Is marriage really all that sacred to Christians?

Cabaal

We've all read the debates and much of it comes down to how marriage is a sacred union between and man and a women in the christian faith and thats why they are against gay marriage (well that and they class gay people as an abomination in-line with what the bible states), but was it always this way?

During the past few weeks I've been reading up on this and like so many things in the christian faiths....they appear mighty confused and may I say very conflicting.

First off, lets start with priests. It seems many abandoned the celibacy rule after the 5th century and as such it was normal for them to be married between the 6th and 11th century's.

This changed with the Gregorian reform movement in the 11th century when the church realsed that priests left their property to wives and children...instead of the church. After it changed it became heresy to be married as a priest and married priests appeared to have been given the option to leave the church and loose any of the benefits of this or leave their families, many opted to leave familys.

For the rest of us, in the church there was no christian marriage sacrament until the 16th century.

But outside of that even if we accept that they didn't have a sacrament perhaps they viewed marriage in a positive light? Doesn't seems to be the case though...

St Ambrose called marriage a crime against god, because god had intended every person to maintain the state of virginity that came with birth

But if marriage is really so sacred then how can it also be a crime against god? These are pretty serious words, its not just a sin its a crime.

St Bernard wrote that it is easier for a man to bring the dead back to life than live with a women without endangering his own soul

Hardly encouraging words for somebody to get married are thing?

OK, but surely once marriage come into fashion it was an important union?

The council of Trent (16th Century) ruled that a person who even hunted that marriage might be more blessed than celibacy was a heretic and must be declared anathema - that is formally cursed and excommunicated"

Ok this seems to have been done in order to put priests above anyone else I'm guessing, but seems rather extreme none the less.

errrrr.......but maybe even if they weren't fans of marriage they thought baby's born out of forged union were all good surely?

"Babies are born as the damned fruit of the lust of their parents. From the first, they are the offspring of hell; they are justly children of wrath because they are sinners. If they die unbaptized, they are condemned to everlasting torments for the guilt of their birth alone. Existence is itself a state of sin" - Pope Gregory the Great

So baby's born outside of marriage are the worst thing in the world (we only have to look at how women were treated in Ireland in the past decades), but also a baby born in a marriage or union is the worst thing in the world also?

So basically they didn't care much for it for century's, then when they introduced it in the form we "kind of" know now and this makes it a sacred union/sacrament that in now way should be messed with?

This makes no sense though, if it was so important then surely it would have been a sacrament before the 16th century? The way the Vatican and priests talk about it you'd swear its been an integral and important part of the christian faith for the past 2,000 years.

Clearly this is in now way the case and its only been made important for the past few hundred years, thats a big difference.

For the most part it seems the overall issues is they have some massive hang ups about sex regardless of if its inside or outside of a marriage or union.

In addition there seems to be even bigger hang up's in respect of women ownership of property and the whole women and sin thing....this also explains why women had to be "churched" after childbirth as it seems to have been viewed as the worst thing in the world.

But the marriage itself doesn't appear to be massively important, so my questions are:

- When exactly did it become important and so sacred to the christian faith? From what I've found it seems to have only become more important from the 16th century onwards.
- How can it change from a crime against god to a special union? Surely its still a crime?
- When did baby's inside of marriage stop being the offspring of hell? Given this was said by a pope and my understanding is the pope can't be wrong (infallible?) then surely they still are the offspring of hell?

Turtwig

Marriage was never sacred or pure. It's just this ridiculously inaccurate and ignorant "appeal to tradition" fallacy that proponents of the "sanctity of marriage" stick to while ignoring pretty much all of history. Romance or love was rarely a factor, marriages were mostly about power, money and survival. Christianity did little to change that.

Mark Hamill

Cabaal wrote: »

St Ambrose called marriage a crime against god, because god had intended every person to maintain the state of virginity that came with birth

Methinks St. Ambrose did not understand how babies were made.

Cabaal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Methinks St. Ambrose did not understand how babies were made.

To be honest I think that's likely,

we take what we know for granted but when you think about it if you don't know how it happens then it seems far more "god like"

UrbanSea

Not trying to be funny, but would it not be better to ask Christians in their forum rather than speculate in this one?

Cabaal

RichieLawlessness wrote: »

Not trying to be funny, but would it not be better to ask Christians in their forum rather than speculate in this one?

Fair point I suppose, didn't post it in the forum on the basis i thought they may think I was trolling.

Ok, if a mod wouldn't mind moving this to the catholic forum then please

krudler

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Methinks St. Ambrose did not understand how babies were made.

Beat me to it, probably thought god left babies under cabbages.

Dades

Moved to Christianity. I won't be offended if you move it back!

It'd be nice if this didn't turn into a Christian-bash.

Cabaal

Dades wrote: »

Moved to Christianity. I won't be offended if you move it back!

It'd be nice if this didn't turn into a Christian-bash.

I'm certainly not intending it to be one, hence why I've edited my first post to pose some questions specifically.

philologos

You might want to look to the Bible first rather than looking to what some chap said centuries later.

Dades

Elaborating on that would go some way to dispelling any misconceptions the OP has, no?

im invisible

philologos wrote: »

You might want to look to the Bible first rather than looking to what some chap said centuries later.

thus falls christianity as we know it

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Elaborating on that would go some way to dispelling any misconceptions the OP has, no?

im invisible wrote: »

thus falls christianity as we know it

Sure.

My point is that Ambrose or Bernard even if these quotes come from context aren't authoritative, or indeed aren't as authoritative as Scripture in the Christian view.

We can see from Scripture that marriage is regarded highly:

Matthew 19:3-9 wrote:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Or, as I see it one of the most beautiful descriptions of marriage I've ever read:

Ephesians 5:22-33 wrote:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Marriage not only reflects the loving relationship between a husband and his wife, but marriage also is a microcosm of the relationship between Christ and the church.

Gumbi

philologos wrote: »

Sure.

My point is that Ambrose or Bernard even if these quotes come from context aren't authoritative, or indeed aren't as authoritative as Scripture in the Christian view.

We can see from Scripture that marriage is regarded highly:


Or, as I see it one of the most beautiful descriptions of marriage I've ever read:


Marriage not only reflects the loving relationship between a husband and his wife, but marriage also is a microcosm of the relationship between Christ and the church.

It's also, according to the above text, absolute submission on* the part of the wife to the husband. Thanks, but no thanks.

philologos

Gumbi wrote: »

It's also, according to the above text, absolute submission in the part of the wife to the husband. Thanks, but no thanks.

No. Read the bottom text and you'll find that the husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Hardly tyrannical. Indeed it's radical and if more people followed this the world would be a better place not a worse one.

lmaopml

Cabaal, I'm not sure where you picked up the quotes selected there in that form - I imagine somebody took some time to piece all of that together. The one attributed to St. Bernard, I found difficult to track down myself.... Google is cool, but sometimes it can lead one to sites where people are just plain angry imo, and although their arguements may be persuasive - it's always best to be a bit critical.

As an example of how a person can be misunderstood and a concept and or a 'context' in which they are being quoted is very important to understanding - let's just take a look at another quote by St. Ambrose on marriage...

St. Ambrose (340 - 397)

Some one may say, Do you, then, discourage marriage? Nay, I encourage it, and condemn those who are wont to discourage it, so much so, that indeed I am wont to speak of the marriages of Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, and other women of old time, as instances of singular virtues. For he who condemns marriage, condemns the birth of children, and condemns the fellowship of the human race, continued by a series of successive generations. For how could generation succeed generation in a continual order, unless the gift of marriage stirred up the desire of offspring? Or how could one set forth that Isaac went to the altar of God as a victim of his father's piety, or that Israel, when yet in the body, saw God, Genesis 32:28 and gave a holy name to the people while speaking against that whereby they came into being? Those men, though wicked, have one point at any rate, wherein they are approved even by the wise persons, that in speaking against marriage they declare that they ought not to have been born.


St. Ambrose obviously wasn't against marriage, and he wasn't speaking out of both sides of his mouth either, so it's important to get the full picture.

So you can see perhaps that in order to understand one has got to see the context of a quote, otherwise there would be no 'marrying' any meaning into the quote that would be a faithful presentation or very fair to it's author.

Gumbi

"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,"

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands"

Looks pretty black and white to me. If you want to submit to the Church yourself that seems OK to me, but don't push it on others.

JimiTime

Many professing Christians have indeed not shown that marriage is sacred, but then many professing Christians are hypocritical. However, they would be acting outside of Christianity when they indulge in no-fault divorce, commit adultery etc. There are still a great multitude of Christians who DO act in a Christian manner with regards to marriage. Many Christians don't even realise how radical marriage is in terms of being 'One Flesh'. You are no longer the owner of yourself, but rather share yourself with your spouse.

Morbert

The husband as the head of the household sounds an awful lot like another "no shellfish" moment from the Bible. I can see it somewhat making sense back then, when making a living often involved punching or breaking things.

I don't see that dynamic as relevant any more. Females have been shown to be magnificent leaders with prudence and sensibility (and sometimes tenacity) that have eclipsed many of their male contemporaries, on all levels, from leading families to leading entire nations.

Manach

Given the underlying reflection of common law of definition marriage was based on the commonly understood sacrament of marriage, as per Hyde's definition - reflecting what was once a cultural shared Western norm. Now this has been shattered, with marriage a lesser option rather than as a default choice and the linked increase of broken homes a testament on 20thC social engineering gone amok.

jill_valentine

philologos wrote: »

No. Read the bottom text and you'll find that the husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Hardly tyrannical. Indeed it's radical and if more people followed this the world would be a better place not a worse one.

It's pretty clearly an inherently unbalanced dynamic and seeing somebody fail to see why and describe it as beautiful is disturbing in the extreme.

"Wives submit to your husbands in everything. He's your boss, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, and lads, be nice to her. She needs you to "sanctify" her, after all."

No part of that is "beautiful". Absolutely not. Not unless you believe that men should automatically have "authority" over the women around them, that women benefit from such an arrangement, and that the enactment of such a notion is a sublime and sacred thing we should all celebrate and perpetuate.

Are we to understand from this that it is inherent to the Christian model of marriage that a woman's role is to be subjugated for her own benefit?

philologos

I had a feeling there'd be a bit of a backlash on this topic, but that's good. I make no apologies about believing in Scripture and I believe the Biblical description of marriage shows us what God has ordained for marriage, or what God's design is in marriage.

Gumbi wrote: »

"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,"

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands"

I agree, I believe in Biblical headship. The Bible presents the husband as the head of the family. Where the misconception comes in is when people assume that means that the husband ignores their wife, or it assumes that the husband takes a tyrranical position over their wife. I disagree entirely, the Bible condemns that.

Rather the Bible says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. Now if is there is an objection to that on the atheists part they haven't realised what that actually means. If you don't acknowledge that Jesus laid down His life for the church, and if you don't acknowledge that Jesus took the wrath of God on the behalf of church then you don't understand what self-sacrifice in that context looks like.

Gumbi wrote: »

Looks pretty black and white to me. If you want to submit to the Church yourself that seems OK to me, but don't push it on others.

The Bible doesn't advocate intermarriage of Christians with those of other religions, or no religion. It is important that if you are going to be as one flesh that you are likeminded in the Lord and that you are ready and prepared to raise children who walk in the Lord and in the Gospel.

So I'm not pushing that idea on anybody who refuses to acknowledge Jesus. I think Biblical marriage should be taught in churches, and I think Christians should be seeking marriage on the basis of Biblical principles rather than secularised ones.

We are not a part of the world, we belong to Christ, as a result we seek to form our views of the world on the Gospel.

JimiTime wrote: »

Many professing Christians have indeed not shown that marriage is sacred, but then many professing Christians are hypocritical. However, they would be acting outside of Christianity when they indulge in no-fault divorce, commit adultery etc. There are still a great multitude of Christians who DO act in a Christian manner with regards to marriage. Many Christians don't even realise how radical marriage is in terms of being 'One Flesh'. You are no longer the owner of yourself, but rather share yourself with your spouse.

The view of marriage exemplified in Scripture is a covenant relationship that actually models both the covenant relationship of God in Israel if we look in Malachi, and the new covenant relationship in Christ. It is utterly astounding how valuable the Bible places marriage.

Not only is it the loving union of a man and a woman forever, God is saying look at marriage, look at two becoming one flesh, actually I made it so that you can see how much I love you, and how I love you unconditionally, laying down Jesus for the sake of you.

Morbert wrote: »

The husband as the head of the household sounds an awful lot like another "no shellfish" moment from the Bible. I can see it somewhat making sense back then, when making a living often involved punching or breaking things.

I don't see that dynamic as relevant any more. Females have been shown to be magnificent leaders with prudence and sensibility (and sometimes tenacity) that have eclipsed many of their male contemporaries, on all levels, from leading families to leading entire nations.

I believe in the Biblical concept of marriage, and many others do also. Indeed, our church goes to great lengths to ensure that we have a Biblical understanding of it. Indeed it has been interesting during sermon series to look at how the Bible is applicable to real life in the 21st century. Actually this afternoon it came up again when we were looking at Malachi 2:10-16.

I think it is utterly beautiful that a marriage is a microcosm of God's love towards us, or indeed of Christ's relationship with the church.

I guess this claim is contentious in the eyes of the world. I make this claim because Christians need to engage the world with the gospel rather than shying away from foundational teaching.

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's pretty clearly an inherently unbalanced dynamic and seeing somebody fail to see why and describe it as beautiful is disturbing in the extreme.

"Wives submit to your husbands in everything. He's your boss, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, and lads, be nice to her. She needs you to "sanctify" her, after all."

No, it isn't be nice to her. It's lay down your life for her. This is why you need to understand what happened at the cross before you even understand what it is written here.

And you've not understood what happened at the cross properly until you realise that Jesus is Lord and that by repenting and acknowledging Him as your Lord and Saviour you can be forgiven and receive eternal life.

Paul in writing to the Ephesians already has the above philosophical framework in place. With atheists and agnostics, we simply don't.

jill_valentine wrote: »

No part of that is "beautiful". Absolutely not. Not unless you believe that men should automatically have "authority" over the women around them, that women benefit from such an arrangement, and that the enactment of such a notion is a sublime and sacred thing we should all celebrate and perpetuate.

Are we to understand from this that it is inherent to the Christian model of marriage that a woman's role is to be subjugated for her own benefit?

It's not subjugation. It's submission to a loving husband, a husband so loving that he will put the marriage before himself. That's God's design for marriage.

Obviously, this concept shows that a same-sex marriage for example can't fulfill the criteria for a Christian marriage if we spend a while looking at the theology behind it.

I think both parties benefit from a Biblical understanding.

Benny_Cake

This is something of a live issue amongst evangelical Christians in particular at the moment, as there are a number of leading figures who are re-emphasising traditional gender roles (ie;male headship) - Mark Driscoll being one of the most prominent. The debate has been lively,to put it mildly. Another take on Ephesians by Christian writer and feminist Rachel Held-Evans is lengthy but worth a read:

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mutuality-household-codes

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

This is something of a live issue amongst evangelical Christians in particular at the moment, as there are a number of leading figures who are re-emphasising traditional gender roles (ie;male headship) - Mark Driscoll being one of the most prominent. The debate has been lively,to put it mildly. Another take on Ephesians by Christian writer and feminist Rachel Held-Evans is lengthy but worth a read:

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mutuality-household-codes

Thank you very much for this. I'm no doubt going to find this a very very interesting read.

I'm biased, but I wouldn't say that they are re-emphasising traditional roles, rather they are emphasising what the Bible actually says, but people would expect me to say this

I don't hold back here because I think unless we get to the core of the issue we won't actually deal with it.

Zombrex

Wives submit, husbands love. Charming :rolleyes:

jill_valentine

Zombrex wrote: »

Wives submit, husbands love. Charming :rolleyes:

Indeed. It's a wonder 50 Shades seemed to come as such a shock to so many Christians, really. :rolleyes:

You can dress it up in all the flowery language you like, but the model of marriage set out in the aforementioned bible passage is a horrible deal for women, and it's meant to be a horrible deal for women. The whole thrust of it is that she's supposed to be over the moon that her husband is giving her the time of day - she's loved by him, the lucky dog! - in return for her total subservience to his automatic, god given mastery as her keeper. Disgusting.

I'm legitimately shocked to see anybody try and offer that human pet/owner arrangement as a positive or attractive thing to perpetuate in polite society. To be honest, it strikes me as one of the passages you should be shuffling under the carpet along with the stuff about stoning disobedient children.

It's "beautiful" if you're on the winning side, I suppose.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Wives submit, husbands love. Charming :rolleyes:

Have you even tried to understand, before throwing out the usual shallow atheist one-liners? No doubt the seals will clap their fins, but surely YOU are beyond this type of thing no?

JimiTime

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indeed. It's a wonder 50 Shades seemed to come as such a shock to so many Christians, really. :rolleyes:

You can dress it up in all the flowery language you like, but the model of marriage set out in the aforementioned bible passage is a horrible deal for women, and it's meant to be a horrible deal for women. The whole thrust of it is that she's supposed to be over the moon that her husband is giving her the time of day - she's loved by him, the lucky dog! - in return for her total subservience to his automatic, god given mastery as her keeper. Disgusting.

I'm legitimately shocked to see anybody try and offer that human pet/owner arrangement as a positive or attractive thing to perpetuate in polite society. To be honest, it strikes me as one of the passages you should be shuffling under the carpet along with the stuff about stoning disobedient children.

It's "beautiful" if you're on the winning side, I suppose.

No doubt its been abused by misogynists, but the marriage arrangement IS beautiful. You just need to understand what Love entails. Its not about the self, and thus your idea of 'womens rights' or somesuch entering into it is as misplaced as the concept of being able to FALL in or out of love. Again though, its no doubt its been abused over the years.
From a Godly perspective, its nothing to do with tyranny, or some kind of 'boss' arrangement. To think of it in such a manner really misses the point. You must understand the 'ONE FLESH' concept if you want to be rid of your misconception. How can a person be a tyrant over themselves? Was Jesus a tyrant when he went through life for his people and met his torturous end for his body (church)?
A husband was told to give himself to his wife sexually, as well as a wife to her husband, for they were no longer the sole owner of themselves. Its a complimentary relationship, that reflects God somehow (In the image of God they were created, Male and Female).
As a man who is nearly 10 years married, I can tell you that my experience is that my body (Wife) has never dominated me, nor have I (The Head) dominated her. Rather, we have complimented each other (most of the time ) When it comes to Love, I can assure you, the idea of a boss does not eneter the equation. The fact that you would introduce the concept, would maybe suggest that you don't understand Love, or more specifically, the deep love of God, and ths the Love a Christian should seek to emulate. No doubt the sentimental, and often selfish concepts about the place these days have probably corrupted peoples notion of Love.

jill_valentine

Love is not a non-reciprocal submission of one person to an automatically authoritative other.

Or if it is, we need another name for the thing where two people who feel a beautiful, profound and passionate affection for one another form a partnership, because it's not that. What you're presenting is the notion that this one way street is an equal deal because, naturally, the husband's love is in itself such a marvellous and precious and superior thing that it offers her as much as her absolute submission as a person would offer to him.

Ugh, the awfulness of the concept you're trying to spin positively here is compounded by how blankfaced you seem to be about how horrifying the implications. "No no, you don't understand! She gets to submit in everything to him! So that he can sanctify her, so that he might present her to himself in splendor! It's great! It's like we're too generous!"

It makes my skin crawl to watch rational adult humans defend an idea that defines another human being as their subject and expect them to feel grateful and blessed by such a role. And to tell me that I don't understand love?

By all means, put that passage on billboards all over the country. Add a silver tie and some handcuffs and you'll be on to a real winner.

philologos

Where does Paul say it's not reciprocal?

The point is that though a wife submits to ones husband out of reverence for Christ, the husband loves and serves his wife as Christ lived the church and gave Himself up for her.

This structure precludes abuse of any kind and really isn't subjugation.

I think that marriage according to God's design is beautiful indeed as I see a Christian marriage based on these principles working it is beautiful.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

By all means, put that passage on billboards all over the country. Add a silver tie and some handcuffs and you'll be on to a real winner.

Ignoring the last piece because it is based on a misinterpretation of what is being said I wouldn't be in disagreement with someone putting that beautiful quote up on a billboard. It promotes far better value to ones wife or indeed to women in general than many billboards featuring women or marriage do in the world.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Ignoring the last piece because it is based on a misinterpretation of what is being said I wouldn't be in disagreement with someone putting that beautiful quote up on a billboard. It promotes far better value to ones wife or indeed to women in general that many billboards featuring women or marriage do in the world.

[Citation needed]


My husband would be insulted if I submitted to him. He married an equal, not some helpmeet.

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

[Citation needed]


My husband would be insulted if I submitted to him. He married an equal, not some helpmeet.

Citation needed in what respect?

A billboard that promotes an entirely loving marriage is better than some billboards we see featuring women as mere sex objects or heavily implying such, and marriage as just a piece of paper, or movies disparaging married life and so on?

I think Ephesians 5 does regard men and women as equal. Scripture does as a whole if I look to say Galatians 3:28. What Ephesians 5 does state is that men and women have differing roles in marriage. Having different roles doesn't mean that a man and his wife aren't equal it just means that they serve differing functions within the marriage.

The view of leadership in the Bible doesn't mean a domineering position. Rather it means servant hearted leadership which puts others first. Indeed the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

lazygal

You're not married are you? So how would you know how it works? The headship/quiverfull/helpmeet movement in the USA has produced some pretty hairbrained ideas. How come wives submit to their husbands, are they unequal? Any woman I know would laugh at the idea of submitting to what's supposed to be a partner, not a headship.

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

You're not married are you? So how would you know how it works? The headship/quiverfull/helpmeet movement in the USA has produced some pretty hairbrained ideas. How come wives submit to their husbands, are they unequal? Any woman I know would laugh at the idea of submitting to what's supposed to be a partner, not a headship.

I know how it works because I see it. I have the blessing of regarding many married couples as close friends. Many of them hold to this passage as the model for Christian marriage.

It doesn't matter as to whether or not any woman you know would laugh at it, they can feel free to. Many women I know regard the Biblical idea of marriage as something beautiful. If you don't believe and trust in Jesus you're not going to be able to make sense of this because you don't know what Paul truly means when it says that Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.

By the by, my views aren't based on anyone in the US. They are based on the Bible so please have a bit of cop on and respond to the posts on their own merit.

lazygal

By the by, would you expect the woman you marry to submit to you? Would you expect her to promise to obey in the vows?
And by the by, the American movements I mentioned also base their actions and beliefs on the bible. Who's to know whether they're right and you've read it wrong.

philologos

I'm not going to discuss any organisation but what the Bible says, expecting me to comment on organisations in the US who had no role in forming my views on marriage is an absurdity.

What I will say is this if I do get married it will be to someone who believes and trusts in Jesus. Part of that of course means believing in a Christian position on marriage. Secondly if I do get married I'll see my main responsibility as servant hearted leadership in respect to my family. That's what the Bible puts forward as the design that God instituted for it at creation.

philologos

OP: can I point out that the Bible doesn't say that gay people are an abomination. It says that certain acts are an abomination. That's entirely different.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Have you even tried to understand, before throwing out the usual shallow atheist one-liners? No doubt the seals will clap their fins, but surely YOU are beyond this type of thing no?

I understand it perfectly, or at least I understand exactly the point the author is attempting to make.

I suspect you take a more romantic view of that passage, but then that just goes back to the discussion on the Gay mega thread about Christians having to put a modern milder twist on Biblical passages just to be a modern Christian.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss any organisation but what the Bible says, expecting me to comment on organisations in the US who had no role in forming my views on marriage is an absurdity.

What I will say is this if I do get married it will be to someone who believes and trusts in Jesus. Part of that of course means believing in a Christian position on marriage. Secondly if I do get married I'll see my main responsibility as servant hearted leadership in respect to my family. That's what the Bible puts forward as the design that God instituted for it at creation.

Servant hearted leadership is exactly what these movements believe, like Jesus first, others second, and yourself last. Sounds familiar to me. You didn't answer my question on whether the woman who'll submit to you will promise to obey, by the by.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

No doubt its been abused by misogynists, but the marriage arrangement IS beautiful. You just need to understand what Love entails. Its not about the self, and thus your idea of 'womens rights' or somesuch entering into it is as misplaced as the concept of being able to FALL in or out of love. Again though, its no doubt its been abused over the years.
From a Godly perspective, its nothing to do with tyranny, or some kind of 'boss' arrangement. To think of it in such a manner really misses the point. You must understand the 'ONE FLESH' concept if you want to be rid of your misconception. How can a person be a tyrant over themselves? Was Jesus a tyrant when he went through life for his people and met his torturous end for his body (church)?
A husband was told to give himself to his wife sexually, as well as a wife to her husband, for they were no longer the sole owner of themselves. Its a complimentary relationship, that reflects God somehow (In the image of God they were created, Male and Female).
As a man who is nearly 10 years married, I can tell you that my experience is that my body (Wife) has never dominated me, nor have I (The Head) dominated her. Rather, we have complimented each other (most of the time ) When it comes to Love, I can assure you, the idea of a boss does not eneter the equation. The fact that you would introduce the concept, would maybe suggest that you don't understand Love, or more specifically, the deep love of God, and ths the Love a Christian should seek to emulate. No doubt the sentimental, and often selfish concepts about the place these days have probably corrupted peoples notion of Love.

If there is no power relationship or if the relationship is supposed to be equal why does it tell men to love and women to submit?

Zombrex

jill_valentine wrote: »

Love is not a non-reciprocal submission of one person to an automatically authoritative other.

Or if it is, we need another name for the thing where two people who feel a beautiful, profound and passionate affection for one another form a partnership, because it's not that. What you're presenting is the notion that this one way street is an equal deal because, naturally, the husband's love is in itself such a marvellous and precious and superior thing that it offers her as much as her absolute submission as a person would offer to him.

Ugh, the awfulness of the concept you're trying to spin positively here is compounded by how blankfaced you seem to be about how horrifying the implications. "No no, you don't understand! She gets to submit in everything to him! So that he can sanctify her, so that he might present her to himself in splendor! It's great! It's like we're too generous!"

It makes my skin crawl to watch rational adult humans defend an idea that defines another human being as their subject and expect them to feel grateful and blessed by such a role. And to tell me that I don't understand love?

By all means, put that passage on billboards all over the country. Add a silver tie and some handcuffs and you'll be on to a real winner.

Great post.

To equate your wife as a part of your body, ie something you have complete control over and something that exists to serve you, but to then say it is ok cause you love your body you don't abuse it, well could something miss the point any more?

philologos

I'm not going to discuss any other organisation.

Needless to say I haven't thought extensively about what exact vows could be said at a potential marriage service and I don't think I have to have that decided now . I won't be doing that for you.

However, I will be looking to marry a Christian when that arises and someone who believes what the Bible says about marriage. I believe that the Biblical view on marriage as found in Ephesians and in other places is God's design for marriage. I don't see anything objectionable and I see what is described as being entirely beautiful.

jill_valentine

Well of course, it's a configuration that serves entirely to your benefit after all.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well of course, it's a configuration that serves entirely to your benefit after all.

I disagree that it is unequivocal. There is a huge responsibility on the husband's shoulders to actually lead in a servanthearted manner that follows the example of Jesus.

The point of the Christian concept of marriage is that both parties serve one another and serve their wider families. It benefits all involved.

Its a rather trite reading of the passage to suggest that this model benefits only the husband. From what is there and from what I've seen in respect to married couples who do follow this model that's not how it works in practice.

jill_valentine

I know, I only imagine how heavy the responsibility of having a wife must weigh. Is she fed, is she indoors when it rains, has she got enough straw...

It's absolutely laughable to try and spin the "burden" of being in charge of another as being in any way comparable to the assumption of another adult's submission to your inherently superior authority. The unblinking arrogance of that thought process is staggering. It puts me in mind of old colonial soldiers whinging about the burden of civilising the conquered locals, as if that's somehow the worst part of the transaction.

How selfless indeed this Christian love.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I disagree that it is unequivocal. There is a huge responsibility on the husband's shoulders to actually lead in a servanthearted manner that follows the example of Jesus.

Why is the husband the leader? Is that purely because he happens to be of the same gender as Jesus?

I'm laughing at the idea of 'lead in a servanthearted manner' because that's precisely the biblical misogyny that's inspired leaders like Bill Gothard, the Pearls, and numerous other 'headship' movements in the USA. Yet they claim to be following the same book you do when instructing men to be the leaders and wives their helpmeets.
It's almost as if other Christians read the same bible you have and came to slightly similar conclusions, even though your 'version' of 'servanthearted' isn't the same as theirs.

philologos

Jill, honestly if you're not actually interested in finding out more about this and if you're intent on being facetious there's not much point.

If you're interested to chat further that's fine, if not or if you're not going to take this seriously it's better that we didn't.

My position doesn't say that husbands are superior to their wives. It doesn't require that assumption to be made. Indeed the Bible doesn't state it.

lazygal: I've told you I'm not going to discuss organisations I don't have a clue about, but I will discuss Scripture.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

My position doesn't say that husbands are superior to their wives. It doesn't require that assumption to be made. Indeed the Bible doesn't state it.

But husbands are required to be leaders? There's an inherent imbalance of power in a leader/submissive relationship.

What do unmarried or widowed women do? Who's their servant, leading them in submission?

Of course if you don't want to continue to defend the misogyny in the bible that's entirely understandable. My headship/servant leader person isn't here so I guess my submission to him is off the table for now, so I can post freely!

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

lazygal: I've told you I'm not going to discuss organisations I don't have a clue about, but I will discuss Scripture.

I'll lead you through them if you like, as they also follow scripture.

Here's some reading to be getting on with:
http://iblp.org/questions/how-can-i-meet-my-husbands-basic-needs
http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/excerpts-from-created-to-need-a-help-meet/?topic_slug=fathers-marriage


Now they follow scripture. How come their form of misogyny is not true, but yours is? How do you know God hasn't acted to guide you to post here, following those wise men, and reject your current form of scripture? How come they got it wrong?

philologos

I'm not going to discuss other groups. I'm going to discuss the Bible only. I've made that clear already.