For egalitarian Christians...

[hijklmnop]

Good thing he didnt say ONLY then isnt it?

He stated NOR inferred even one thing you have created disagreement to. May I ask a serious question, why do the women here seem so inclined to do this? What drives the inference and subsequent then disagreement with points that are wholly created by the respondent?

When a person makes statement, it has no inferred absolutes. This simple fact, if observed, would eliminate 90% of objections made to mens comments here.

But it gets worse

If I said communication is important in marriage.....it would result in thoughtful and agreeable reactions and discussion, NO ONE would leap to say "marriage is about more than communication"

BUT

If I said "sex is important in marriage.....likely the very first response would be "marriage is not all about sex"

Its not just the inference of absolutes then, it the inference of them on very specific subjects, and it would seem a way to attempt to nullify or reduce the truth of the absolutely true and nonthreatening original statement.

What if anytime someone says anything, we come back with a rejection of that thing but with an inferred absolute, like always, never, all, none...etc? We could literally discuss NOTHING.

As it is, there are 5 things we cannot discuss, and one of the reasons is this red herring of inferring absolutes.


One would think its a reflexive effort to never state certain things that are in and of themselves 100% true

the example, (not a topic changer please) "sex is important in marriage"............I simply for my very life cannot grasp why that is so hard to take as it is. There are 5 words there, and each one has a specific meaning. The words together have a very specific meaning, and its an irrefutable statement...UNLESS you infer an absolute.

He made an absolute statement when he said that ALL relational needs are met by the body of Christ with the ONE exception of sex. That IS an absolute. I didn't make it up. And that's what I was responding to. There was no need for you to then vent about how you think that "women" here do this and that and then critique it on and on....that's just stirring up trouble IMO.

He said that all relational needs can be met just as well by others with sex being the only exception....the only thing that makes the marriage relationship special and set apart from other relationship. I disagree. Agree or disagree with that all you like, but kindly don't attack my posting style and then attribute it to my gender with comments like "the women here..." It's just plain rude.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(1Co 7:1)

 

[Johnnz]

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1Co 7:1)

It is the opinion of some commentators that this is a quote from a section of the Corinthian church that were into some form of asceticism, as seen in earlier quotes "Touch not etc" Paul then goes on "But..." to correct that view by telling them about marriage and any limitations on sexual activity should be by agreement and short duration.

John
NZ

 

[I Art Laughing]

It is the opinion of some commentators that this is a quote from a section of the Corinthian church that were into some form of asceticism, as seen in earlier quotes "Touch not etc" Paul then goes on "But..." to correct that view by telling them about marriage and any limitations on sexual activity should be by agreement and short duration.

John
NZ

The contradicting argument is that marriage is something that God wants for everyone AND that sex is optional.

Merely pointing out that Paul didn't marry nor did Jesus should be sufficient to disprove the notion that ALL other needs cannot be met outside of marriage. (Paul didn't NEED a wife, were all of his needs met by the Lord?) Paul stating that it is better not to marry should be a sufficient argument. I find it sad that it doesn't appear to be.

 

[Johnnz]

The contradicting argument is that marriage is something that God wants for everyone AND that sex is optional.

Merely pointing out that Paul didn't marry nor did Jesus should be sufficient to disprove the notion that ALL other needs cannot be met outside of marriage. (Paul didn't NEED a wife, were all of his needs met by the Lord?) Paul stating that it is better not to marry should be a sufficient argument. I find it sad that it doesn't appear to be.

I don't really follow some of your argument.

Need is a wrong category. Our starting point is what did God create us for and for us? "What do I need?" is not where to begin. That has gone astray due to our fallenness in that we can see a need outside of any theological significance. Then we can easily become selfish and self centred.

The NT does attest to some who will remain single and therefore sexually inactive. That's their gift and calling. They are not living substandard lives due to unfulfilled sexuality, just fulfilled in different ways. But those who are married are to live out their mutual commitment as God intended for marriage, which is what Paul is inferring about not depriving one another and each being there sexually for the other.

John
NZ

 

[Hot Ice]

When a person makes statement, it has no inferred absolutes. This simple fact, if observed, would eliminate 90% of objections made to mens comments here.

Would seem that it's a national phenomenon, too. i see it in TV, read it in blogs and other forums, hear it on radio, etc.

There certainly IS a desperate push to shut down that conversation--and quickly--before any development can happen in the conversation.

If the inferred absolutes don't work, try another distraction;
If the distraction doesn't work, try shaming;
If shaming doesn't work, try personal attacks!

And so on!

 

[Hot Ice]

I think it's sad that you think all our relational needs can be met by others and that sex is the only thing that sets a marital relationship apart.

I guess i don't understand completely understand this. What need do you believe people have, that cannot be met by others, rather than in marital relationship?

 

[Hot Ice]

The Shack was not a good book from which to draw truths. For me, the caricatures of the trinity were offensively cartoon-ish.

I dont know why anyone wants to be the boss either. And I don't know really why some folks cannot get enough of metaphors and ways to say that. Maybe the best way to not broach this is to just agree on that boss thingy, since everyone agrees with that anyway and its an external factor inserted to the topic each and every time.

I will close at least my comments about it at that, dont wanna be a boss, dont wanna be bossed or micromanaged. Since thats the way guys have described this, to not BE bossed and micromanaged, and since women rally around the idea of no one should be boss, there ought to be peace, harmony, and cats living with dogs.

But anyway, same topic, different day.

It's injected into the conversation, every time, as a shaming tactic, an attack, a forced inference, that distracts, and attempts to paint any man that doesn't agree with the feminist position as guilty of "wanting to be the boss."

 

[JaneFW]

I guess i don't understand completely understand this. What need do you believe people have, that cannot be met by others, rather than in marital relationship?

To answer for myself - there is a personal intimacy and closeness (not talking about sex, but obviously that too) that is to be met by the spouse only. I am my h's confidante and he is mine. When I need to confide in someone, it should be him. I find that in scripture just as simple as this:

Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

One flesh would indicate more than sex. One flesh would indicate as one unit, one grouping, belonging to each other. I mean, how closely does flesh adhere to your body? It's very closely attached to mine.

Which doesn't mean living in each other's pockets, but that closeness? Vital for marriage.

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly, Jane. To elaborate further....."intimacy" to me, that I feel should be between husband and wife (not talking sex---everyone is clear that should be b/w H and wife), is knowing that things shared or known from living closely together will remain between the two---won't be shared to people outside without the knowledge and permission of the other spouse. It completely trashes trust when a spouse hears something private they had shared with their spouse, being repeated from another person outside the marriage---especially when it relays judgment. That knowledge should be considered privledged and handled with respect and care. If a spouse has a conflict or grievance---just like the Bible says.....they should go to the person--not others. It's hardly "intimate" when others are in the middle of the two.

When I hear that "all the other needs can be provided by the Body of Christ".....that almost sounds like emotional affairs are being encouraged.

 

[I Art Laughing]

To answer for myself - there is a personal intimacy and closeness (not talking about sex, but obviously that too) that is to be met by the spouse only. I am my h's confidante and he is mine. When I need to confide in someone, it should be him. I find that in scripture just as simple as this:

Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

One flesh would indicate more than sex. One flesh would indicate as one unit, one grouping, belonging to each other. I mean, how closely does flesh adhere to your body? It's very closely attached to mine.

Which doesn't mean living in each other's pockets, but that closeness? Vital for marriage.

That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(1Co 12:25-27)

On the other hand, without marriage in the Church some people would have to forgo their pet spouses. Without marriage certain dynamics of victimization are cut way down on. Psychopaths need victims too!

 

[Conservativation]

It's injected into the conversation, every time, as a shaming tactic, an attack, a forced inference, that distracts, and attempts to paint any man that doesn't agree with the feminist position as guilty of "wanting to be the boss."

HEY buddy!

Good to see you

 

[JaneFW]

That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(1Co 12:25-27)

Do you know that not all Christians attend church? At present we do not attend church so there is no "body" at my fingertips. (Figuratively speaking.) Regardless of whether people have a church or not, the closest bond is between husband and wife. They are the only people to cleave to one another as ONE FLESH. It is/should be the deepest relationship of all.

I don't understand why you are opposed to spouses giving assistance and care to each other. I see nothing scriptural that says husbands and wives should not do this.

On the other hand, without marriage in the Church some people would have to forgo their pet spouses. Without marriage certain dynamics of victimization are cut way down on. Psychopaths need victims too!

I don't understand any of this or how it pertains to this discussion or my post. Are you calling me a psychopath? And who has a "pet" spouse? Please explain this paragraph in full including any supporting scriptures to support your view.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Do you know that not all Christians attend church? At present we do not attend church so there is no "body" at my fingertips. (Figuratively speaking.) Regardless of whether people have a church or not, the closest bond is between husband and wife. They are the only people to cleave to one another as ONE FLESH. It is/should be the deepest relationship of all.

I don't understand why you are opposed to spouses giving assistance and care to each other. I see nothing scriptural that says husbands and wives should not do this.

I don't understand any of this or how it pertains to this discussion or my post. Are you calling me a psychopath? And who has a "pet" spouse? Please explain this paragraph in full including any supporting scriptures to support your view.

That's the trick JaneFW, our marriages are a reflection of Christ and His Church. They are the reflection, the Church is the real. We're not supposed to replace the Body of Christ with our spouse.

If you are trying to replace the Body of Christ with a spouse then think that is borderline idolatry AND I will suspect the motives behind that. I've seen men that have wives for the sole purpose of dominating them (while using the "christianity" as a tool of subjection). Lately, I have also had my eyes opened to women doing the exact same thing. I'm not saying that you do this, but I still think that we need to look to our Head, Jesus Christ for our provision, not to a man or a woman. YMMV.

BTW, I don't "attend a church" but I consider the body of Christ to be found wherever two or more are gathered in His name. Talking with a brother or sister online is "Church" to me, my wife can be Church, meeting other believers at work or in the community. I have "Church" all week.

 

[JaneFW]

That's the trick JaneFW, our marriages are a reflection of Christ and His Church. They are the reflection, the Church is the real. We're not supposed to replace the Body of Christ with our spouse.

If you are trying to replace the Body of Christ with a spouse then think that is borderline idolatry AND I will suspect the motives behind that. I've seen men that have wives for the sole purpose of dominating them (while using the "christianity" as a tool of subjection). Lately, I have also had my eyes opened to women doing the exact same thing. I'm not saying that you do this, but I still think that we need to look to our Head, Jesus Christ for our provision, not to a man or a woman. YMMV.

BTW, I don't "attend a church" but I consider the body of Christ to be found wherever two or more are gathered in His name. Talking with a brother or sister online is "Church" to me, my wife can be Church, meeting other believers at work or in the community. I have "Church" all week.

My husband is one flesh with me, and he is the ONLY one that is one flesh with me - no other man or woman can take his place. And for "tricks" - I am not interested in any tricks and I don't care what you suspect. <shrug>

I have great friends here who are the "church" to me. I do indeed share things with them on a daily basis. As any other women here can attest, we share a great deal in the women's forum of our lives, hopes, dreams, joys and griefs. They are a fantastic group of people and I'm grateful actually that the closure of the married couples forum has given me a chance to get to know many of them much better than I ever did - and I find myself loving them like sisters.

BUT, they are not my one flesh. There are thing that my husband and I share that are absolutely private and spoken of only in the presence of each other and God.

It's interesting that you speak of making an idol of spouse. Many of us have spoken against making marriage and/or a spouse an "idol". Marriage is not God, a spouse is not God. Only God is God.

You didn't answer my question about who the "psychopath" comment was directed at or "pet spouses". Also whether or not there is scripture against spouses being one flesh. Also, who are these people who are dominating their spouses? These are accusations of sin which should be exposed openly if they exist. If as you say, this is a form of church with brothers and sisters reading - you need to state openly who you accuse and who are your witnesses?

 

[I Art Laughing]

My husband is one flesh with me, and he is the ONLY one that is one flesh with me - no other man or woman can take his place. And for "tricks" - I am not interested in any tricks and I don't care what you suspect. <shrug>

I have great friends here who are the "church" to me. I do indeed share things with them on a daily basis. As any other women here can attest, we share a great deal in the women's forum of our lives, hopes, dreams, joys and griefs. They are a fantastic group of people and I'm grateful actually that the closure of the married couples forum has given me a chance to get to know many of them much better than I ever did - and I find myself loving them like sisters.

BUT, they are not my one flesh. There are thing that my husband and I share that are absolutely private and spoken of only in the presence of each other and God.

It's interesting that you speak of making an idol of spouse. Many of us have spoken against making marriage and/or a spouse an "idol". Marriage is not God, a spouse is not God. Only God is God.

You didn't answer my question about who the "psychopath" comment was directed at or "pet spouses". Also whether or not there is scripture against spouses being one flesh. Also, who are these people who are dominating their spouses? These are accusations of sin which should be exposed openly if they exist. If as you say, this is a form of church with brothers and sisters reading - you need to state openly who you accuse and who are your witnesses?

That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(1Co 12:25-27)

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
(Eph 5:30-32)

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (He's not talking about marriage here he's talking about the body of Christ).
(1Co 6:15-16)

I've seen men dominating women in the Church. You haven't? I've seen women dominating men in the Church. You haven't? I confront it when I see it. How come every general argument has to be turned personal?

Ummm, no.

 

[JaneFW]

My husband and I are one flesh so far as husband and wife are concerned and there are thing between us that won't be shared by others. Period. He wasn't called to cleave to the whole church, only to me, and I to him.

When you quote other people's posts and pour invective into your responses about psychopaths, pet spouses and domineering women then it does suggest it is a personal response yes. Perhaps you need to clarify that you are generalizing.

Either way, I'm done on the topic. Nobody's going to persuade me that God didn't join my husband and I together in one flesh and that marriage is unique in this respect. If I don't listen to or speak to my husband, he would get very frustrated, very quickly, and vice versa. It's simple respect and love.

If that's not what you do - that's between you and your wife. I don't really care.

 

[I Art Laughing]

My husband and I are one flesh so far as husband and wife are concerned and there are thing between us that won't be shared by others. Period.

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
(1Co 15:27-28)

He's the Head, that's the whole point. Yes, even those things.

Furthermore.

Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
(Luk 20:27-35)

In the resurrection, nobody is going to be married but Him and His bride.

 

[mkgal1]

That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(1Co 12:25-27)

On the other hand, without marriage in the Church some people would have to forgo their pet spouses. Without marriage certain dynamics of victimization are cut way down on. Psychopaths need victims too!

This completely is a wrench in the gears of my brain.

Marriage is about "forsaking all others"......an exlusive relationship. God is a jealous God.....He doesn't want us to have any idols above Him. We will all be sings His praises together in Heaven, as the Body of Christ.....but, here on earth there's to be clear lines of division between husband and wife and the rest of the Body of Christ.....IOW.....people should recognize a difference between how I interact with my OWN husband as opposed to how I act with Mrs. Johnson's husband.

BTW....what *are* you saying? What *does* "pet spouse" even mean?

 

[mkgal1]

Without marriage.......LOADS of sin would go unknown.....hidden in the dark crevices.....PEOPLE could be in bondage to all kinds of sin, but could show their faces without anyone knowing what's behind those made up smiles and just the right clothes.