A Witty Title.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Firstly, in reguards to the other guys post, it isn't very emotional, graphic yes, emotional not so much.

Secondly; If those 4 are the 'list of things she needs, which could be shared between all people' you, dear boy, are living a world vastly smaller than the one in which i though you did.
 

Sorry, I need to clarify what I menat by emotional. For someone who is basically treating god in the way that the prostitute in the story did at times. At least a lot more frequently than I would like, It was emotional for me, because it challenged me about my attitudes, and basically said to me in no uncertian terms that I was wrong.

Read it again, and imagine that the person you most identify with in that story is the prositiute and youll have some idea of how I feel.


Im not quite sure I understand your second comment. I do however feel that any girl I was considering as a marriage partner should have those four characteristics. And I would strongly recomend the same 4 characteristics to ANY /CHRISTIAN/ friend of mine who was evaluating a potential partner.

I would recomend 4 even to a non-christian.

Can you explain in more detail what you were getting at?
 

Firstly, were I the whore (BTW I am aware that 'the whore' is a metafor for humanity) in that little analogy, and able to see myself as i am, then i would have long since rid both Jesus & the world of the burden of my existance.

Secondly; thankyou for the 'christian' clarification. It now makes that part of the post make a lot more sense. The problem I was having was that that particular clarification was missing from the origional post and your language in said post was very much one of absolutes. In light of this allow me to appologise for the harshness of my responce.
 

Don't you mean lust your pizza?
 

Um, Naranater, You may want to recheck my terms. I use the following gender specific terms persiod in the whole piece.

Girl/boy
Guy/girl
he/she
female

Man and woman are also used one in the same sentence.

Now correct me if im wrong, but there all on the same level. Guy/Girl Boy/Girl

How does this make me a bad person?
 

What a potential samovar of fingaling!

Firstly, list all you want. But bear this in mind: as far as I am aware I have never met anyone who has ended up in a relationship with someone who actually met all of their... um... well, requirements just became the wrong word but you know what I mean. In the end, you fall for whom you fall for. And either God wants the union or he doesn't. You pray, you read the bible and you make up your own mind about whether or not the relationship is right in terms of your faith or for you. But sometimes God chooses for you for reasons you don't understand or sometimes you just fall, whether it is right or not. I think experience is important and while I don't believe in relationships for the sake of relationships, sometimes you will end up with people who surprise you, who seem to fit your criteria but don't, or seem not to but actually do. And you can't know, only observe and guess and hope and pray. So keep your lists if you feel you need them, but be ready to readjust your point of view at a moment's notice.

Don't get me wrong, personally I think the ideals on your list are noble in as much as they come from a very Christian perspective and if I had a list it would be close to that. But I feel you need to remember that they are exactly that: ideals. And all people are imperfect, including you, so not only is it possible to only sometimes fulfil such prerequisites, but our judgement is also flawed so we may miss them when they are there.

While I agree with you and naranater to a certain extent in your approach to relationships that states don't get in unless you are serious, I also feel very strongly that you shouldn't get married unless the relationship works and you don't know until you've actually tried. Unpopular point of view, amongst christians in partciular, and I know it. But I still feel it is something important to take into consideration. Too many christians I know have rushed into marriage for all the wrong reasons and being trapped ina relationship that God says you may not leave does not lead to love and respectfor either your partner or your God.

Secondly, naranater, I feel you are being somewhat pedantic. But, since that is pretty much endemic in this group, it's almost certainly besides the point. While I agree that any love in this world is flawed from a christian perspective, relationships between women and men are supposed to bring both individuals closer to God: look at the number of times that marriage is used as a metaphor for the relationship between God/Christ and christians/the church. It is supposed to aid us in focusing our attention on God, offering us a built-in support that is sanctified by God himself. So the love between to individuals in this kind of relationship is suposed to be a reflection and an indication of the love God holds for each of us. Even as a pale echo of that love, the power that is in the love we experience on earth still holds great majesty in the eyes of God. Love, in the end, is love, and is therefore great and holy.

Wait, you love McDonalds? Ew!

As for the communications thing, I agree with naranater: it doesn't just happen. And since everyone communicates differently, it requires work within the relationship to find the ways of communicating that works best for the two of you together. It isn't just something you look for in a partner. It's something you work at with a partner.

All that said, if I were to create a list there is one thing that would be on it. Something which does not appear on yours. And it is this: that my partner should not want power over me, nor wish that I had power over him. That, indeed, we should work together as equals, not as leader and follower. Which means that he and I share love and respect for one another. You have that the rest is peripherary: if my lover can respect my faith, then I can accept it if he does not share it, though it would sadden me. And yes, I am aware that God would have us marry those who have faith in him. He also provides contexts for relationships that do not involve shared faith. I simply feel lucky that Psi and I share our faith. Again, unpopular, but there you are. We are none of us perfect, so who is to judge but God.
 

Hmm, I will have to disagree with you at one point LL. More a point of clarification about what you said about leader and follower.
I believe that the bible puts forward a 'heirachy amongst equals' view on the marriage relationship. Just as Jesus is equal with the father, he still submits to the father.
In a marriage relationship, you are equals, however the role of the man is to lead and the role of the woman is to submit to that leadership (see Gen 2 and Eph 5).
The troule with society today is that submitting to somoene has all sorts of bad connotations of one person ordering the other around. I dont think this is what the bible means. As law abiding citizens, we submit to the law of the land. By keeping speed limits and so on.
Just because the man has the job of leading, doesnt mean he is better than her, it just means he has more responsibility. Who likes responsibility?
I believe that is part of the curses in Gen 3. The man will basically not like his job, and the woman will desire her husbands role of leadership (that's what I think when I read the curse "Your desire will be for him, but he will rule over you").
That is the trouble with so many relationships these days. The man has shirked his responsibility and the order that God put in place has been upended.
That is what happened in the fall. Instead of God leading the man, who led the woman who together led creation, the order was turned on it's head and the creation (serpent) led the woman who led the man.
If you noticed it is always called Adam's sin, not Eve's, even though she was decieved and ate the fruit first.
Note the wording in Genesis 3:17 "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you...".
It wasnt that he listened to what she had to say, but instead of leading her, she led him.
If God blesses me with a wife, I will treat and view her as my equal. That being said, the responsibility of presenting her pure and blameless in Christ on the last day is mine. I plan to take that responsibility seriously and lead the two of us in a way that is in line with that goal.

I have gone on for a bit and I know it isnt really related to the post so much, but I think this is important stuff that people have lots of issues about.
 

I disagree on a point yo have made Stu, I dont think that a man has more responsibility than a woman- I do however believe that they have other responsibilities- not more or less- ust different.
 

yeah, sorry, I didnt mean to word it that way. I think I meant had more leadership responsibility.
I agree that the responsibilities are equal but different.
Thanks for the comment.
 

Stoobie: "the responsibility of presenting her pure and blameless in Christ on the last day is mine. I plan to take that responsibility seriously and lead the two of us in a way that is in line with that goal."

Yes, absolutely. But it is her responsibility to do the same for you. This is a responsibilityn which is not purely yours. She must present herself thusly before Christ, just as you must, and she must present you in the same way as you must her.

As for the rest, I could quibble with you but it would purely be about personal interpretations of the bible. You are free to read it as you wish, as am I, so I shall not argue with you. Just be aware that this is a matter of personal interpretation (especially Genesis 3) and that, as such, you canot expect, nor require, all christians to agree with you.

Oh, and what Mel said. I agree and, indeed, said the exact same thing to Psi while reading Stoobie's comment and before reading her's.

I personally feel that the bible does not call the man to lead the woman in a marriage relationship, but rather calls each to lead each, to aid each and advise each. Again, it is not a matter of more responsiblities, or even necessarily different responsibilities, but dealing differently with the same responsibilities.
 

This is one of my big sticking points with the faith as a whole. It's an inherently sexist viewpoint, and I can't help but recognise that it's one that holds little to no moral weight - sexism - along with racism and classism - has most often been used as a societal tool to keep The Plebians In Their Place.
 

Frankly, Stoobie, I hope for the sake of your future wife that you don't marry until you've come to a better understanding of certain things. The idea that the "responsibility of presenting her pure and blameless in Christ on the last day is mine" is the most offensive thing I have ever heard any body imply about women. That responsibility belongs to woman in question and her only - you have no right to take it from her. The idea that /anybody/ could suggest that they can take responsibility for a person's life away from them - barring for obvious cases where the person in question does not have the facilities to be responsible for said life - appals me.

And since you asked, I like responsibility, at least insofar as my own life goes. Indeed, I daresay the fact that generations of women stood up and said that they weren't going to put up with a bullshit world where they were as devoid of responsibility as rights, means that most women would tend to agree.

"The trouble with so many relationships these days" is not that some ridiculous and belittling "natural order" of God's will has been upturned, it's because males and females are /still/ - after all these years - taught to treat each other as something other than just people. The bible is very largely to blame for this, because people interpret it the way that you do. Any relationship which is not of two /genuine/ equals - not just some lame excuse about how both are equal, just women are less equal than men because God made one after the other! - is going to result in problems. If people would just grow up and start viewing the opposite sex as other freaking people rather than bizarre, alien creatures to be desired but never understood, a hell of a lot of relationships would be on the road to healing.

Not to mention the fact that the working of something as complex as human relationships should never have such narrow rules as these applied to them. Nobody but the individuals concerned has any damn right to tell two people what their roles in a relationship are, because nobody but them knows the roles in which they would best fit. The hell with some natural order of sexism - the fact is, many men are not able (or inclined!) to lead, and many woman /are/. People need to find their own places in something as intensely personal as a romantic relationship, and the idea of trying to force either gender into either role because God says so is a sickening as it is insulting.

In short, if what you say is true, then I am never more happy than I am now to have set aside Christianity. I can't believe that any person could respect - let along /obey/ - any god who expects them to be subservient to another person just because that person is their husband (or wife - it really wouldn't matter which gender this favours). And don't argue that subservience isn't what you're describing, Stoobie - you can cast it as nicely as you want, but "the role of the woman is to submit to that leadership" is kind of obvious. I only hope that more Christians take a sensible and mature viewpoint on this, like Laurel-li.

On that note, Laurel-Li and Naranater, I love you guys. Your comments have made me as happy as Stoobie's have made me angry. Though, Naranater, I believe "woman" is extremely preferable to "lady", since "lady" generally comes with implications of being ladylike, and I actually know quite a few females who find /that/ as offensive as "girl". Just saying.
 

BTW...

"In the end, you fall for whom you fall for."

...is still the most simple, true and relevant thing that could possibly be said in response to the original post.I don't think your ideals are misplaced, Chindoguu, but when it comes to it, you'll fall for the person you fall for, regardless of whether or not she (I would say "they", but my view on sexuality in an entirely separate can of worms and for your sake I'll just say "she") fits your list.
 

Fox: personally, my feeling is that a marriage style relationship also involves responsibilities to and for one another, taking care of them but also helping them stand up under the consequences of their actions, kind of helping them shoulder their burden by shouldering it yourself. To me, sharing is an important part of a relationship, whether you are sharing the good or the bad. When such a relationship involves God, then one of those responsibilities is to help your partner, not only in everyday things or the things of this world, but also with things of the next world, with faith and living a life worthy in God's eyes. Thus, part of the role of a chrsitian partner is to present their partner before God having done as much as they possibly can to keep them true to him and to help them live in such a way that would please him. It's kind of like a built-in faith support group of two. I do, however, strongly agree with you in that this is not purely the role of the male in the relationship but is something that both , at the very least, should try to partake in, not only because that kind of sharing of responsibility is an important part of any such relationship but because God asks it. This is more for clarification that anything else; I don't mean to beleaguer the point.

On the whole, Stoobie's viewpoint is a very common (highly fundamentalist and, at the moment, very popular) viewpoint amongst Christians. Misguided as I feel it is, he has the right to hold it. On the other hand, I agree with you. Personally, I feel that it is an unhealthy attitude to have in relationships, especially if those relationships are to progress in a Godly manner. And it takes a very particular (and very rare) type of woman to fill that kind of idealised role in a marriage in a way that is succesful. But, again, this is my point of view and I am not asking anyone to agree with it unless they particularly wish to or find some merit in it for themselves.

Also, "you fall for whom you fall for" (the fact that I wrote it [and that it is bad grammar] not withstanding) is, I feel important, but also very difficult in a christian setting, in particular, but also in the world as a whole. After all, how often do people fall for others who are just not right for them? How often do people fall in love with people who are abusive, or neglectful, or just couldn't give a damn about them? I think that falling in love can be wonderful (and painful) but it needs to be tempered by the intellet as well; even if one is in love, some realtionships just aren't going to work.

Oh and "woman", "girl", "lady... pah! I am female, hear me make some kind of loud yawping noise. As far as I am concerned, female or not, I'm human and a member or society. There are so many things that can be used to define me that are clearer and far more important than my gender. As I keep saying (in reagrd to the odious concept of "women's literature), I am a christian first, Psi's second, a writer third. Female comes a long way down the list and is incidental.
 

May i recomend listening to a series of talks by Phillip Jensen called "Love, Sex and Marriage"? He presents a Biblical perspective on nearly all the issues covered in the comments and original post. (eg. christian-nonchristian relationships, trial marriages, having lists about what you want in a partner, "interpreting" the Bible rather than reading it)
 

Just a personal reflection - I don't think these comments about Jensen are fair. He does have a confidence in what he believes the bible to say. But he is also willing and able to pubically acknowledge if he has read the bible wrongly.

And on the topic at hand, I also believe that these tapes are well worth listening to, But yes, revaluate them by the bible.

For my two cents. I've not worked out totally what Christian-submission is, but I don't believe a "submissive" wife is a doormat or subserviant.

But my challenge is to do everything I can even to the point of sacrificing my life to assist and help her to become more like Christ. As my wife will also point and challenge me to be more like Christ.

In terms of lists, I guess I've often worried more about who I am, and my character. That is, who am I, as I flawed human being, to demand more than I am willing to be.
 

Firstly, I think this has wandered somewhat from Matt's original post. However, that being noted...

While I have respect for Phillip Jensen for the very reason Duncan gives (the fact that he has on, at least one occasion that I know of, publicly apologised for getting something wrong), I do feel that this doesn't vindicate everything he does and says. And he really does have a very fundamentalist viewpoint on christianity which is not always helpful, accurate or, indeed, healthy for faith or church. Certainly no more so than any other view. And as such (and as a flawed individual like the rest of us) we should not consider him to be in a position to make faith-based decisions for other people or use him as a basis for dimissing other points of view or ostracising hose who hold them. His is but one interpretation in a sea of many, some with more biblical basis than others, and who is to say which is entirely correct except God himself.

Whether 'submissive'or not, a woman has the same responsibilities and rights as a man, whether in a relationship or not. God doesn't love one more than the other. Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover one and not the other, or even only partially cover the other. God doesn't require that we get married at all. So, does a woman's role change more than a man's when she enters a relationship? Does the man become her master, instead of God? I don't believe so and there are many people who agree with me, many christians who don't hold to an absolute, fundamentalist, "I'm-right-and-in-disagreeing-with-me-you prove-yourself-wrong" viewpoint of the christian faith. As naranater point out, this is a matter of conflicting viewpoints, differing perspectives and interpretations of what the bible physically states. (Which is especially interesting when at least half the people commenting here are highly familiar with and sensitive too language and its uses and connotations.) No matter how one reads the bible, it ends up being an interpretation: one looks at what is written in a particular translation and reads it through the understanding you already have, made up of bible-reading, one's understanding of the faith, one's experiences of the church, sermons one has heard and so on and so forth. And one interpretation is not necesarily any more or less accurate than another. In the end, only God knows, and we have to go with what we think he is saying.

I do think, however, that one can make a distinction, of sorts, between 'interpreting' and 'reading' the bible and that much of the discussion over this is confusion over language and connotation, and some pedantry. The big difference, as far as I'm concerned, is how you come to the bible. The former is about having preconceived notions about what the passage is going to tell you and therefore ignoring what the passage actually says (the axe-grinding soapbox phenomenon you find everywhere in academia but nowehere worse than in English literature) so to make it say what you want it to say. The latter, on the other hand, is about coming to the bible with an open heart, hoping that God will speak to you and being willing to hear his word. And it takes a hell of a lot of hard work to do the latter, since we are all sinful, and even if you succeed what God says to you may not be the same as what he has said to others. But this even further off topic.

That said, I think Duncan has an interesting point: what right have we to require something which is more than we can necessarily fulfill ourselves? If it happens, then hallelujah for the blessings that God gives. But if it doesn't, then one has to recognise that no one in this world is perfect.

I do, however, have one question. Where's Matt?
 

Damnit, I meant to add this. Haoran (who is engaged) recently posted this on his blog. I thought it might add yet another viewpoint to the mish-mash.
 

Ok, this has gotten seriously out of scope and control. Heres what Im going to do. Im going to post a bunch of dummie topics on my blog, and we can have these various discussion continue under the appropriate hedding. Im gonna try to keep em reasonably broad, but feel free to go away from the topic I name, as long as the point is related enough to be relevent to what was being said here or there.

If you think i've missed an importand topic, post as such here, and Ill create it.

Thanks

Oh, and one other thing. Try to keep it civil guys. I know some of you have quite stron opinions on some of these topics. Just remember that so does the other person, and if you want him/her to accept that you could be right, the first thing you have to do is be willing to consider the reverse.

(P.S. the topic for the guy girl thing can be found over on Naranater's blog. No point having that discussion in two places.)
 

Ok, I've said all i'm going to say for today. Please keep in mind, that in all I said, I wrote all this rather quickly. If i've misspoken and offended you, please forgive me!

Thanks

Matt
 

As my comment has been commented on, I will comment here but will probably comment on the other posts after this.
From my understanding of the bible, and what I have been taught by faithful teachers of God's word, I posted what I understand to be a Christian view of marriage. I dont expect people who do not believe in that stuff to think it is right.
I dont think your role is what determines your worth. It may be hard to accept, but that is what I think.
When I was 10 my parents got divorced and I was raised by my mum. My dad didnt pay the child support he was supposed to. From that upbringing (and general life experience) I have an immense amount of respect for women and thoroughly 100% believe that women and men are equal. I also think we are different. I believe that the bible holds exactly the same view. Eve was made after Adam, who cares. That doesnt mean she is any less valuable. The unfortunate thing is that so many people (almost always men) have used these things to belittle women. Those who do that are crap.
Laurel-Li, In regards to the responsibility bit. I dont think the responsibility the bible puts on the husband takes away from the individual's responsibility (man's or woman's) of their trust and growth in Christ. Just clarifying.
One last thing, men are told to lead as Christ led, how did Christ lead? Well he led by sacrifice. The husband is called to give up what he wants for the betterment of his wife. This is how I believe men should lead. It's a pity so many dont.
 

Because this doesn't quite fit in any of the other threads - Laurel-li, in your response to me, I very much agree that marriage is about sharing, helping, etc. You do indeed have a responsibility to help and guide your partner when they need it, obviously. But I also feel that, while you have the resposibility to do everything you can to /help/ your partner to be what they want to be (in this case, a good Christian), help is all you can do - in the end, the responsibility is theirs, just as you must take responsibility for your own life. You can do everything you are able to do for a person, but in the end, they are the one who has the choices, and they are the only one who can be wholly responsible for their own life.

In the end, I guess is my point, you are just one influence on your spouse's choices; even above the responsibility to help them, you ultimately also have the responsibility to let them make their own choices. The way that their faith turns out is something you can offer advice and guidance over, as they can to you, but only the individual in question can ever truly choose which faith they follow and how they follow it (in terms of intent, if nothing else). Therefore, I believe, they are the only one who can take responsibility for it. Sure, you nede to be able to say that you did what you should have, that you fulfilled your responsibility to love and support them - but the choices they make, particularly over faith, are not something another person can ever be wholly responsible for.

I suspect I'm not telling you anything new, of course - I just wanted to clarify my standpoint on the matter.