discussion of modern feminism vs. Paulian values), and disagree with several of your social conclusions, I want to say thank you for speaking to us respectfully and as equals, capable of understanding the verses (few Christians will do this, here), and wanting to have a real discussion about it. I hope that it remains civil on both ends.
Here's the thing.. Most of the core members know that I make a very great effort in speaking to everyone on equal terms. When the conversation is respectful I in turn show that same respect. However when it becomes harsh I to also become harsh. It is a 'do unto others' in practice.
That said I have no disillusion about Paul mandating a man's role in the marriage is to be over the woman. I am simply pointing out that this dominance is not to benfit the man for his personal gain. That we take on the role of Christ and the wife takes on the role of the church. We are supposed to love, respect and direct our wives as Christ so loves, respects and directs the church.
What was going on with Lucky's dad, was not a biblical example of the mandate Paul set fourth. In said mandate we are not meant to be equal partners. We are to fill roles, and these roles have guidelines and responsibilities we must honor. If we each fill our role correctly no one person rises over the other. But rather the two separate people become one whole unified being that brings honor love and respect to God and to ourselves.
That's why I said I disagree with your social conclusions, but felt you were interpreting the verses correctly. The dad was definitely "using the Bible wrong", as the saying goes.
I simply don't agree with the Pauline ideal of marriage, thinking that women don't have a "place", and neither do men. To me marriage is a partnership of equals, and each may fill whichever role they play best, complementing the skills of and filling in the gaps of the other. Of course, by my standard, the dad was equally wrong.
By the way, you didn't just spell out the "do unto others" rule in Christian terms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Christian idea. Yours is "do unto others as they do unto you", which is according to Carl Sagan, the "Brazen Rule" (or the Brass Rule). We atheists, according to the same article, tend to follow what he calls the "Tit-for-Tat" Rule, which states, "Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you."
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
(September 22, 2015 at 11:36 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:
(September 22, 2015 at 10:40 am)Drich Wrote: Here's the thing.. Most of the core members know that I make a very great effort in speaking to everyone on equal terms. When the conversation is respectful I in turn show that same respect. However when it becomes harsh I to also become harsh. It is a 'do unto others' in practice.
That said I have no disillusion about Paul mandating a man's role in the marriage is to be over the woman. I am simply pointing out that this dominance is not to benfit the man for his personal gain. That we take on the role of Christ and the wife takes on the role of the church. We are supposed to love, respect and direct our wives as Christ so loves, respects and directs the church.
What was going on with Lucky's dad, was not a biblical example of the mandate Paul set fourth. In said mandate we are not meant to be equal partners. We are to fill roles, and these roles have guidelines and responsibilities we must honor. If we each fill our role correctly no one person rises over the other. But rather the two separate people become one whole unified being that brings honor love and respect to God and to ourselves.
That's why I said I disagree with your social conclusions, but felt you were interpreting the verses correctly. The dad was definitely "using the Bible wrong", as the saying goes.
I simply don't agree with the Pauline ideal of marriage, thinking that women don't have a "place", and neither do men. To me marriage is a partnership of equals, and each may fill whichever role they play best, complementing the skills of and filling in the gaps of the other. Of course, by my standard, the dad was equally wrong.
By the way, you didn't just spell out the "do unto others" rule in Christian terms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Christian idea. Yours is "do unto others as they do unto you", which is according to Carl Sagan, the "Brazen Rule" (or the Brass Rule). We atheists, according to the same article, tend to follow what he calls the "Tit-for-Tat" Rule, which states, "Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you."
But, that is it.. I want people to treat me as I treat others. So in turn I treat people how they treat others. Why? It reminds me constantly to check what it is I am saying, doing, and why. If I am being a pompus condescending ass for no other reason than I think I'm right and your wrong, then if I am wrong I want to be checked hard, so as to not make such a prideful arrogant mistake again. but at the same time I do not want to needlessly escalate the situation, so I use the conversation/exchange we are having to set the upper limits on how harsh I am. That said I so have an upper limit that members here go past that I will not. So essentially one can treat me or say things I will not say to them in return. My efforts center around the thought processes, the source material, philosophy, and 'logic' most of you blindly assume that your arguments contain, but really don't. So I take your lack of vetting your source material, and feed it back to you all in the same way you present your arguments to me. except when I do it I usally have several points of reference to support my conclusions. which usally sets up a level of irony that most (those looking to argue for the sake of arguing) can not ignore, so then I'm usally set on ignore. meaning I leave them alone and I get to work and spend time with those who really want the information I can provide... What they do with it from there is on them.
I've been doing this long enough to know that meeting tit for tat in a controlled way does indeed seem destructive and counterproductive. But, only if it is one's goal is to reach/convert everyone. I am not so prideful as to think that I will be everyone's cup-o-tea. No, I speak to a very specific group who truly want clarity about God and biblical truth. The rest are intentionally disruptive. My goal it to limit this disruption so i do not spend time with people who do not care/look to just argue, and spend all the time i can with people who do want the truth. So what better way to clear a path to those who want truth than to hack down those who are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing, by showing them a picture of who they are to me? I have found those who attack the intelligence of others have doubts about their own smartie-ness. To bring their insecureities to light, generally ends the time consuming attacks.
As far as your views about what Paul has to say about marriage.. I get it. Paul is trying to set up a atmosphere so we can learn more about our eventual relationship with Christ, so we may be blessed in this life and the next.. and you don't believe in God. You believe that roles in a marriage is wrong and that somehow we need to maintain our individuality in a marriage union.
The problem I see with individuals who get married and remain individuals after they are married is when life happens (a prolonged situation where one individual is not being treated fairly or that persons individuality is been stimmied for a prolonged time) it then becomes far too easy to separate/divorce and try again.
When we follow the rule Paul sets into place as husband and wife, the marriage is no longer about individuals. We both live to honor and serve the union. which means if we follow our role and do what it is we are supposed to do to honor the union we can work through all sorts of things together. this may have one person in the relationship carrying the brunt of burden and responsibility for a prolonged time, with little to no thought of it unless prompted. We can forgive each other for great injustices committed against each other just as we would forgive ourselves for messing up, and again to never think of it again. However if we retain our indivisuality we are not living as one being but two separate ones looking out for our own best intrests. We tend to remember how this other person has hurt us, because the two remain two and not one in Spirit.
My wife and I have lived this out many many times over the years, and aside from the really big stuff, I cant remember specific instances of any little thing/How she has wronged me over the years. She will even ask if I'm over certain things, and I will honestly have no idea what she is talking about. She was a 'wild one' growing up, and remained so up until a few years ago. It wasn't till recently that she expressed how happy she truly was and how this is the most joyful she has ever been simply living the life we are meant to live with each other.
I know my example is not how every man uses the power and authority given to him in a scriptural marriage. This thread has shown us examples of how abuses can work, but again I point out that is not the full fillment of the model given, that those types of abuse of power is the oppsite of what Paul/God wants for us. Yet this is the only way most of us will accept or want to talk about the bible's example of marriage. Which again, infact is not the example given. It's a Liberty Valance situation, in that when the Myth becomes greater than the truth, print the Myth. Most of you only want to view the myth so as to feel justified in maintaining your own individuality. That said, now that you know the truth, I need to know how is it wrong to give up one's individuality in an effort to become one with one's marriage partner?
If it is not wrong why live as a 50/50 partner in something when together, you can become whole, complete?
But, that is it.. I want people to treat me as I treat others. So in turn I treat people how they treat others. Why? It reminds me constantly to check what it is I am saying, doing, and why. If I am being a pompus condescending ass for no other reason than I think I'm right and your wrong, then if I am wrong I want to be checked hard, so as to not make such a prideful arrogant mistake again. but at the same time I do not want to needlessly escalate the situation, so I use the conversation/exchange we are having to set the upper limits on how harsh I am. That said I so have an upper limit that members here go past that I will not. So essentially one can treat me or say things I will not say to them in return. My efforts center around the thought processes, the source material, philosophy, and 'logic' most of you blindly assume that your arguments contain, but really don't. So I take your lack of vetting your source material, and feed it back to you all in the same way you present your arguments to me. except when I do it I usally have several points of reference to support my conclusions. which usally sets up a level of irony that most (those looking to argue for the sake of arguing) can not ignore, so then I'm usally set on ignore. meaning I leave them alone and I get to work and spend time with those who really want the information I can provide... What they do with it from there is on them.
I've been doing this long enough to know that meeting tit for tat in a controlled way does indeed seem destructive and counterproductive. But, only if it is one's goal is to reach/convert everyone. I am not so prideful as to think that I will be everyone's cup-o-tea. No, I speak to a very specific group who truly want clarity about God and biblical truth. The rest are intentionally disruptive. My goal it to limit this disruption so i do not spend time with people who do not care/look to just argue, and spend all the time i can with people who do want the truth. So what better way to clear a path to those who want truth than to hack down those who are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing, by showing them a picture of who they are to me? I have found those who attack the intelligence of others have doubts about their own smartie-ness. To bring their insecureities to light, generally ends the time consuming attacks.
As far as your views about what Paul has to say about marriage.. I get it. Paul is trying to set up a atmosphere so we can learn more about our eventual relationship with Christ, so we may be blessed in this life and the next.. and you don't believe in God. You believe that roles in a marriage is wrong and that somehow we need to maintain our individuality in a marriage union.
The problem I see with individuals who get married and remain individuals after they are married is when life happens (a prolonged situation where one individual is not being treated fairly or that persons individuality is been stimmied for a prolonged time) it then becomes far too easy to separate/divorce and try again.
When we follow the rule Paul sets into place as husband and wife, the marriage is no longer about individuals. We both live to honor and serve the union. which means if we follow our role and do what it is we are supposed to do to honor the union we can work through all sorts of things together. this may have one person in the relationship carrying the brunt of burden and responsibility for a prolonged time, with little to no thought of it unless prompted. We can forgive each other for great injustices committed against each other just as we would forgive ourselves for messing up, and again to never think of it again. However if we retain our indivisuality we are not living as one being but two separate ones looking out for our own best intrests. We tend to remember how this other person has hurt us, because the two remain two and not one in Spirit.
My wife and I have lived this out many many times over the years, and aside from the really big stuff, I cant remember specific instances of any little thing/How she has wronged me over the years. She will even ask if I'm over certain things, and I will honestly have no idea what she is talking about. She was a 'wild one' growing up, and remained so up until a few years ago. It wasn't till recently that she expressed how happy she truly was and how this is the most joyful she has ever been simply living the life we are meant to live with each other.
I know my example is not how every man uses the power and authority given to him in a scriptural marriage. This thread has shown us examples of how abuses can work, but again I point out that is not the full fillment of the model given, that those types of abuse of power is the oppsite of what Paul/God wants for us. Yet this is the only way most of us will accept or want to talk about the bible's example of marriage. Which again, infact is not the example given. It's a Liberty Valance situation, in that when the Myth becomes greater than the truth, print the Myth. Most of you only want to view the myth so as to feel justified in maintaining your own individuality. That said, now that you know the truth, I need to know how is it wrong to give up one's individuality in an effort to become one with one's marriage partner?
If it is not wrong why live as a 50/50 partner in something when together, you can become whole, complete?
Good answer! And I agree that we have our firebrands and bomb-throwers who make real conversation difficult, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any internet forum where that is not the case, at least, not without the kind of strict censorship which we freethinkers tend to find deeply abhorrent.
I don't even quibble with the "man as the head of the household" model, for those to whom it applies comfortably. Both because of their personal genetics/nature, and because of social conditioning as a child, many women in our culture grow up wanting to be led. (In addition, various estimates place the number of "natural followers" in society as roughly 85%, and "leaders/individualists" at 15%, likely a gene-set that helped us in our tribal hunter-gatherer days.) So if the woman chooses for herself to find a strong man and wants him to tell her what to do, I wish them all the happiness in the world.
I do quibble (a little) with your summary of my position, but I'll start by answering your final question. First, I think it's impossible to give up our individuality, because we are individuals, and there's not really a way to get around that. But, like a soldier joining a Special Ops fireteam, we can learn to behave as if we were a single unit. To me, marriage is like that. You must find someone suitable to work together with (dating), and when you have found your "soulmate" (it's just a term; I don't think we all have one "special someone out there"), you will be able to work toward a fusion of your individualities into a composite that is much, much greater than the sum of its parts. We are strong where the other is weak, and vice versa, and by working together it is possible to "survive, adapt, and overcome", as the military says, no matter what the situation is. I do not think that designating "the one with the penis is the leader" is a wise idea, simply because there may be times when you are out of your element but she is not, and her leadership could prove decisive in that situation.
So my quibble is that I am not suggesting that ideal marriage is retaining individuality; I am saying we cannot help but retain our individuality, and the key to happiness/success is accepting the equality of both partners, in every way, then figure out what skills/abilities each has or doesn't have, and learning to mesh those attributes into a marriage-team that can take on all comers. In the traditional model, only the male gets to retain his individuality, while the woman is expected to completely subsume herself into the complete role of wife and mother and housekeeper. I find this model simply incompatible with the basic premise of "feminism is the radical notion that women are people", which is one of my guiding principles.
My fiancee cannot cook to save her life, but I'm half-Cajun and I love cooking. Traditionally, what I do there would be "womens' work" (it's not, so much, in Cajun culture, which has a more egalitarian outlook in general), but I don't feel like it degrades me in any way, because I have set aside the old, sexist notions. I totally understand that, in Paul's day, and especially from his perspective as a former Pharisee, the "woman's role" would be obvious and something worth promoting. I just don't think it's a valid model of all modern society, unless chosen by the individual of their own free will. She can't work on motorcycles at all, and is still a beginner rider, relying on me to carefully lead her on rides. Yet she is the one currently bringing home most of the bacon, and she handles most of the finances because she's better at arithmetic-on-the-fly than I am. We're a team, and a damned good one.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
(September 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Good answer! And I agree that we have our firebrands and bomb-throwers who make real conversation difficult, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any internet forum where that is not the case, at least, not without the kind of strict censorship which we freethinkers tend to find deeply abhorrent.
This is true. Which is why I like this particular forum. Most atheist forums are run like the vast majority of Christian forums. They protect their core members to the point of breaking their own rules if need be. Here, the rules are the rules, and for the most part that's it. Which is what I found is what is needed to foster 'real conversation.' a Forum must allow it's members to bite and bite back. It can't take sides on issues just because it's primary support comes from one side of the fence or the other.
Quote:I don't even quibble with the "man as the head of the household" model, for those to whom it applies comfortably. Both because of their personal genetics/nature, and because of social conditioning as a child, many women in our culture grow up wanting to be led. (In addition, various estimates place the number of "natural followers" in society as roughly 85%, and "leaders/individualists" at 15%, likely a gene-set that helped us in our tribal hunter-gatherer days.) So if the woman chooses for herself to find a strong man and wants him to tell her what to do, I wish them all the happiness in the world.
:thumbsup:
Quote:I do quibble (a little) with your summary of my position, but I'll start by answering your final question. First, I think it's impossible to give up our individuality, because we are individuals, and there's not really a way to get around that.
I would point out, only in western culture. Right now billions of people grow up with a family/society first, and their are no individuals. The individual pieces never exceed the family itself. Whether you see this is good bad or indifferent, my point in individuality is taught or a learned/ unchecked behavior and not universal truth.
Quote:But, like a soldier joining a Special Ops fireteam, we can learn to behave as if we were a single unit. To me, marriage is like that.
And I would argue this works only 50% of the time, or so say the marriage stats.
Quote: You must find someone suitable to work together with (dating), and when you have found your "soulmate" (it's just a term; I don't think we all have one "special someone out there"), you will be able to work toward a fusion of your individualities into a composite that is much, much greater than the sum of its parts.
Which is in line with a scriptural marriage.
Quote:We are strong where the other is weak, and vice versa, and by working together it is possible to "survive, adapt, and overcome", as the military says, no matter what the situation is. I do not think that designating "the one with the penis is the leader" is a wise idea, simply because there may be times when you are out of your element but she is not, and her leadership could prove decisive in that situation.
...And if the one with the penis disagrees? then both parties circle the wagons battle it out.
Lord knows I have not always made the right decision. (Usally when I make one on my own.) It's when we both sit down and hash things out that the two sides become one. I find myself as simply being the voice of this particular body/marriage, and not source/rarly the source for every decision. I'm not saying this can't happen in a regular marriage, what I am saying is this is the purpose of a scriptural marriage. In the bible there are many examples of this good and bad, where the Husband and wife act as one. Moses pretending that sarah was his sister, or Anninias and Saphira who sold land and kept some of the proceeds but told Peter that they gave it all to God, or even Adam and Eve.. The point there is that even though Husband and wife made the decision together the ultimate voicing of said decision was not only done by the man, but it was the man who wound up taking primary responsibility/blame. Yes the wives suffered too, but in the sight of God the husband had to answer to Him.
Quote:So my quibble is that I am not suggesting that ideal marriage is retaining individuality; I am saying we cannot help but retain our individuality, and the key to happiness/success is accepting the equality of both partners, in every way, then figure out what skills/abilities each has or doesn't have, and learning to mesh those attributes into a marriage-team that can take on all comers.
And I disagree in saying I am nothing like I was, when I was on my own. I was funny, thin (er), and had hair.. Plus I was selfish, impatient, and did only what I wanted to do. I am not me anymore. I'm us. the difference between an marriage team and 'us' a team is two working individuals working toward a single goal. (which again is a successful model 1/2 the time.) the "One flesh/One being biblical model" has the man and wife both die to self. Meaning it's not about two people working as one, it's about two people becoming one, in word thought and deed. That is why Christ said:"What God united let man not separate." Because when it is right you can not separate one with out destroying the other.
When you were a kid did you ever jam red playdoh with blue playdoh? once you made purple playdoh could you ever successfully put all the blue back in it's container and all the red back into it's orginial container? no of course not. That's the Idea of a scriptural marriage to make purple playdoh rather than try and make something out of the blue and red while keeping them both separate yet bridge a gap that the two combined can cover.
Quote:In the traditional model, only the male gets to retain his individuality, while the woman is expected to completely subsume herself into the complete role of wife and mother and housekeeper. I find this model simply incompatible with the basic premise of "feminism is the radical notion that women are people", which is one of my guiding principles.
Maybe in the corrupt onesided version of what most people believe to be a biblical marriage. But again, a woman submitting to her husband is only 1/3 of the equasion. The man must wholy and fully transform Himself to be the working model of Christ in His house hold. It's been more than a decade and I'm still working on that transformation. Imagine changing yourself for more than 10 years, how much of your original self would remain?
Quote:My fiancee cannot cook to save her life, but I'm half-Cajun and I love cooking. Traditionally, what I do there would be "womens' work" (it's not, so much, in Cajun culture, which has a more egalitarian outlook in general), but I don't feel like it degrades me in any way, because I have set aside the old, sexist notions. I totally understand that, in Paul's day, and especially from his perspective as a former Pharisee, the "woman's role" would be obvious and something worth promoting. I just don't think it's a valid model of all modern society, unless chosen by the individual of their own free will. She can't work on motorcycles at all, and is still a beginner rider, relying on me to carefully lead her on rides. Yet she is the one currently bringing home most of the bacon, and she handles most of the finances because she's better at arithmetic-on-the-fly than I am. We're a team, and a damned good one.
A biblical marriage is has nothing to do with woman's or man's work. a biblical marriage can work when traditional work roles are reverses. There is nothing in the bible that says she must cook and clean while you work 9 to 5. At it's core it's about 2 becoming one,(im not talking about just sex) this represents how the church and Christ will work together and operate as one according to what Paul has written. It's about learning how to submit under authority and how to stop viewing the needs of self over the greater unity of the marriage covenant.
If my wife wanted me to stay home and watch the kids and cook and clean and we sat down together to make that all work out, I would do that. Or better yet we could take turns. But our situation will not allow that, and we both have to work.
Bottom line is Biblical marriage is not about who get the choice job and who gets stuck with the crap jobs in the house hold, its about two becoming one and working together in such away as to become one person expressed in two separate bodies. Because otherwise it is not possible to do/be the man or woman God would have us be if we tried to hang on to our individuality. Unfortunatly this concept is almost all but lost to time, at least in this culture.
Quote:I do quibble (a little) with your summary of my position, but I'll start by answering your final question. First, I think it's impossible to give up our individuality, because we are individuals, and there's not really a way to get around that.
I would point out, only in western culture. Right now billions of people grow up with a family/society first, and their are no individuals. The individual pieces never exceed the family itself. Whether you see this is good bad or indifferent, my point in individuality is taught or a learned/ unchecked behavior and not universal truth.
This is a good point. Our notions of "self" are largely culture-based programming, and this should not be overlooked. I'm not sure I go as far as Pinker's conclusions in The Blank Slate, in terms of how much this programming influences how our brains work, but I certainly concede this point.
(September 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote:
Quote:But, like a soldier joining a Special Ops fireteam, we can learn to behave as if we were a single unit. To me, marriage is like that.
And I would argue this works only 50% of the time, or so say the marriage stats.
True. However, modern studies have suggested fairly conclusively that only about half of the human race is biochemically equipped to be monogamous, on a genetic basis (genes for a set of neurochemical receptors that cause longterm mate-pair bonding). It's one of two strategies we seem to have evolved. The other is a "4 year itch" serial monogamist strategy in which a short-term bonding system causes romantic infatuation, which fades when the initial dopamine-reward-system ceases to be triggered by the person. In effect, there's a three-tiered sytem: a lust-attraction system, based on testosterone (yes, even in females), a romantic-infatuation system, based on dopamine, and a longterm pair-bonding system based on vasopressin (mainly in men) and oxytosin (mainly in women). You can read about it from the US National Institutes of Health, here:
In other words, marriage isn't for everyone, but we go on teaching that it is, and that "something is wrong with you" if you're not the marrying type, so a lot of people get married who should never do so. We expect 100% of couples to be faithful, and about half don't even have the systems to allow this sort of pair-bonding to happen. That 50% figure seems right in-line with that datum. I wish our society allowed people to be more honest about that. I'm a monogamist, but I've historically been attracted to women who turned out not to be.
(September 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote:
Quote:We are strong where the other is weak, and vice versa, and by working together it is possible to "survive, adapt, and overcome", as the military says, no matter what the situation is. I do not think that designating "the one with the penis is the leader" is a wise idea, simply because there may be times when you are out of your element but she is not, and her leadership could prove decisive in that situation.
...And if the one with the penis disagrees? then both parties circle the wagons battle it out.
If the one with the penis disagrees, then he can discuss it with his equal partner until they reach a concensus or compromise, or else they're not equal partners.
Besides, Biblical-type or not, any married man will tell you that there are times you just gotta let her do what she wants.
(September 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote:
Quote:
So my quibble is that I am not suggesting that ideal marriage is retaining individuality; I am saying we cannot help but retain our individuality, and the key to happiness/success is accepting the equality of both partners, in every way, then figure out what skills/abilities each has or doesn't have, and learning to mesh those attributes into a marriage-team that can take on all comers.
And I disagree in saying I am nothing like I was, when I was on my own. I was funny, thin (er), and had hair.. Plus I was selfish, impatient, and did only what I wanted to do. I am not me anymore. I'm us. the difference between an marriage team and 'us' a team is two working individuals working toward a single goal. (which again is a successful model 1/2 the time.) the "One flesh/One being biblical model" has the man and wife both die to self. Meaning it's not about two people working as one, it's about two people becoming one, in word thought and deed. That is why Christ said:"What God united let man not separate." Because when it is right you can not separate one with out destroying the other.
When you were a kid did you ever jam red playdoh with blue playdoh? once you made purple playdoh could you ever successfully put all the blue back in it's container and all the red back into it's orginial container? no of course not. That's the Idea of a scriptural marriage to make purple playdoh rather than try and make something out of the blue and red while keeping them both separate yet bridge a gap that the two combined can cover.
Becoming a SeAL unit member transforms you in numerous ways, physically and mentally, as well. Yet the SeAL is still an individual, in addition to his place on the team. And I agree that we change greatly from the experience of falling in love with someone on a level deep enough to even consider life-partnering with them, since it's a radical change from being an sing individual to being a part of a two-person team in which you would unhesitatingly lay down your life or sacrifice individual goals in favor of adopting their happiness as part-and-parcel of your own happiness. I get that. I like the playdoh analogy, except I'd call it something like this, where your individualities merge to make purple at the places where you have fused, but there's still plenty of blue and red.
(September 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote:
Quote:In the traditional model, only the male gets to retain his individuality, while the woman is expected to completely subsume herself into the complete role of wife and mother and housekeeper. I find this model simply incompatible with the basic premise of "feminism is the radical notion that women are people", which is one of my guiding principles.
Maybe in the corrupt onesided version of what most people believe to be a biblical marriage. But again, a woman submitting to her husband is only 1/3 of the equasion. The man must wholy and fully transform Himself to be the working model of Christ in His house hold. It's been more than a decade and I'm still working on that transformation. Imagine changing yourself for more than 10 years, how much of your original self would remain?
No argument from me on this, except to say that "wives submit to your husband" is much more controlling, since he's standing right there, telling her what to do or not do, than "husbands submit unto the Lord", since other than the guiding principles in the Bible, the specifics are much, much more nebulous and open to personal interpretation... not even counting the tendency of people to "cherry-pick" out of the Bible when determining what God really wants of them. (Some of the cherry-picking is a good thing, since we don't really want people stoning their children for talking back to dad, now, do we?)
(September 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote: Bottom line is Biblical marriage is not about who get the choice job and who gets stuck with the crap jobs in the house hold, its about two becoming one and working together in such away as to become one person expressed in two separate bodies. Because otherwise it is not possible to do/be the man or woman God would have us be if we tried to hang on to our individuality. Unfortunatly this concept is almost all but lost to time, at least in this culture.
:thumbsup: Except I don't say "unfortunately".
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
(September 22, 2015 at 4:42 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: This is a good point. Our notions of "self" are largely culture-based programming, and this should not be overlooked. I'm not sure I go as far as Pinker's conclusions in The Blank Slate, in terms of how much this programming influences how our brains work, but I certainly concede this point.
:thumbsup:
Quote:True. However, modern studies have suggested fairly conclusively that only about half of the human race is biochemically equipped to be monogamous, on a genetic basis (genes for a set of neurochemical receptors that cause longterm mate-pair bonding). It's one of two strategies we seem to have evolved. The other is a "4 year itch" serial monogamist strategy in which a short-term bonding system causes romantic infatuation, which fades when the initial dopamine-reward-system ceases to be triggered by the person. In effect, there's a three-tiered sytem: a lust-attraction system, based on testosterone (yes, even in females), a romantic-infatuation system, based on dopamine, and a longterm pair-bonding system based on vasopressin (mainly in men) and oxytosin (mainly in women). You can read about it from the US National Institutes of Health, here:
If this were true then why the sudden spike in divorce in just these last few generations?
I would tend to agree IF all marriages ended as a result of adultery, but adultery is just one of the many reasons we get divorced.. We can get divorced now simply by claiming irreconsiable differences. Which has nothing to do with monogamous relationships. This is a condition that can only exist between two individuals. Because if you become one, then their is no me/I in the relationship.
Quote:In other words, marriage isn't for everyone, but we go on teaching that it is, and that "something is wrong with you" if you're not the marrying type, so a lot of people get married who should never do so. We expect 100% of couples to be faithful, and about half don't even have the systems to allow this sort of pair-bonding to happen. That 50% figure seems right in-line with that datum. I wish our society allowed people to be more honest about that. I'm a monogamist, but I've historically been attracted to women who turned out not to be.
this is in contrast to what Paul taught. In that Marriage is not for everyone, and if you don't get married it is better for you, but if you can't help yourself and you burn with lustful passion then get married.
Quote:If the one with the penis disagrees, then he can discuss it with his equal partner until they reach a concensus or compromise, or else they're not equal partners.
Which is why I guess we need for "irreconcilable differences" to be a legit reason for divorce.
Quote:Besides, Biblical-type or not, any married man will tell you that there are times you just gotta let her do what she wants.
No doubt.
A good leader knows when those he is to care for are in need, and sees to those needs before they become a point of contension.
Quote:Becoming a SeAL unit member transforms you in numerous ways, physically and mentally, as well. Yet the SeAL is still an individual, in addition to his place on the team. And I agree that we change greatly from the experience of falling in love with someone on a level deep enough to even consider life-partnering with them, since it's a radical change from being an sing individual to being a part of a two-person team in which you would unhesitatingly lay down your life or sacrifice individual goals in favor of adopting their happiness as part-and-parcel of your own happiness. I get that. I like the playdoh analogy, except I'd call it something like this, where your individualities merge to make purple at the places where you have fused, but there's still plenty of blue and red.
but again, you can't put All Blue and All red back into their original containers. To do so is to retain one's indivisuality. "purple" is what happens when blue and red are permenatly mixed, so even if/when the colors were separated the blue and red still remain fused together.
The goal of a biblical marriage is to be all purple with no other colors remaining in the mix. The idea is two separate playdohs become one. where both indivisuals die to their own selfish wants or needs and both work together to create a new being/family. in doing so each person's needs get met in far greater abundance than if we work as indivisuals at the same goal.
Quote:No argument from me on this, except to say that "wives submit to your husband" is much more controlling, since he's standing right there, telling her what to do or not do, than "husbands submit unto the Lord", since other than the guiding principles in the Bible, the specifics are much, much more nebulous and open to personal interpretation...
I guess that will completely depend on what/How one believes in God. Because what I have laid out puts men in the shoes of Christ. Christ served the church to the point of death. Inorder to do that one must love whatever he serves greater than he loves Himself, fore their is no greater love than one person to give his life for another. One can not love someone to the degree commanded and at the same time subjugate them. To hold another under one's personal authority is to love self over the subject.
Again this is not what is required of us. as such is not what I'm talking about. Again, it seem like your only able to discuss the abuses of a biblical marriage and not speak on what has actually been outlined as a biblical marriage.
Quote:not even counting the tendency of people to "cherry-pick" out of the Bible when determining what God really wants of them. (Some of the cherry-picking is a good thing, since we don't really want people stoning their children for talking back to dad, now, do we?)
That is call reconciling scripture.
If we are to be OT Jews, then we must follow OT law.
However if we are to be NT Christians then we must 'reconcile' the OT with the New. (something I have already given detail on in my response to Luckie.
True. However, modern studies have suggested fairly conclusively that only about half of the human race is biochemically equipped to be monogamous, on a genetic basis (genes for a set of neurochemical receptors that cause longterm mate-pair bonding). It's one of two strategies we seem to have evolved. The other is a "4 year itch" serial monogamist strategy in which a short-term bonding system causes romantic infatuation, which fades when the initial dopamine-reward-system ceases to be triggered by the person. In effect, there's a three-tiered sytem: a lust-attraction system, based on testosterone (yes, even in females), a romantic-infatuation system, based on dopamine, and a longterm pair-bonding system based on vasopressin (mainly in men) and oxytosin (mainly in women). You can read about it from the US National Institutes of Health, here:
If this were true then why the sudden spike in divorce in just these last few generations?
I would tend to agree IF all marriages ended as a result of adultery, but adultery is just one of the many reasons we get divorced.. We can get divorced now simply by claiming irreconsiable differences. Which has nothing to do with monogamous relationships. This is a condition that can only exist between two individuals. Because if you become one, then their is no me/I in the relationship.
Human nature has not changed. People simply could not get divorced, before, either because it was not legal, originally, or because there were no alimony/palimony laws that allowed it to happen without causing utter ruin. That's why I recommend the book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz, which will give you a better overview of the "changes" in society, which turn out to be mostly the product of things that were hidden becoming visible, and a good deal of idyllic thinking.
Half of humanity still manages to have only one marriage, despite it being completely permitted in modern society. Think on that for a bit. (Indeed, the numbers of those actually getting divorced is less than half, since all are counted in the total, and people with three or four marriages are one person adding two or three divorces to the total.)
(September 23, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote:
Quote:
In other words, marriage isn't for everyone, but we go on teaching that it is, and that "something is wrong with you" if you're not the marrying type, so a lot of people get married who should never do so. We expect 100% of couples to be faithful, and about half don't even have the systems to allow this sort of pair-bonding to happen. That 50% figure seems right in-line with that datum. I wish our society allowed people to be more honest about that. I'm a monogamist, but I've historically been attracted to women who turned out not to be.
this is in contrast to what Paul taught. In that Marriage is not for everyone, and if you don't get married it is better for you, but if you can't help yourself and you burn with lustful passion then get married.
That verse from Paul isn't quite on point. He's referring to celibacy if you can manage to do it (as he did), since it's holier, as the Catholic clergy practice (but almost no one else in Christendom), among the early Christians. I'm simply referring to people who don't have the neurological architecture to allow them to be happily monogamous.
(September 23, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote:
Quote:
If the one with the penis disagrees, then he can discuss it with his equal partner until they reach a concensus or compromise, or else they're not equal partners.
Which is why I guess we need for "irreconcilable differences" to be a legit reason for divorce.
Another way to look at it is as a way to compensate for the fact that the secondary-infatuation system, the dopamine-reward center that tells us we're in loooooove, which will fade around the 4 year mark after that initial rush wears off (if not replaced by the reinforcement of the tertiary system I described before) in about half of individuals. Evolution seems to have built this system so people stay together long enough to at least raise their resulting offspring to toddler age, together, where the mother at least has a chance to raise the child successfully (thus being evolutionarily viable as a strategy) if she leaves the father, or vice-versa.
(September 23, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote:
Quote:
Becoming a SeAL unit member transforms you in numerous ways, physically and mentally, as well. Yet the SeAL is still an individual, in addition to his place on the team. And I agree that we change greatly from the experience of falling in love with someone on a level deep enough to even consider life-partnering with them, since it's a radical change from being an sing individual to being a part of a two-person team in which you would unhesitatingly lay down your life or sacrifice individual goals in favor of adopting their happiness as part-and-parcel of your own happiness. I get that. I like the playdoh analogy, except I'd call it something like this, where your individualities merge to make purple at the places where you have fused, but there's still plenty of blue and red.
but again, you can't put All Blue and All red back into their original containers. To do so is to retain one's indivisuality. "purple" is what happens when blue and red are permenatly mixed, so even if/when the colors were separated the blue and red still remain fused together.
The goal of a biblical marriage is to be all purple with no other colors remaining in the mix. The idea is two separate playdohs become one. where both indivisuals die to their own selfish wants or needs and both work together to create a new being/family. in doing so each person's needs get met in far greater abundance than if we work as indivisuals at the same goal.
Most relationship psychologists agree that it's unhealthy to totally "lose yourself" in the other person. A degree of blending seems to be the healthiest option, in realistic terms. Even so, it's why a divorce is always a painful thing (assuming you were even in love to begin with, though why people get married for any reason other than that has always astounded me). People change from the time they're in their early 20s (when most first marriages occur) to their later selves. If they work hard at a loving relationship, often they change together in a way that makes them closer. I'd even say "usually". But that deeper bonding can't happen without the reinforcing effect of the tertiary system. It becomes psychologically torturous to people who are not bonded on the third level, if their Bible-friends tell them they "should" be doing something that is not in their heart (or genes). As an IDEAL, I think it's great. But it's not always in conformity with reality.
(September 23, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote:
Quote:
No argument from me on this, except to say that "wives submit to your husband" is much more controlling, since he's standing right there, telling her what to do or not do, than "husbands submit unto the Lord", since other than the guiding principles in the Bible, the specifics are much, much more nebulous and open to personal interpretation...
I guess that will completely depend on what/How one believes in God. Because what I have laid out puts men in the shoes of Christ. Christ served the church to the point of death. Inorder to do that one must love whatever he serves greater than he loves Himself, fore their is no greater love than one person to give his life for another. One can not love someone to the degree commanded and at the same time subjugate them. To hold another under one's personal authority is to love self over the subject.
Again this is not what is required of us. as such is not what I'm talking about. Again, it seem like your only able to discuss the abuses of a biblical marriage and not speak on what has actually been outlined as a biblical marriage.
My parents have a "Biblical marriage", as they are both hard-core Southern Baptists, and have been happily married for 41 years. And I'm glad! I'm not "only" pointing out the problems, I'm pointing out the problems with A) assuming it's an all-encompassing reality, rather than something that not all people are inherently suited for, and B) to make sure that you grasp that the concept is great when it works, but terrible when it doesn't. In other words, I'm trying to shatter your "rose-colored glasses".
(September 23, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote:
Quote:not even counting the tendency of people to "cherry-pick" out of the Bible when determining what God really wants of them. (Some of the cherry-picking is a good thing, since we don't really want people stoning their children for talking back to dad, now, do we?)
That is call reconciling scripture.
If we are to be OT Jews, then we must follow OT law.
However if we are to be NT Christians then we must 'reconcile' the OT with the New. (something I have already given detail on in my response to Luckie.
I understand. I do! But can you understand that, from my point of view, I must consider all the ways people choose to interpret scripture (at present, there are ~40,000 sub-denominations of Christianity), and not focus on the one particular brand of "right interpretation" that you present, based on your own denomination's teachings?
This is a common point of contention between Christians and atheists, on here, as we will easily go from arguing with one type of Christian who tells us with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that _____ is "the way it is", with scripture, only to flip the page to another thread and have a second Christian argue something else about the same theological principle with the same certainty. We see both, but the Christians don't see each other, and thus both Christians think we're just being assholes when we bring up the conflicting point. We're not! Just calling it like we actually see it.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
![[Image: playdoh.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-A222m8DQ_jE%2FTsCQkaE0U3I%2FAAAAAAAASPA%2F5d-XNr8EMWw%2Fs1600%2Fplaydoh.jpg)
