Years ago, I actually heard some goof-ball behind a pulpit spouting his bilge about what a sin it is for a man to lust after his own wife.
Such a thing had never occurred to me that a man could lust after his wife...at least to the extent that it is sinful.
Well, he went on with his babbling, stating how it is ok to desire intimacy with one's wife, but that anything beyond that is sinful lust.
At no time during his painting-himself-into-a-corner litany did he ever differentiate his use of the key terms, so we were all left hanging...wondering what in the world he was talking about.
It's one thing for a man to look upon a woman not his wife, and allow his attraction to evolve into sexual desire, which could be defined as a form of lust ONLY because she is not his wife.
However, when the hormones are raging through a husband's veins, he looks at his wife and allows his attraction to evolve into a strong desire for her (otherwise defined as lust, according to that preacher), that's the subjective line a husband crosses according to that preacher's meaningless speech.
Then we have people like James Dobson yammering about how a husband
must understand that his wife can't comfortably function in a sexual capacity if she's not
in the mood to satisfy his
need. On the other hand, Dobson claimed that a man is clearly in the wrong dare he ever fail to provide his wife the emotional support she
needs from her husband, which is quite often according to his alleged scholarship.
(scratching head) A logical assessment could be made about what he actually said, and determine that the responsibility for meeting the needs of the other is primarily one-sided. When it comes to
mood, only that of the wife carries any legitimate weight. The husband allegedly has no excuse for not meeting his wife's need for emotional support if he's not in a
mood that would allow him to be an effective support.
Dare a man declare to his wife that he's not
in the mood to provide her an episode of emotional support, and Hell hath no fury. But, according to Dobson, a husband
must control his
need out of consideration for his wife's alleged inability for function in that area when she isn't intellectually and emotionally inclined toward such a...fulfillment.
It's no wonder there's so much dysfunctionality in so many marriages within Christian communities. A prominant man who heads up the Focus on the Family ministry, and yet believes in theistic evolution, is telling couples that imbalance in each one's responsibility toward the other is healthy and right.
Then, products of outlandish teachings of people like Dobson look through scriptures into the lives of the Patriarchs of the very faith they claim to be a part of, and demand those men were guilty of sinful lust originating from some social construct none of them can actually put their finger on...but, oh, everyone's an authority, duly authorized to declare sin in the lives of men they've never even met.
According to socially engineered theologies, we may as well expect to stand in Heaven, looking down over the edge of whatever cloud we happen to be standing upon at the moment, and observe the Patriarchs screeching in agony while burning in the pits of Hell for having had plural wives.
After all, they were guilty of fornicative lust for having had more than one wife.....right?
Oh, and we dare not forget that the coming of Christ Jesus somehow changed the foundation of marriage, allegedly making it a sin for a man to possess more than one wife at any given time throughout his life. Such a belief is promoted while ignoring the serialized polygamy going on in the very lives of people they know and love, right under their very noses within the institutional churches they attend.
Yessiree, boys and girls. I rarely ever hear the thunder-clap of judgment spewing forth from those same people toward the rampant divorce and remarriage going on within institutionalized religion all over this country...as if God had ever handed our legal system the divine keys of authority to redefine marriage from the definition handed to us in Genesis 2.
Oh, yes. Dare we look
back at Genesis 2, it becomes quite clear that there are couples today and throughout recent history who possess(ed) that piece of paper from City Hall, but who are(were)
NOT married in God's eyes, and therefore living(lived) together in fornicative, adulterous
social marriage.
(with their noses stuck up in the air) Well, it's too uncomfortable looking at things the way they really are, but more fun poking condemnations in the direction of a topic most don't understand, nor desire to understand from God's perspective.
Individual subjectivity is more conducive to the manic fun behind pretending that scripture doesn't say what's actually written. The worldview portraiture most people paint in their minds resembles very little of what we may read in scriptures on any given day.
It's written that there's nothing new under the sun...
BTW
