Did God create a specific Woman/Man for us?

[Nanopants]

Originally Posted by Dari0

I don't need to write this

What is the definition of idolatry?
​

From the site (emphasis added by me):

Answer: The definition of idolatry, according to Webster, is “the worship of idols or excessive devotion to, or reverence for some person or thing.” An idol is anything that replaces the one, true God. The most prevalent form of idolatry in Bible times was the worship of images that were thought to embody the various pagan deities.

Is the truth taught by Judeo-Christianity something created or defined by Webster then? Obviously not, but in any case, this much I agree with:

In reality, idols are impotent blocks of stone or wood, and their power exists only in the minds of the worshipers.

That obviously excludes people, but then the article goes on to say (and without support):

Idolatry extends beyond the worship of idols and images and false gods. Our modern idols are many and varied. Even for those who do not bow physically before a statue, idolatry is a matter of the heart—pride, self-centeredness, greed, gluttony, a love for possessions and ultimately rebellion against God. Is it any wonder that God hates it?

​

And this of course is common and easy to emulate:

*insert scripture here to make me sound religious and correct*

Everything I am now saying is infallible and correct, therefore Bieber is of the devil.

/end rant

Interestingly enough, if that were not satire, I would find myself attempting to take God's place, to speak as though I am God, and in that sense I would be attempting to replace God, though still, I don't think that would render me to be an idol in the biblical sense.

 

[Dari0]

From the site (emphasis added by me):

Answer: The definition of idolatry, according to Webster, is “the worship of idols or excessive devotion to, or reverence for some person or thing.” An idol is anything that replaces the one, true God. The most prevalent form of idolatry in Bible times was the worship of images that were thought to embody the various pagan deities.

Is the truth taught by Judeo-Christianity something created or defined by Webster then?

have you read those scriptures? Arguing about stuff like this gets us no where, there's people out there that need to know about Jesus, and here we are Christians arguing.

Back to the topic of the thread, I'm more inclined to believing that Jesus has given us decisions to make, and guiding by the Holy Spirit within us, we reap the consequences, or favor.

 

[Nanopants]

have you read those scriptures? Arguing about stuff like this gets us no where, there's people out there that need to know about Jesus, and he were as Christians arguing.

We're having a conversation. But if we're arguing and you don't approve of that then why did you disagree with me lol

Back to the topic of the thread, I'm more inclined to believing that Jesus has given us decisions to make, and guiding by our Holy Spirit, we reap the consequences, or favor.

Not sure how that is related to the topic at hand, but I think it's interesting how the actions of people can sometimes be considered "consequences," and within christian circles, interpreted as "from God," as though people have confused themselves with God, again.

 

[JackofSpades]

We're all made of the same stuff, and there's only so much room for variation, not boundless possibilities. Regardless, each individual's story or history, etc, is different even if we can find similarities among them. Fundamentally, most of us are compatible, and some are more compatible than others, so the idea of "the one" kind of loses its luster in light of that.

I think you're using very wide meaning for "compatible" if we assume that marriage/long relationship is not just technical agreement to tolerate each others enough to live together and reproduce together or something like that.

Like, for being compatible, is it good enough if you two:

1) Are both physically humans, speak same language, have less than 50 years age difference, are both capable of reproducing (if that's what they want). etc.

...or maybe it can mean something a little bit deeper, more emotional and sophisticated things like:

2) You two can discuss about what you feel and naturally understand each others, can go to sleep together and dream a same dream, feel extraordinarily comfortable with each others etc.


I'm trying to suggest that in my opinion most people are not compatible for having a deep, satisfying love relationship with each others, as I understand you're suggesting.

 

[Nanopants]

I think you're using very wide meaning for "compatible" if we assume that marriage/long relationship is not just technical agreement to tolerate each others enough to live together and reproduce together or something like that.

Like, for being compatible, is it good enough if you two:

1) Are both physically humans, speak same language, have less than 50 years age difference, are both capable of reproducing (if that's what they want). etc.

That is basically what I mean. Most males and females are compatible for mating purposes, but the biochemical processes that constitute emotional reactions are largely subject to nature. Even in cases when we think we could never fall in love with a person, we can, because nature dictates to a degree.

...or maybe it can mean something a little bit deeper, more emotional and sophisticated things like:

2) You two can discuss about what you feel and naturally understand each others, can go to sleep together and dream a same dream, feel extraordinarily comfortable with each others etc.


I'm trying to suggest that in my opinion most people are not compatible for having a deep, satisfying love relationship with each others, as I understand you're suggesting.

I think I understand what you mean, and I'd suggest that most of these "qualifications" that we think renders a person to be "compatible" for a love relationship are mostly ideas that we adopt or invent for ourselves. In other words, they're not real, and I think we have a tendency to try to create for ourselves some romantic plot which aids in forming those deep emotional bonds. Honestly, being someone who does believe in a higher power involved in these things, I think we are trying to invent substitutes for the real thing, which is understandable if most have an inescapable desire for it, as part of our basic physiological condition.

 

[JackofSpades]

Even in cases when we think we could never fall in love with a person, we can, because nature dictates to a degree.

I think falling in love/having a crush is mostly a reaction and it can indeed happen with rather many people, including those with whom it's impossible to have working relationship. BTDT. I think being able to have a functioning love relationship with someone is not the same thing as being capable of falling in love with them.

In other words, they're not real, and I think we have a tendency to try to create for ourselves some romantic plot which aids in forming those deep emotional bonds.

I see it in a way that emotional and psychological things are just as real parts of myself as are my biological impulses. Spirits function without a body of any kind, and I believe that likewise there are parts of us that have nothing to do with our physical side. I realize this is not what scientists usually believe tho.

Honestly, being someone who does believe in a higher power involved in these things, I think we are trying to invent substitutes for the real thing, which is understandable if most have an inescapable desire for it, as part of our basic physiological condition.

Are you saying that having a physical partner + God = only thing you need for a working relationship? That sounds to me like some version of emotional asceticism. I think that emotional and romantic side of relationship can't be replaced by spiritual connectedness. Connecting with someone in spiritual sense makes them (at least for me) typically feel more like sisters, rather than a lover. And someone feeling like sister doesn't make them interesting in man-woman sense.

In case you're saying that "it's possible we seek from romantics something we should seek from god", that I can agree with.

 

[Nanopants]

Are you saying that having a physical partner + God = only thing you need for a working relationship? That sounds to me like some version of emotional asceticism. I think that emotional and romantic side of relationship can't be replaced by spiritual connectedness. Connecting with someone in spiritual sense makes them (at least for me) typically feel more like sisters, rather than a lover. And someone feeling like sister doesn't make them interesting in man-woman sense.

Really? Of course I couldn't ever see myself marrying a familial sister, related by blood, but a non-related woman that I'm so close to that I could think of her as a sister seems kind of endearing. If I weren't that close to her, I'd think that might be indicative of a distaste for or absence of intimacy.

In case you're saying that "it's possible we seek from romantics something we should seek from god", that I can agree with.

In a sense, yes. It's just an observation I've made of popular culture that many romantic stories often include an element of fate or destiny, because apparently authors have found that it makes the story more romantic for whatever reason, and I look at it as an expression of the remnant of a natural desire for God to join two people together. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to happen often in the real world, so in the absence of it, I think many attempt to substitute it with various things.

 

[Purge187]

I think one of the best things that single Christians can do is to set aside the fairy tale that is the "soulmate" and cast a slightly wider net into the dating pool.

Checklisting in areas of like like this end up creating more problems than they solve.

 

[JackofSpades]

Really? Of course I couldn't ever see myself marrying a familial sister, related by blood, but a non-related woman that I'm so close to that I could think of her as a sister seems kind of endearing. If I weren't that close to her, I'd think that might be indicative of a distaste for or absence of intimacy.

I insist that there is a big difference. It develops as a different kind of love.

In my Charismatic Christian youth, I knew a woman of my age with whom I spent like 10 hours a week in prayer for some months, and I still think of her as a some kind of sister in faith, even tho we both have gone long way from there and not even share same beliefs anymore.

But she never really felt like possible partner, she was my age, very attractive, (I think she is still good looking enough to make decent modeling career), we got along, and we had a spiritual connection and shared similar beliefs. Later on, I had same kind of relationship with another woman, tho it wasn't as deep. But it's just different thing than being attracted to someone as a woman and as a person, than being connected to them as a fellow practiser.

But, if your experience is different, I'm open for a theory that this is just something that happens with some people, not everyone.

 

[SOLDIER ❤]

If he did... I wish he'd bring them already!

 

[com7fy8]

Back to the topic of the thread, I'm more inclined to believing that Jesus has given us decisions to make, and guiding by our Holy Spirit, we reap the consequences, or favor.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
.And lean not on your own understanding;
.In all your ways acknowledge Him,
.And He shall direct your paths."
. . . . . . . . . . . . (Proverbs 3:5-6)


By the way, Nano asked where I got the idea that celibacy and marriage are love gifts of the Holy Spirit . . . if I understand her right.

Paul says, "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." (1 Corinthians 7:7)

Paul says this while talking about being single and being married. And he says each of us has one's own "gift" which is "from God". So, from this I can see Paul means that marriage is a gift from God and celibacy is a gift from God. And since "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), these are gifts from love and therefore I call them love gifts

Also, Peter says "As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

So, a gift of God can minister God's own grace, which I understand is the effect of God in His love in us. So, marriage and celibacy in Jesus can minister God's grace, I get through these scriptures And the grace ministered by celibates and married people helps us to grow and mature in loving God and people.

And I can see and offer, that the celibate ministering grace can be helping people to love and serve God, like the celibate does. I mean how the celibate can be relating personally with God in order to please Him, like Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:32 . . . doling things "that he may please the Lord." So, he is learning how to personally relate with God in order to please Him. And he can minister this to other celibates and also married people, so we all learn and grow in serving and pleasing the Lord.

Likewise, the married person is gifted for sharing in a close relationship with another person; and as the couple learns how to love with each other, then they can minister for other couples and celibates to also learn and grow in how to love

So, marriage is not only for the couple, and celibacy is not only for the single person, but each "gift from God" ministers grace which we all need. "And grace is the effect of God in His love for us."

So, both love gifts are needed for the whole church. And they are not for some isolating thing. Married couples need to minister to others personally, and celibates need to be with other people for personal ministering of our gifts. And we all gain and grow in how celibates serve God and please Him, and in how married people can learn how to love. We grow in all giftedness, as Paul has said >

that we "may grow up in all things into Him who is the head---Christ---," in Ephesians 4:15.

As we grow in Jesus, we grow in God's love which has all of us doing well in serving and pleasing Him, like celibates do, plus relating well in love, like successfully married people are learning how to relate in love . . .

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, possibly like Nano means, if I understand you correctly, Nano, celibacy is not some high-up special status thing, but for ministering and sharing personally in real life with other children of God, so a celibate can help us all learn and mature more in relating with God, personally, and serving and pleasing Him. But the married people are in a research laboratory where they can make break-through discoveries in how to love in a close relationship . . . so they can then minister the grace of this to other couples and to celibates . . . so we all grow in all that is good of God's love

As "members of one another" (Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:25), we flow with God's grace to each other; we need each other and the grace we minister to one another, as 1 Peter 4:9&10 says.

 

[Nanopants]

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
.And lean not on your own understanding;
.In all your ways acknowledge Him,
.And He shall direct your paths."
. . . . . . . . . . . . (Proverbs 3:5-6)


By the way, Nano asked where I got the idea that celibacy and marriage are love gifts of the Holy Spirit . . . if I understand her right.

Paul says, "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." (1 Corinthians 7:7)

Paul says this while talking about being single and being married. And he says each of us has one's own "gift" which is "from God". So, from this I can see Paul means that marriage is a gift from God and celibacy is a gift from God. And since "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), these are gifts from love and therefore I call them love gifts

Also, Peter says "As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

So, a gift of God can minister God's own grace, which I understand is the effect of God in His love in us. So, marriage and celibacy in Jesus can minister God's grace, I get through these scriptures And the grace ministered by celibates and married people helps us to grow and mature in loving God and people.

And I can see and offer, that the celibate ministering grace can be helping people to love and serve God, like the celibate does. I mean how the celibate can be relating personally with God in order to please Him, like Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:32 . . . doling things "that he may please the Lord." So, he is learning how to personally relate with God in order to please Him. And he can minister this to other celibates and also married people, so we all learn and grow in serving and pleasing the Lord.

Likewise, the married person is gifted for sharing in a close relationship with another person; and as the couple learns how to love with each other, then they can minister for other couples and celibates to also learn and grow in how to love

So, marriage is not only for the couple, and celibacy is not only for the single person, but each "gift from God" ministers grace which we all need. "And grace is the effect of God in His love for us."

So, both love gifts are needed for the whole church. And they are not for some isolating thing. Married couples need to minister to others personally, and celibates need to be with other people for personal ministering of our gifts. And we all gain and grow in how celibates serve God and please Him, and in how married people can learn how to love. We grow in all giftedness, as Paul has said >

that we "may grow up in all things into Him who is the head---Christ---," in Ephesians 4:15.

As we grow in Jesus, we grow in God's love which has all of us doing well in serving and pleasing Him, like celibates do, plus relating well in love, like successfully married people are learning how to relate in love . . .

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, possibly like Nano means, if I understand you correctly, Nano, celibacy is not some high-up special status thing, but for ministering and sharing personally in real life with other children of God, so a celibate can help us all learn and mature more in relating with God, personally, and serving and pleasing Him. But the married people are in a research laboratory where they can make break-through discoveries in how to love in a close relationship . . . so they can then minister the grace of this to other couples and to celibates . . . so we all grow in all that is good of God's love

As "members of one another" (Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:25), we flow with God's grace to each other; we need each other and the grace we minister to one another, as 1 Peter 4:9&10 says.

That seems fair enough, and thanks for your well thought out response. Sorry if I seemed a little abrasive. I don't hate celibates or anything, but lately I've come to expect to be swarmed by folks who seem to want to castrate people for some reason :\

 

[com7fy8]

That seems fair enough, and thanks for your well thought out response. Sorry if I seemed a little abrasive. I don't hate celibates or anything, but lately I've come to expect to be swarmed by folks who seem to want to castrate people for some reason :\

lolololololol

Well, that is not funny, how people can be dominating you with castrating treatment.

I think certain people have given celibacy a bad name. But I use the word for its rightful and good meaning that is in the Bible.

But, by the way, we have 1 Timothy 3:1-10 > very clear, to me, how God wants a family man to "take care of the church of God" > after the man has been proven in his own home first, with his wife helping him become a really loving person who knows how to take care of people in our Father's family caring and sharing way . . . not someone who is unmarried and distant and not even personally involved in our real lives.

Jesus Himself came and went through things we go through, here on earth, so now He as our Groom can feel for us and help us with grace which took Him through it all > Hebrews 4:15.

So, we need married couples who can care for people while going through what married people go through. But ones have given celibacy a bad name, by requiring unmarried people who don't even know us personally to be responsible for us.

And a truly celibate person is humble and appreciates being single for Jesus, plus deeply appreciates and enjoys married couples and their families.

Since I love others as myself, I enjoy how couples are married and have children. I can enjoy their marriages as if I was married with a family because the good they have is the same as me having it

But now I have a lady, and I am finding there is plenty more to being in a relationship than I thought. So, now I can see there is more than "meets the eye" in the relating of married couples lololol

 

[TheApostleJohn]

If you think that God is in complete control of things that happen on Earth, and that nothing happens unless he wills it to happen, then yes, from a certain angle, he's made someone "just for you" if you do end up getting married.

I hope not.

I don't want to have been created for the purpose of "perfect woman for X".

I'm more than that. Whoever I find and fall in love with is so much more than that as well.

^but on the other hand, being married or in relationships isn't the main reason for anyone's existence. It's not like there's a wife or husband factory where perfect spouses get churned out on an assembly line.

 

[keith99]

How would people here feel if they found out God made them for someone else? That their primary reason for existing was for someone else?

 

[JackofSpades]

How would people here feel if they found out God made them for someone else? That their primary reason for existing was for someone else?

I think the idea is supposed to be that part of me was made in a way that I fit together with someone else, but there is more to us both than just that side. I don't think it in sense of ownership, or inequality.

But if it was done in sense that I was made with sole purpose of being 200th male slave of some Amazon Queen, I would find that to be slightly demeaning.

 

[Messy]

How would people here feel if they found out God made them for someone else? That their primary reason for existing was for someone else?

If it was for Him it'd be no problem, but otherwise, lol that would suck.
The woman was made for the man, isn't that a text? Better skip those.

 

[Gnarwhal]

There are many "ones", we're not keys matched with locks.

 

[com7fy8]

I think the idea is supposed to be that part of me was made in a way that I fit together with someone else, but there is more to us both than just that side.

Well, I suppose there could be the spouse "side", and other sides for other people. So, you would be a piece in the puzzle

And as you grow together, you can discover who you become with each other . . . maybe like a baby brother and sister growing into more and more mature love as brother and sister. They become better for each other, in ways they could not know about while babies.

 

[~Beauty_from_Pain~]

I don't believe in the "one" meaning that there is only ONE person out there. I believe that someone can become "the one" for us. However, there may be more than one person who becomes the one. For example, if you marry and then they pass on and you re-marry.