U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 07-17-2010, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Washington State
3,371 posts, read 1,946,364 times
Reputation: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
I'm not wrong. How much day-to-day work have you done with the populations I've named? I work in the not-for-profit charitable sector and I deal with these populations every day.

But this is way off topic, so we can just drop it.
Nurse. Yes. Lets.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2010, 08:03 PM
 
6,197 posts, read 4,822,809 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Just wanted to point one thing out. While the divorce rate may have been lower before the 60's that does not mean marriages were happy. It just means miserable people did not divorce. I do think women's liberation has something to do with that. Now that we can earn a living and take care of ourselves we no longer have to stay in miserable marriages for financial reasons.

For all we know, marriages were just as bad back then as they are now.

My relationship with my husband will be a perfect mirror to a Christian's relationship with Christ when, like Christ, my husband is perfect. When God made man the head of the woman, he wasn't making him her boss. He was making him responsible. That's his punishment for sinning with eyes wide open (remember, Eve was fooled by the serpent, Adam was not but ate the fruit anyway. She believed a lie. He knew the truth but chose to sin.).

That said, I believe I should follow my husband's decisions unless I believe they are not in my best interest. I'll give you an example. I just got a new job. My husband wants to move to the community I will be working in because he wants the kids to go to school there. He wants to buy a house that I think is too expensive. He started explaining why he thinks we can afford it and I interjected that *I* can't afford it if something happens to him and pointed out that the term life policy we have on him was only intended to get the children through college. So now he's rethinking what we can afford but he has told me there will be a plan in place to pay off the house if something happens to him (can be done because he has a, sizable, inheritance from his parents that is slated to pass to the kids when he passes on). He wasn't thinking about what I'd do if he died. If we just bought that house without a plan to pay it off if he dies, I'd be out of my house as soon as the kids were in college because I wouldn't be able to afford to keep it once I was no longer collecting social security for the kids.

I do not think I was in the wrong to challenge him on this. He's not Christ. Christ would have taken my fears into consideration from the start because Christ knows the innermost workings of my heart and mind. My husband is human and, sometimes, makes decisions that don't consider all contingencies. While I do believe that the model for a Christian marriage should be the relationship of a Christian to Christ, we are imperfect humans so we're not likely to actually achieve the model and it goes both ways. Christ always has my best interest at heart. My husband is human and sometimes doesn't. He doesn't mean to not consider my fears. He just doesn't share them. If I died, between my life insurance and his inheritance, he's set for life while I will be struggling to keep a roof over my head after the kids are out of the house if he dies.

Just to explain the life insurance situatoin. I used to have a very good job, making twice what I make now with great benefits, that covered my husband's life insurance and my pay was high enough that I could handle the bills on my own. I did ask him to take out a second life insurance policy, when our daughter was born, but he felt it wasn't necessary (How was this modeling Christ in the relationship with a Christian?) Then he had a heart attack and, a couple of years later, I lost that job in a downsizing. Now life insurance is cost prohibitive for him. We pay a rediculous amount for what little we have and all it will do is get the girls through college. For me, not having a place to live when I'm 65 is a real fear. It isn't for him. Because I'm healthy, we could put five times the insurance on me we did on him for one tenth of the price. So moving is scary for me. The house we're in is half paid for and I could refinance it and stay in it if something happened to him. I can't do that in the houses he's looking at.
Excellent analysis, Ivory. I apologize; I missed your response the first time around. And you have some good points. But I'm not sure it negates Paul's instructions, or else the entire Bible is subject to revision due to changing mores over the centuries.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Kenmore, WA
6,837 posts, read 3,401,745 times
Reputation: 9511
Obey? Last time I heard, marriage was a partnership. Differences can be resolved, but no one has to obey. As far as that goes, I don't know of any state, or church, that requires grounds for a divorce. If you cannot work it out, move on.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 08:17 PM
 
6,197 posts, read 4,822,809 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by june 7th View Post



June's likin' the notion of the male "assuming the 'skirt' aspect" of the above.



June will "by pass" the demographics regarding how many Christian marriages end in divorce vs. otherwise secular ones. Either way, it would appear to June that "divorce" has become, and is far more common place than most (fundamentalist) Christians would like to acknowledge, or perhaps believe. Yet the data/facts are there for a reason. --Does June discount the fact that there is a "societal" aspect contained within that fact? No, of course she doesn't. But when others do, and pretend that they are exempt from the realities of life in spite of, or within the practice of their faith, that's when June goes "Oh really!?"

It's 2010. June does not discount or disrespect people of faith. But she is a realist, and somehow suspects she knows the difference between how people portray themselves and "real life."



Given the time and culture in which Paul wrote what he did to the Ephesians, June has no problem saying that for all she knows, perhaps he was a "sexist pig" as you put it. June also is able to acknowledge and understand that there would have been very good reasons, based on the time period in which Paul wrote to the Ephesians, that he said what he did. June's not so sure that one can rely upon, much less quote Ephesians without seeing it within the context within which it was written.

But that is also why June said that to her way of thinking/reading, the NT as a whole (it's over arching message) needs to be understood and applied as regards "Christian marriage" and divorce. One cannot take one portion and hold another person to a standard, without also understanding the overall message, collectively, and holding oneself to that standard, as well. Otherwise, you are saying that there is a built-in inequity as regards the overall message of your God, and that to resort to a purely patriarchal mindset of 100 AD is an adequate solution for living in modern society. It's not.

June says this with the notion in mind that for those who rely on what they read in scripture as regards modern living in general, and divorce in particular, there needs to be some degree of understanding as regards the overall context of both what it means to be a Christian, as well as what it means to be in a Christian marriage. BOTH partners have a "role" within any marriage. All June is saying is that the designated "roles" are not as concretized as they were at the time that the NT was written. We don't live in that same era.

The message, however, when interpretted accurately, should have some element of "timelessness" but one must extract the true message independent of who they are, and in what era they live in.



So does this mean that a MAN'S relationship to his WIFE should not also be a "perfect mirror" to a Christian male's relationship with Christ? Of course not. Even the little "just June" heathen can somehow extract from that the true content and meaning behind what she reads. --And why does an atheist say this?

--Because your Gospels have to be "living gospels" independent of time and culture. Otherwise you are denouncing the validity of God (and more specifically, Jesus) and the relevance they would/should have for all mankind. Something tells June you don't wish to do that. But again, by the same token, male Christians can't "have their cake and eat it too."

June would love (oh, so LOVE) to see a thread started asking what the male's role and obligation to a Christian marriage is....Because she is sensing that there is much conventient 'one-sidedness' in the OP, in general. That isn't what June has read and understood of the NT...But then, what does June know?

--Other than the fact that she does not feel that the women members who have responded to this OP have "tapped danced" around the issue. She has the very real sense that some very Christian women have responded with not only a good will effort to respond to the OP, but have done so in a way that most Christian men would perhaps otherwise not be comfortable with.

Theres a difference!


Take gentle contemporary Christian care.
June has made some very good points, true. But June has to remember that as a non-Christian she cannot "see" the Word of God as a Christian "sees" it and therefore it's content will be, to a certain degree, foolishness to her.

In all honesty, would June feel there was a smidge of truth to that?

And if June feels that Paul's words were written for the people of that time and that "things" have changed a little since then, it would be perfectly natural for June to take exception to any interpretation outside of June's own philosophical beliefs about the relationship between man and woman in marriage. It would also call into question for Christians the wisdom of even following the Bible if Christians could not believe its words are inerrant. If the Bible is inerrant, then all of Christianity is because who do we follow if God is errant?

Thrill apologizes. Thrill seems to be fighting this battle alone, for the most part. Thrill realizes he's opened a can of worms here and doesn't wish to cause offense to anyone on this issue. Thrill will go quietly into the night and repose. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 08:40 PM
 
7,462 posts, read 6,948,401 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
June has made some very good points, true. But June has to remember that as a non-Christian she cannot "see" the Word of God as a Christian "sees" it and therefore it's content will be, to a certain degree, foolishness to her.

In all honesty, would June feel there was a smidge of truth to that?
June, in being a "non-Christian" also possesses the capacity to "see" the Word in a way that most Christians can't. But able to "see" it nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
It would also call into question for Christians the wisdom of even following the Bible if Christians could not believe its words are inerrant.
They aren't. They're interperative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Thrill apologizes. Thrill seems to be fighting this battle alone, for the most part. Thrill realizes he's opened a can of worms here and doesn't wish to cause offense to anyone on this issue. Thrill will go quietly into the night and repose. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

No problem, Trill. We can take it!

Sleep well!

Last edited by june 7th; 07-18-2010 at 01:21 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Florida
559 posts, read 402,897 times
Reputation: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
What if a wife refuses to obey her husband in important decisions, says she's going to do what she wants, and this is detrimental to the relationship? Would this be grounds for the husband to divorce her? If not, then how can the marriage function properly when one spouse is in constant rebellion?
Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
If we are only going to use the scripture of wives submitting, then we must also use this scripture for only the husband-
Matthew 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [ Gen. 2:24]
The above scripture says the man will leave his father and mother, not the woman.
This is what I have seen work with married couples in Christ. They are One in Christ. Any and all decisions not in agreement are not One. They are separated. Wait on the Lord and continue in prayer until there is agreement. Pray that it is the Lord's will for the house, children, etc. If it is His will we know it will be good and work out perfectly, there will be peace for both, and the two that He has joined as One will not be separated in thought or deed. Seek Him first and wait until you are in agreement. One should not try to force, Christ does not force us. Be completely honest with your thoughts and emotions and details of the pro and cons of each situation, in a loving manner.
Also, maybe one is ready for a home in a different area and one is not-then the Lord is not ready. Maybe one is ready for children and one is not.
A woman having a child is a very big step, she is giving up her freedom and the responsibility of another human being is very overwhelming for some.

God Bless,
All things Christ.
Mercy
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 10:16 PM
 
6,197 posts, read 4,822,809 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
No problem, Trill. We can take it!
Even welcome it?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 10:28 PM
 
644 posts, read 418,629 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleHeart View Post
That's incorrect!!! History and testimonies reveal that the youth of the past were nowhere near in lacking morals and values like the youth of today.
Seriously? I guess you are right, it was adults burning witches and leading crusades and performing inquisitions and selling slaves and what not, not the youth.

P.S. I've been wanting to use that little bug eyed guy and this seems like a good time!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Washington State
3,371 posts, read 1,946,364 times
Reputation: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmalltownKSgirl View Post
Seriously? I guess you are right, it was adults burning witches and leading crusades and performing inquisitions and selling slaves and what not, not the youth.

P.S. I've been wanting to use that little bug eyed guy and this seems like a good time!

I would have to agree. A good time to use bug-eyed guy.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2010, 10:42 PM
 
644 posts, read 418,629 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
(sigh) I must not be asking the question in a comprehensive form. Let's try once more:

22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body.

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.


Please explain to me what Paul is saying in that verse. What is he advising? Can anyone answer just that question in 25 words or less?

Paul was writing a letter to a congregation. He was giving advice or directions of some kind, obviously. We don't have the other side of the conversation though, so we don't really know what specific issue Paul was addressing. Maybe some women were being outrageously disrespectful of their husbands and needed a strong talking to. Paul's letter was preserved though and is now part of our religious text. Should this particular passage have been retained and preserved? Does it truly reflect the Holy Spirit, or does it reflect the social mores of the time along with Paul's personal opinion?

Why, is 25 some kind of magic number?
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top