NYC pastor's list of men/women to avoid marrying

[Buster Cannon 1,432]

http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/

http://nycpastor.com/2014/10/23/10-men-christian-women-should-not-marry/

 

A pastor wrote these really thought-provoking lists in regards to finding a spouse as a Christian, and I think he makes some really good points on both lists.

 

 

10 WOMEN CHRISTIAN MEN SHOULD NOT MARRY

Posted on December 29, 2014 by Dr. Stephen Kim

By Dr. Stephen Kim

In a former post, I detailed 10 men that Christian women ought to avoid when considering marriage.  Today, I present to you my list for Christian men.

“I have perceived among the youths, a young man lacking sense, passing along the street near her corner, taking the road to her house†(Proverbs 7:7-8).

 

1. The Unbeliever. Scripture is replete with exhortations against such marriages (in both the Old and New Testaments).  Contrary to popular misconception, God’s prohibition against marriages to foreign women in the Old Testament was not due to racism.  Instead, God was simply preventing the spread of idolatry.  Israel, God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, represented what Christians would later represent in the New Testament.  Hence, God’s prohibition against marrying an unbelieving woman in the New Testament (2 Cor 6:14) is simply the extension of God prohibiting a Hebrew man from from marrying a Canaanite woman in the Old Testament (Deut 7:3-4).  “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you†(Deut 7:3-4).

What then, is a believer?  A Christian essentially is someone who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What then, is the gospel?  The gospel is: 1. God is holy, loving, and just.  He therefore, must condemn all sinners to punishment in the flames of eternal hell;  2. You and I are all sinners who deserve nothing but God’s wrath in hell after our deaths; 3. God loved humanity so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus (who was fully God and fully man), to die on the cross for your sins.  Jesus paid the debt for your sins and absorbed God’s wrath on your behalf.  3 days later, Jesus resurrected from the dead; 4. If you repent (turn from) all your sins and personally put your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, God and Savior, then you will have eternal life. (For more information on the saving message of the gospel, click here.)

 

2. The Divorcee. Jesus clearly taught that unless the first marriage ended due to a partner’s sexual infidelity, a second marriage is to be considered invalid and adulterous (I explain this teaching further here).  A divorced woman, therefore, is off limits for a Christian man–unrepentant adultery being a sin that prevents one from obtaining eternal life (1 Cor 6:9).  “If she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery†(Mark 10:12). “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery†(Matthew 19:9).

 

3. The Older Woman. Not a sin, but certainly not God’s ideal.  God expects men to be the spiritual leaders of the home (Eph 5:25) and it certainly requires an extra measure of grace to lead a woman who’s older than you.  Again, if you’re a man and you’re already in such a marriage, then honor it till the day you die–it’s still a valid marriage and divorce is not an option!  However, if you’re not yet married but thinking about an older woman I want to remind you that God intentionally (with good reason!) created Adam before Eve in the First Marriage.  Scripture informs us that God created man first chronologically for the sake of authority!  Listen:  “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve†(1 Timothy 2:12-13).  Evidently, within the First Marriage, God intended chronology (age) to be a reason for authority.

Apparently, even secular researchers are now beginning to discover results that back up God’s wisdom as demonstrated in the Bible:

• “If you’re a woman two or more years older than your husband, your marriage is 53 percent more likely to end in divorce than if he was one year younger to three years older.†(Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability,†Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009.)
• “Marriage generally improves life expectancy, but the age gap between a couple affects the life expectancy of men and women very differently.  Marrying an older man shortens a woman’s lifespan, but having a younger husband reduces it even more, the study found.  The findings, drawn from the medical records of two million Danish couples, suggest that the best a woman can do is marry a man of about the same age. Health records have shown previously that men live longer if they have a younger wife, an effect researchers expected to see mirrored in women who married younger men. However, a woman who is between seven and nine years older than her husband has a 20% greater mortality rate than if she were with a man the same age.†(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/12/marrying-younger-man-woman-mortality)
• “A new study shows that women who marry men seven to nine years younger than they are increase their mortality risk by 20 percent. This is the opposite of the finding for men who marry much younger wives – their life expectancy increases. The new study from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, changes assumptions about how marriage can extend life, owing in part to improved support systems spouses can provide for one another, and the supposed psychological benefit from having a younger spouse, who could become a caretaker should the older spouse become infirm.†(Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-married-women-age-gap-can-be-deadly/)

4. The Feminist.  There’s no room within Christendom for the “Christian feminist.† Though women and men have equal value in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28), they certainly have different God-given roles.  Any woman who tries to usurp her husband’s authority or even claims to be a co-leader with her man is gravely dishonoring the God who created her to be subject and obedient to her husband (Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, 1 Pet 3:1).   Eve was distinctly created “for†man, a point that the apostle Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 11 when he writes, “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.†(1 Corinthians 11:8-9).  Men, your wife is to be your “helper†(Gen 2:18)–not your leader and certainly not your equal in terms of authority.  Look for a woman who agrees with you in this very vital God-ordained relational dynamic.

 

5. The Immodest-Dresser.  Sexy might inadvertently catch your eyeballs, but it shouldn’t catch your heart.  The way that a woman is willing to expose herself says much about her heart: “And behold, the woman meets him, dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart†(Proverbs 7:10).  The text in Proverbs explains that a woman will dress in a certain way to catch a certain type of man.  Don’t be that man.  Don’t be the fool who’s led by his hormones instead of the Holy Spirit.  Remember: you want godly, not gaudy.  

 

6. The Gossiper/Slanderer.  Women may love to talk, but there’s wisdom in looking for a woman who speaks with wisdom. Gossip and slander are not good things to have in your marriage. Desperate housewives make for desperate husbands.  “Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.†(1 Timothy 5:13).

 

7. The Childbirth Avoider. Do not marry a woman who is not willing to have children of her own.  In the Christian worldview, there is absolutely no room for two married, biologically capable, human beings to remain intentionally child-less.  If you are adverse towards having children, then there’s a simple remedy for that: single-hood.   However, if God has called you to marriage, then He actually expects children.  Both the New and Old Testaments are very clear on this teaching: “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring†(Malachi 2:15).  “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control†(1 Timothy 2:15).

 

8. The Wander-Luster.  There’s nothing wrong with the occasional family vacation.  There is something very wrong with a girl who regularly needs to be “out of the home.† The constant desire for new experiences, new places, new faces, and new forms of entertainment only serves to clearly manifest the fact that the woman has not found her rest in God.  Believe it or not, Scripture speaks repeatedly about such women:  “She is loud and wayward; her feet do not stay at home†(Proverbs 7:11); “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to†(1 Timothy 5:13).

 

9. The Career-first Woman. Now, I want to clarify something here.  There is nothing wrong with a woman who works (Acts 16:14), what’s wrong is a woman who puts her career ahead of her family.  Modern American society might hate to hear this, but God made men to be the providers and women to be the nurturers of the home (in most instances).  It’s okay for a woman to be a doctor, attorney, or any other professional.  However, if her career is coming at the expense of her home, then something is wrong.  If day-care is raising her young children while she’s working, then something is wrong.  I understand that there might be a season of life where the wife might have to be the main bread-winner due to her husband’s unemployment, but it should not be the desired norm. The woman ought to be willing (and even desirous–to some extent) to give up her job for the sake of raising her kids in the Lord.  “So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander†(1 Tim 5:14).

 

10. The Devotion-less Woman.  Is the woman having a regular, daily devotional time with her God?  If she doesn’t love the Lord now, chances are, she won’t love the Lord after marriage.  (Don’t delude yourself–you’re not going to change her.)  You want to marry a girl who has an intimate relationship with Jesus.  Jesus (not you) has to be the first man in her life.  Here are some good questions to ask: Does she have an active prayer life?  Does she have a heart for evangelism?  Is she hungry for God’s Word?  What does her pastor think about her?

Do you remember this account from Scripture:

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. [39] And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. [40] But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.†[41] But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, [42] but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.†(Luke 10:38-42 ESV)

Marry the Mary (no pun intended).  Such women have picked “…the good portion, which will not be taken away†from them. God be with you men.  Strong families start with strong wives.  Choose wisely and choose in the Lord!

 

 

10 Men Christian Women Should Not Marry:

 

1. The Unbeliever. Seems quite simple, but I’ve met too many who’ve married unbelievers thinking that they’ll change them. Rarely happens. “Missionary Dating†is unbiblical and will only rob you of true marital bliss. Remember that God forbids it: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.†(2 Cor 6:14)

What then, is a believer?  A Christian essentially is someone who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What then, is the gospel?  The gospel is: 1. God is holy, loving, and just.  He therefore, must condemn all sinners to punishment in the flames of eternal hell;  2. You and I are all sinners who deserve nothing but God’s wrath in hell after our deaths; 3. God loved humanity so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus (who was fully God and fully man), to die on the cross for your sins.  Jesus paid the debt for your sins and absorbed God’s wrath on your behalf.  3 days later, Jesus resurrected from the dead; 4. If you repent (turn from) all your sins and personally put your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, God and Savior, then you will have eternal life. (For more information on the saving message of the gospel, click here.)

 

2. The Younger Man. Now, I wouldn’t necessarily call this one a sin, but I would certainly say that it is not God’s ideal. (And why would you want anything less than God’s ideal for marriage?)  We all know that wives are called to submit to their husbands, as to the Lord (Eph 5:22). God explicitly calls men to be the spiritual leaders of their families. En route to making the first marriage, God created Adam first, and then Eve. Did God have a wise reason for creating Adam first or was the first marriage randomly constructed by God?  According to the apostle Paul, it was not done arbitrarily. Instead, this was done for the sake of authority. As Paul informs us, authority flows from chronology: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve†(1 Timothy 2:13-14). In other words, age matters–generally within society but especially within marriage (hence, Paul’s use of “Adam and Eveâ€).  Evidently, within the First Marriage, God intended chronology (age) to be a reason for authority.

 

I would definitely call for wives who are already married in this situation to still submit to their younger husbands as the Bible commands (divorce is not an option), but they’ll need an extra measure of God’s grace as the natural fallen tendency of all daughters of Eve is to usurp their husbands’ authority (Gen 3:16). To those who are not yet wed, I would plead with you to marry an older Christian man. It is God’s ideal and your marriage will be happier for it.

 

Don’t want to believe that God knew what He was doing when He intentionally made the male older in the First Marriage?  Okay then, here’s some statistics from secular research that backs up God’s wisdom:

• “If you’re a woman two or more years older than your husband, your marriage is 53 percent more likely to end in divorce than if he was one year younger to three years older.†(Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability,†Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009.)â€Marriage generally improves life expectancy, but the age gap between a couple affects the life expectancy of men and women very differently.
•  Marrying an older man shortens a woman’s lifespan, but having a younger husband reduces it even more, the study found.  The findings, drawn from the medical records of two million Danish couples, suggest that the best a woman can do is marry a man of about the same age. Health records have shown previously that men live longer if they have a younger wife, an effect researchers expected to see mirrored in women who married younger men. However, a woman who is between seven and nine years older than her husband has a 20% greater mortality rate than if she were with a man the same age.†(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/12/marrying-younger-man-woman-mortality)â€
• A new study shows that women who marry men seven to nine years younger than they are increase their mortality risk by 20 percent. This is the opposite of the finding for men who marry much younger wives – their life expectancy increases. The new study from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, changes assumptions about how marriage can extend life, owing in part to improved support systems spouses can provide for one another, and the supposed psychological benefit from having a younger spouse, who could become a caretaker should the older spouse become infirm.†(Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-married-women-age-gap-can-be-deadly/)

3. The Spiritually Younger Man. Though age is important, a man’s spiritual maturity is also important (and by the way, please don’t bamboozle yourself by saying, “Well, as long as he’s SPIRITUALLY older than me, his age doesn’t matter–as I’ve laid out in point two, it does matter!). Look for a man who will love you as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:25), and if he doesn’t even know “how†Christ loved the Church, then it’s time for you to find another man. He must lead you as Christ led His Church. Too many women date spiritually immature men who only lead them to the murky waters of marital spiritual loneliness. Make sure he’s grounded in a local church. Speak to his pastor and his elders. Have devotionals together. Marriage is a serious decision. Take serious steps.

 

4. The Divorced Man. This one’s fairly straight-forward in Scripture: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery†(Luke 16:18; I explain this prohibition further here). Bottom line: Any 2nd marriage is adultery in the eyes of God, unless the 1st marriage terminated due to adultery.

What to do if you’re in a 2nd marriage that’s really viewed as adultery in the eyes of God?  Same thing I would advise a “married†gay couple in NY state if they came to faith in Christ–immediately break it up!  Of course, it won’t be emotionally easy, but the eternal destiny of your soul depends upon a correct response on this issue (1 Cor 6:9).

 

5. The Angry Man. Men who cannot control their emotions prior to marriage will, in all likelihood, be angry men after marriage. Try not to rationalize this one by saying, “Well, I deserved that…I made him angry.†Outbursts of anger are bouts of sin and there’s no excuse. Furthermore, those things usually turn into domestic abuse later on. Remember, marriage is about love. I know, it sounds easy to remember, but you’d be surprised.
“Fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.†(Galatians 5:20-21 ESV)

 

6. The Self-Admirer. I know, I know, you want a good looking spouse. That desire is not a bad thing. But if a man is spending more time at the gym and in front of the mirror than at church and in God’s Word, then that man won’t love you as Christ loved the Church. In fact, he won’t love you–period. He loves himself and he probably just wants you for physical pleasure. If he’s changing profile pictures often, obsessing over his looks and photo angles, then be wary. “For everything in the world–the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life–comes not from the Father but from the world.†(1 John 2:16)

 

7. The Dishonest. I once had a man come to me and say, “Pastor, I have a confession to make. I’ve lied for years to my wife about __________, and the wife has now discovered my dishonesty.†We have since split ways and I no longer pastor him, but last I heard, she was no longer living with him and was processing a divorce. Marriage is built on trust. Without it, the entire enterprise quickly unravels. Women, if he’s lied to you before marriage, he’ll keep it up after. If he’s having sex before marriage, he’ll likely cheat on you after marriage. Look for a honest guy. Pray for one. Remember that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44).

 

8. The Addict. Whether it’s porn or drugs, if you’ve discovered that your boyfriend is an addict, stop dating him and talk to his church leaders about it. At the moment, the man needs help–not a wife. Men who’ve covered up their sins while continuing to go to church are some of the worst deceivers. They’re also usually self-deluded. And no matter how much he pleads with you, let it go. The man needs Jesus–not a woman. Until the bondage is broken, release him to Christ (Exodus 20:3).

 

9. The Idle. If his idea of an ideal marriage is letting you work while he stays home sleeping and relaxing, then you should find another man. There is a deep theology to work and in fact, if the man is not providing for his family, the Bible calls him worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).

 

10. The Un-Evangelist. Okay, maybe I made up the term, but the point is clear (Mark 16:15). If the man says that he believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ–meaning that there is 1. a literal hell awaiting unbelievers, 2. grace and pardon available to all who put their faith in Jesus–but he simultaneously does NOT evangelize…does he really believe? Does he really love God? Does he really love people? Will he ever love you the way Christ loved and died for His Church (when evidently, he’s too ashamed to even proclaim the death of Christ)?

 

Self-proclaimed atheist Penn Jillette once put it well:
“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.â€

 

All that’s very true. How much do you have to hate somebody to not evangelize? “How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?†Unless, of course, he really doesn’t believe…but then, we would discover ourselves back at warning point number 1 of this post.

 

Choose well, ladies. The church loves you and prays for you to have delightful, God-honoring marriages. May God bless and guide your way.

 

Thoughts?

[Skeptopotamus 104]

There's a lot to discuss here but there's one point that stood out to me: the aversion to feminism.

 

"Feminist" is a blanket-term that encompasses a spectrum, so I wonder why it's always seen as being a man-hating "reverse chauvinist" ideology. Feminism came out of a social need to correct a lot of societal ills: woman not having any legal say for themselves, not being able to vote to insure that women's concerns were addressed, being beaten or imprisoned by husbands that believed they had a God-given right to do so. I'm personally grateful for feminism for giving me a choice and ability to support myself. It does not mean that I hate men or want to trample on them.

 

I just wonder why it seems to be the default belief that feminism means just that.

[29K 1,541]

There's a lot to discuss here but there's one point that stood out to me: the aversion to feminism.

 

"Feminist" is a blanket-term that encompasses a spectrum, so I wonder why it's always seen as being a man-hating "reverse chauvinist" ideology. Feminism came out of a social need to correct a lot of societal ills: woman not having any legal say for themselves, not being able to vote to insure that women's concerns were addressed, being beaten or imprisoned by husbands that believed they had a God-given right to do so. I'm personally grateful for feminism for giving me a choice and ability to support myself. It does not mean that I hate men or want to trample on them.

 

I just wonder why it seems to be the default belief that feminism means just that.

Well said! Couldn't agree more

[GodsPhysicist 476]

All I can write is: No pastor on earth has the right to decide, let alone monopolize, what kind of marriage Jesus wants any of us to have.  I feel a little ashamed that I actually gave all this an honest and thorough reading.  I should have known that once again a pastor has completely generalized and oversimplified what kinds of people are meant for each other.  There is way too much room for interpretation on what any of these pious traits might mean from person to person.

 

I, for one, am so glad that I decided to defer to Jesus Christ solely on what kind of marriage He Intends me to have.  Of course, I don't suppose a pastor would ever put down how suitable someone like I am is for challenging people who are wrong in the church just like Jesus did with the teachers of the law while He Was here with us on earth.  This list is far too safe for a pastor to completely remove himself from criticism in his own marriage so that he gets to critique everyone else without opposition.  I suppose he might, even worse, simply copy the marriage he has chosen as the right one.  It is a MIRACLE!  He has the perfect marriage!  He simply gets to pick everything on the list he thought was important!  I guess he should proselytize me for having a different marriage someday, because it is SO RUDE OF HIM to not warn me that my would-be wife or I might be going to hell because he doesn't agree with my marriage.

 

You know, for all the bible I see referred to in this rediculous list, it isn't even consistent.  I don't even have to give all the examples, I can just make one with a tremendous amount of impact.  Might I remind everyone that God Himself Commanded Hosea to marry a HARLOT ???  That's right!  Look up the book of Hosea; I am dead serious.  I guess Hosea is going to hell because he followed God's Commands.  But don't PROSELYTIZE again now !!!  We don't want to leave out that Hosea is going to hell because he followed God to the letter, now do we?  That would mean that we don't love him enough!

 

I find the list also disgustingly ungracious.  Ugh.  There are some things on the list that seem awfully confused about when to stay in a marriage and who not to divorce and marry after divorce and, on and on.  It seems to convey most of all its wrong to marry a certain person, but its also wrong to LEAVE that marriage if it happens.  This is a failure to outline that the world is not an ideal place and the list doesn't know how to accommodate the notion that non-ideal marriages might worth recognizing without a proper motivation to get people to marry in some arbitrary ideal way.  There is also much taken on authority as ideal, when reality is full of distributed statistics with uncertainties.  Worse still, there are several attempts at quantitative analysis, but it is not conclusive at all.  The problem is: the list confuses statistics that can only outline correlation.  Unfortunately, correlation is being passed off as causality.  One of the biggest rules in measurement is that correlation does not imply causality.  Once again, the mainstream bible pastor has attempted to be scientific or mathematical with an obvious lack of training in quantitative analysis.  While we are at it, maybe the least pastors can do is get at least SOME formal training in theology before they even start thumping on a bible they don't even understand, let alone draw proper conclusions from in the first place.

 

I am very disappointed...

[poisson 145]

Both lists are pretty interesting! He sure has some good points on men that women should avoid marrying to prevent a divorce. Thanks for sharing!

[Skeptopotamus 104]

Okay, if 2nd marriages are adultery, this guy is advising all people in second marriages to immediately break it up. You can love and be very content with your partner, you could even have children in that marriage, but you need to divorce? So the emotional havoc on both spouses and the kids is something you willfully inflict? He also goes to mention that living in adultery means you won't get into heaven and that makes me ask (and this will take the thread on a tangent but what the heck):

 

In Christian belief, is accepting Jesus as savior all that is required for salvation? I thought the reason Jesus was necessary is that living righteously is impossible as it is a very strict and difficult life. So now we have to accept Jesus, and still live as strictly as before he came in order to have salvation? So it isn't by grace alone?

[bethreny 501]

" Marrying an older man shortens a woman’s lifespan, but having a younger husband reduces it even more, the study found.  The findings, drawn from the medical records of two million Danish couples, suggest that the best a woman can do is marry a man of about the same age. Health records have shown previously that men live longer if they have a younger wife, an effect researchers expected to see mirrored in women who married younger men. However, a woman who is between seven and nine years older than her husband has a 20% greater mortality rate than if she were with a man the same age.†"

Um so basically if a woman marries at all, her life will be shortened. But if a man marries a woman his life in lengthened (presumably even if he is younger than her, as that tidbit is conveniently absent).

Maybe God does not want women to marry at all, seeing as it's bad for our health. But it makes a man's life longer...so maybe God hates women?

Of course I don't believe that, just using it to point out that I think cherry picking any study or statistical analysis to prove that a certain decision is wrong (but not quite a *sin*) is not the best idea. Sure, I have done it myself, but it's not the best way to prove a point and way too easy to poke holes in.

And he completely disregards the biblical allowance for a certificate of divorce for a woman whose husband has rejected her. No mention of adultery there, and it was intended to release the woman to be married again freely with no adultery accusations. I've known more than one woman who were terribly emotionally abused by their husbands. They had every right to leave, and God has the grace and mercy to pull these women out of abuse into healthy relationships and restoration.

I disagree with a lot of what this guy had to say. Basically, do this exactly right. Oh, you did it wrong? Well you made your bed, now lay down. I'll be over here with the favored ones who did it right and don't have God's anger burning against them. I follow the letter, not the spirit.

[Geraldine 774]

Thank you very much for sharing this Buster Cannon!

 

In my opinion, for a person who is totally naive, clueless and ignorant (as I certainly was, and I mean it ) concerning relationship and marriage, I think thoss articles can be really very helpful.

Even if I don't totally agree with eveything that was said in both articles, I think they migth help some people by preventing them from doing wrong choices for themselves. 

 

Concerning the part of older woman marrying younger man : It made me laugh and I am agree with bethreny who said :

 

"Marrying an older man shortens a woman’s lifespan, but having a younger husband reduces it even more, the study found.  The findings, drawn from the medical records of two million Danish couples, suggest that the best a woman can do is marry a man of about the same age. Health records have shown previously that men live longer if they have a younger wife, an effect researchers expected to see mirrored in women who married younger men. However, a woman who is between seven and nine years older than her husband has a 20% greater mortality rate than if she were with a man the same age.†"

Um so basically if a woman marries at all, her life will be shortened. But if a man marries a woman his life in lengthened (presumably even if he is younger than her, as that tidbit is conveniently absent).

Maybe God does not want women to marry at all, seeing as it's bad for our health. But it makes a man's life longer...so maybe God hates women?

Of course I don't believe that, just using it to point out that I think cherry picking any study or statistical analysis to prove that a certain decision is wrong (but not quite a *sin*) is not the best idea. Sure, I have done it myself, but it's not the best way to prove a point and way too easy to poke holes in."

 

Totally agree with this. Statistics are what they are, just statistics...

[Weapon X 1,327]

I should start going to church and adopt Christian values so I can feel no guilt when I find a Christian woman and control her life. Make her my slave. I mean I won't beat her or anything but seeing as how God wants me to be the authority. You know the leader the one that says what goes I can tell her what to do like she's a child.

God forbid she becomes ambitious and becomes a lawyer. That would take time away from me. Oh and hell will be at her footsteps if she dare travel and see the world. She better not broaden her horizons and travel.

Women are here to nurture yeah but who are we kidding. We just want them to produce babies, have sex with us and follow us as leaders whether we're quality guys or not.

All that stuff I just said kinda gives an example of how I interpret God's intention/will or at least how that pastor interprets relationships.

[Guest]

This man pretty much states that my parents are adulterers, who have been married faithfully for 29 years in September, because my father is my mother's second husband. Oh, and my grandmother as well, who married twice. My mother's first husband was a drug abuser and she did not want my sister around that, my biological grandfather was a spousal abuser. Yeah, you might say I'm a bit irked by this.

[Buster Cannon 1,432]

You know, for all the bible I see referred to in this rediculous list, it isn't even consistent.  I don't even have to give all the examples, I can just make one with a tremendous amount of impact.  Might I remind everyone that God Himself Commanded Hosea to marry a HARLOT ???  That's right!  Look up the book of Hosea; I am dead serious.  I guess Hosea is going to hell because he followed God's Commands.  But don't PROSELYTIZE again now !!!  We don't want to leave out that Hosea is going to hell because he followed God to the letter, now do we?  That would mean that we don't love him enough!

 

That's more of an "exception but not the rule" type of thing. God often had the prophets do some pretty out-there stuff for the sake of illustration. In Hosea's case, marrying Gomer was God's way of showing the Israelites how they were treating Him. That doesn't necessarily mean that God wants us all to go out and marry prostitutes.

 

In Christian belief, is accepting Jesus as savior all that is required for salvation? I thought the reason Jesus was necessary is that living righteously is impossible as it is a very strict and difficult life. So now we have to accept Jesus, and still live as strictly as before he came in order to have salvation? So it isn't by grace alone?

 

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? ² Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Romans 6:1-2)

 

Grace is what saves us from the eternal consequences of sin, but that doesn't mean that we're supposed to just do whatever we want in the meantime. Walking with Christ is a journey, complete with many failures - as humans we're imperfect and we can't uphold God's standard 100% of the time. That doesn't mean that we can't do our best to try, but we'll always fall short.

['tis the Bearded One 661]

Interesting, though I disagree with a number of points.:

 

The Divorcee - (see below)

 

The Older Woman - meh. If I am to have authority be it out of wisdom and not age. If I cannot be a spiritual leader to someone older than me than there is a problem. Considering the spiritual leadership of Christ when in most cases he would have been younger (presumably dying at 33 years old) than his audience.....(not that I'm comparing myself to Christ).

 

The Feminist - I agree with Skeptopotamus on that point.

 

The Childbirth Avoider - Disagree that God expects children or that there is some sort of duty on fertile married couples to have children. (But on his premise, when would a couple have fulfilled their duty if they cannot conceive/bring to term a child naturally? Would they be required to conduct artificial/medical procedures?) Regarding his use of 1 Timothy 2:15 this link (http://www.gotquestions.org/saved-childbearing.html) seems to me to have a more accurate interpretation. And of course God would want good, godly offspring - would it make any sense for him to want ungodly offspring? Doesn't meen he condemns having no offspring. Considering prophecies in Daniel and Revelation it appears there will be a time when having offspring could (nearly) be considered

 

The Wander-Luster - (see below)

 

Career-First - Considering the great value I place in raising kids oneself having a wife who would desert her young child to daycare in preference for paid work she wouldn't need to financially is thoroughly unappealing. To that extent I agree but if I didn't want children/dependents then I wouldn't mind a career motivated wife (though our marriage should still take priority place and I apply that standard to myself aswell)

 

As for the male attributes - really being angry is just as bad in a male than in a female as well as any and all of the listed unfavourable traits....

 

You know, for all the bible I see referred to in this rediculous list, it isn't even consistent.  I don't even have to give all the examples, I can just make one with a tremendous amount of impact.  Might I remind everyone that God Himself Commanded Hosea to marry a HARLOT ??? 

 

There are some things on the list that seem awfully confused about when to stay in a marriage and who not to divorce and marry after divorce and, on and on.  It seems to convey most of all its wrong to marry a certain person, but its also wrong to LEAVE that marriage if it happens.  This is a failure to outline that the world is not an ideal place and the list doesn't know how to accommodate the notion that non-ideal marriages might worth recognizing without a proper motivation to get people to marry in some arbitrary ideal way.  

 

The only two marriages he regard as sin is to the guilty divorcee and the unbeliever. The other attributes are flags that if present may/will make your marriage harder possibly miserable and are thus offered as counsel not as moral directives. 

 

In regard to Hosea. What is the sin in marrying a harlot? At most you could argue that her current (or past) status as a harlot means she is an unbeliever. Considering the cultural toleration of prostitute then (though it was still morally condemned by God) she may well have been a "believer" though likely of a different persuasion than Hosea. Using the case of Hosea and Gomer to reason that, 'hey you can (with God's blessings) marry whoever you like after all God told Hosea to marry a harlot, what could be worse?!' is rather skewed! Hosea's case was one of providing an illustration for how the Israelites, who should have been as faithful as a wife to her husband, have been unfaithful to God in their pursuit of other gods and how, as Hosea remained faithful to his straying wife, God was faithful to straying Israel and wanted to reconcile. 

 

Not sure how you are getting confused. Seemed pretty clear to me: 

- Don't mary an unbeliever

- Don't mary someone whose marriage ended because of their adultery

- Once maried, come hell or high water don't divorce though the option is available if there is adultery

- If your spouse commited adultery you can divorce them; you don't have to

- If you choose to divorce, you as the non-adultering party can choose to remarry

- The guilty, adultering party is not permitted to remarry.

 

Certainly we don't live in an ideal world but the notion that because of that we don't need to follow an ideal moral law (which we can through the power of Christ) is a very dangerous path to go down and breaches a core element of Christianity. 

 

 

Walking with Christ is a journey, complete with many failures - as humans we're imperfect and we can't uphold God's standard 100% of the time. That doesn't mean that we can't do our best to try, but we'll always fall short.

 

Okay, if 2nd marriages are adultery, this guy is advising all people in second marriages to immediately break it up. 

 

In Christian belief, is accepting Jesus as savior all that is required for salvation? I thought the reason Jesus was necessary is that living righteously is impossible as it is a very strict and difficult life. So now we have to accept Jesus, and still live as strictly as before he came in order to have salvation? So it isn't by grace alone?

 

The idea is that the marriage covenant can only be broke by adultery, regardless of what some human-made law deems them to be. Thus if A divorced B without the cause of B committing adultery they are still married in God's eyes. Thus if A (or B ) has sex with someone else they commit adultery. Naturally, B has then a valid reason for divorce and is completely free to remarry. A however not. 

 

So far I agree with the pastor's interpretation. I disagree that a remarriage involving A has to be dissolved. If the (romantic) relationship is short of marriage then yes I would say it is in accordance with the law that it should be dissolved but that is a choice A and their partner have to make. 

 

 Yes, the faith-works dynamic will take this one a tangent but oh well. I don't accept the notion that living righteously is impossible. That the law of God was unfulfillable and thus unjust was the very argument Satan made against God. Jesus was completely human, though he had the identity of God. In fighting the temptation to sin he had no recourse to his Godly powers as that would have given him a super-human advantage. Thus we, fallen humans, have the same potential to live a life like Jesus - free of sin. It won't be completely historically free of sin since our past sins mar that record but I believe scripture supports the principle that God wants to save us FROM our sin as opposed to IN it. Can he save us in our sin? Yes, if we have repented. But the goal is to reach a state of character and closeness to God that we will no longer sin and that is an attainable state. 

 

Faith-works can be a complicated issue and different phrasing can help a lot but I'll try my best . Ephesians 2:8-9 states we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. There are no works we can do that would allow us to earn salvation; we have no right to it; we don't even deserve it. It is a gift. However, what kind of a faith is required? What constitutes genuine faith? Consider James 2:14-26: 

¹⁴ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

¹⁵ If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

¹⁶ And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

¹⁷ Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

¹⁸ Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

¹⁹ Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

²⁰ But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

²² Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

²³ And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

²⁴ Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

²⁵ Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

²⁶ For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

Note for those unfamiliar with Abraham’s story, Abraham didn’t actually sacrifice Isaac – God intervened beforehand.

 

We are not saved by the law but we are also not saved in disobedience to the law. Consider James 1:22: But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Consider also Colossians 2:6: As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him

John 14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments

Ephesians 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

 

As far as 'strict living' I think you would find that it is a blessing - if you are refering to the 10 commandments. If you are thinking of the ceremonial and cleanliness laws (ie Moses' Law), I believe they are not applicable anymore, at least not to gentiles except for few exemptions (see Acts 15).

 

Hope that helps, PM me if you like   

 

And he completely disregards the biblical allowance for a certificate of divorce for a woman whose husband has rejected her. No mention of adultery there, and it was intended to release the woman to be married again freely with no adultery accusations. I've known more than one woman who were terribly emotionally abused by their husbands. They had every right to leave, and God has the grace and mercy to pull these women out of abuse into healthy relationships and restoration.

I disagree with a lot of what this guy had to say. Basically, do this exactly right. Oh, you did it wrong? Well you made your bed, now lay down. I'll be over here with the favored ones who did it right and don't have God's anger burning against them. I follow the letter, not the spirit.

 

If you are referring to the practice of Moses this is dealt with by Jesus in Matthew 19:5-9. I don't believe that legal divorce is sin (unless maybe a tenuous spousal abandonment/neglect) - it makes no difference to the continuance of the marriage in God's eyes. When it comes to abusive relationships they can seek a divorce and choose not to have sex for the rest of their life or they can institute a separation and only return to the marriage if the abusing spouse has demonstrated sufficient correction. If the abusing spouse isn't interested in reconciling and commits adultery than the innocent party is free to remarry. Having a right to leave does not equate with having a moral right to remarry. 

 

As far as sleeping in the bed you made. Yes. It indicates just how tremendously respected and cared for the institution of marriage should be and the depth of care in choosing the right partner. Imagine a world where everyone took their vows of 'forsaking all others, till death do us part' seriously.

God is no respecter of persons so favouritism doesn't quite cut it. God utterly loves each and every human and that love is not diminished by our actions and choices. However, our ability to enjoy his love is limited by our choices, hence if we choose to cling to sin then God in all his love will honour that choice and his influence in our life will diminish.

Yes, following the spirit of the law is important however it can lend to as much skewing of what the law is meant to be as the opposite extreme of legalism - just look at how warped the Jewish "moral laws" where in Jesus' days. God is love, right? So why would he condemn sinners to death (death...not eternal hell-fire)? Why would He not want me to do what I feel is right for me and my happiness at this moment? 

Can you imagine God saying, "oh, what? wait! oh guys really? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego! You didn't have to get thrown in the fiery furnace. Do whatever you need to to ensure your survival and subjective happiness. Bow down, worship a false god, burn your children alive to Baal, don't like your spouse? leave 'em and marry someone else. After all, YOU know what is best for YOU. I might be omniscient and omnipotent and have your best interests at heart (I did die for you back in the day...remember?) and its not like you have anything else but this mortal shuffle to live for...oh wait..."

 

I apologise if this comes across in the wrong spirit. But I see this as a core issue. While you seem to have experienced people who would have suffered greatly from a “too strict†interpretation, I’ve experienced the opposite: “justification†of abusive behaviour through an “overly liberal†interpretation. I’ve contended with flexible interpretations of moral laws to justify adultery, prostitution, and deceit. My perspective is rather absolutist: there is no excuse, no justification, no rationalisation for sin. If there was you can throw out the Bible. Where it gets slightly tricky is determining what is sin in various circumstances. But if I would not be excused for recanting my faith with the consequence of being burned alive, crucified, drawn and quartered, or boiled to death then I am not excused for deserting my responsibilities under a marriage covenant I consensually entered into even if that means spending the rest of my life in an unfulfilling marriage or as a sex-less divorcee or as a separated spouse waiting for my “better half†to stop being abusive.

While we tend to categorise and place different sins in a hierarchy e.g. murder is worse than telling a little lie, this breaks down when we consider the penalty for sin and it’s the same for each sin: death. See 1 John 3:4 and Romans 6:23. The differing gravity only exists in relation to the consequences in this world (obviously murdering someone has greater consequence) and the violation of our own conscience/culture. If you can excuse breaking one moral law then you’ve got a foundation for excusing any and all moral laws.

 

 

 

I should start going to church and adopt Christian values so I can feel no guilt when I find a Christian woman and control her life. Make her my slave. I mean I won't beat her or anything but seeing as how God wants me to be the authority. You know the leader the one that says what goes I can tell her what to do like she's a child.

God forbid she becomes ambitious and becomes a lawyer. That would take time away from me. Oh and hell will be at her footsteps if she dare travel and see the world. She better not broaden her horizons and travel.

Women are here to nurture yeah but who are we kidding. We just want them to produce babies, have sex with us and follow us as leaders whether we're quality guys or not.


All that stuff I just said kinda gives an example of how I interpret God's intention/will or at least how that pastor interprets relationships.

 

When words like authority or leadership are used you have to be careful regarding their definition. Consider leadership, anyone whose studied into it can tell you that contemporary understanding of what leadership is and how it acts is very diverse even conflicting. Consider Christ and the great spiritual authority and leadership (not to mention his great authority as having the identity of God) and how he acted on earth. He played a ministering, servant role – he washed the disciples’ feet! All too often we associate authority and leadership with a right to control, exert power and force etc when we need to be questioning such notions.

 

Certainly this pastor’s presentation seems a bit biased especially for someone not on the same page regarding meaning of words ie submit. I recommend reading Ephesians 5:21-33 paying close attention to the role of the husband and the illustration of Christ and the Church. Scripture presents no commandment or counsel for wives to follow their husbands as leaders in everything. There are important qualifiers!

 

Regarding the Wanter-Luster: If you read Proverbs 7:11 in context it refers to a woman straying from her home to have affairs with men while her husband is away. Using it to condemn women who like to travel or experience new things is a bad case of reading out of context. Certainly I see the point that someone who is incapable of “settling-down†would be less suitable as a child-bearing, household-running, domestic mother if that is what you are looking for. And any hedonistic desire to constantly experience new things would raise concern for me though so would also no desire to go out and experience the wonderful (though degraded) world God created and the diversity within it.

 

Far out that was a long post! 

[Johnny 261]

Scripture presents no commandment or counsel for wives to follow their husbands as leaders in everything. 

 

It doesn't?

 

"Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." - Eph 5:24

[Johnny 261]

Yeah, I remember when this blog post was making the rounds a while back. There are some good ideas in it, but it's not exhaustive and nor does all of what's in it apply to Christianity. Maybe the "older woman" part applies to statistics, but statistics are not Christianity. 'Tis the Bearded One said it best above about a man's age and being a leader. I somewhat agree with the blogger about marrying the feminist, although if she's just the kind of "feminist" who is against arranged child marriages and the poor treatment of women in other countries, particularly those in the Middle East, then that's a differently story. 

 

Something else to note about this blogger is that in addition to his views on divorce with which I mostly disagree, he also believes that dead babies go to Hell (or at least he did when I read this blog post of his months ago). He has a strange take on certain parts of scripture, which kind of hurts his credibility some in my eyes.

[bethreny 501]

'Tis the Bearded One,

Yup, I have seen both sides. But in regards to those who I think gave up just because they weren't "happy", I really can't comment on, because I think unless you are in the marriage you don't know the whole story.

In regards to Jesus dealing with divorce in the book of Matthew, I don't think I understand what you mean. He addressed it and explained to the people that God gave them that allowance because their hearts were hardened. That doesn't mean that divorce is good, but it was allowed for the protection of a woman and her not being tossed aside with no hope. Sure times are different, but a man who is an abuser has effectively tossed aside his wife. (I could argue that an abuser is worse, because not only does he treat his wife with contempt, but tries to keep her under his thumb of oppression. I have very little sympathy for the abuser.I should mention also that women can be abusers too, but the most extreme cases I have personally encountered have been men)

It is extremely rare for an abuser to change his ways. The whole reason that a person would stick it out for that long is because she thinks things will get better. That or she believes it is a mortal sin to divorce. I also reject the idea of comparing suffering an abusive marriage to suffering for Christ. My husband is not my god, and neither should he be Satan himself.

I don't think it necessary to wait for adultery to break a union with such a person. I am a direct relative of someone who broke away from her abusive husband for the protection of her children. After enduring his physical and emotional abuse for years, she finally left when he went after the kids directly. Let's not forget there are children involved in most of these situations. These kids have every right to the possibility of a father who is not an a-hole, whether there has been proof of adultery or not. Unfortunately in this situation the woman ended up with an abusive leech later on, but that's her story.

And someone who has been in an abusive marriage definitely has to lay in their bed. They have years of garbage to deal with after the fact and often their lives are in danger. God is the God of the oppressed and He sees every tear that the oppressed spouse cries at night when no one else can see. Leaving an abusive marriage does not mean that you don't take marriage seriously, but that sometimes your life and the life of your children are important enough to save. Getting married again and providing for you and yours is not wrong.

[bethreny 501]

One more thing I want to add about choosing a partner is that you can try to pick the most perfect person, but people can change. It can be just basic life circumstance that changes them, or even accident and illness.

Most young women, especially sheltered women, don't know what to look for in order to avoid an abuser. Dating is the greatest time of deception in a relationship as well, for both parties. To tell them that they should have chosen someone better to marry...isn't that just yet another example of blaming the victim? I would say almost all of them would not choose to be in their position if they could see clearly into the future.

I definitely think marriage is for keeps, and I don't take it lightly. But how come adultery is the only sin that suddenly gives someone a free pass to divorce? What about all the sins that lead up to the eventual adultery? I just don't understand how a person could be unfaithful in a million different ways, but as long as they don't put P in V, then their spouse will be doomed to a sexless, loveless marriage and/or life. Sin is sin. We all do it. Sinning against someone repeatedly and without remorse is what is the problem here.

Whoops that wasn't one more thing, more like three or four.

[Guest]

Thanks for the article, he has a lot of great pointers for people wanting to avoid the pitfalls of worldliness.

 

Avoiding the feminist for a man is pretty much a no brainer. Everything on the list from gossip to being a nonbeliever could be included under that banner. The word itself is a bit of a misnomer. It certainly isn't a beneficial movement to women at all. It's nothing more than a failed rebranding of socialism where fools are offered salvation by something other than Christ. Like all of the other isms out there, it's horribly destructive even to those it claims to benefit. Feminism has told women they no longer need men when it clearly isn't the case. Traditional marriage is one of the most beneficial things a woman can do for herself and her children. Out of wedlock births have gone from under 10% to over 40% leading to a poverty rate of above 70% and just a 8% chance of graduating from college for the mother. The list goes on and on and literally covers just about every negative trait from obesity to likelihood of committing murder.

 

Feminism is also blatantly anti-woman. How many self-proclaimed feminists out there abuse the traditional helpmate or stay at home wife with horrible vitriol? I've yet to see any feminist miss an opportunity to degrade them with offensive, and frankly sexist, terms such as : weak, simple, abused, downtrodden, or religious zealot. Where are all of the feminists for women who want to live a biblical life? Are feminists only willing to come to their "aid" when their marching with their breasts exposed and screaming obscenities at the men they claim to want equality with? Why aren't these traditional women praised for actually raising productive members of society who don't murder others over pettiness?

 

Anyway, there's a lot of hard questions out there. The reality is many (most) self proclaimed Christians aren't leading a biblical life and nearly all of them are attacking the very thing they claim to be the word of God for not complying with whatever the world deems dated.

 

No woman wants a meek man who follows a herd of fools and no true man wants a woman who gleefully undermines him.

[Steadfast Madcap 3,216]

Avoiding the feminist for a man is pretty much a no brainer. Everything on the list from gossip to being a nonbeliever could be included under that banner. The word itself is a bit of a misnomer. It certainly isn't a beneficial movement to women at all. It's nothing more than a failed rebranding of socialism where fools are offered salvation by something other than Christ. Like all of the other isms out there, it's horribly destructive even to those it claims to benefit. Feminism has told women they no longer need men when it clearly isn't the case. Traditional marriage is one of the most beneficial things a woman can do for herself and her children. Out of wedlock births have gone from under 10% to over 40% leading to a poverty rate of above 70% and just a 8% chance of graduating from college for the mother. The list goes on and on and literally covers just about every negative trait from obesity to likelihood of committing murder.

 

Feminism is also blatantly anti-woman. How many self-proclaimed feminists out there abuse the traditional helpmate or stay at home wife with horrible vitriol? I've yet to see any feminist miss an opportunity to degrade them with offensive, and frankly sexist, terms such as : weak, simple, abused, downtrodden, or religious zealot. Where are all of the feminists for women who want to live a biblical life? Are feminists only willing to come to their "aid" when their marching with their breasts exposed and screaming obscenities at the men they claim to want equality with? Why aren't these traditional women praised for actually raising productive members of society who don't murder others over pettiness?

 

If you want to rant about feminism, perhaps you should take it over to the "feminazi" topic. But no, avoiding feminists is not a "no brainer" for men.

[Skeptopotamus 104]

Ironically it is the Christian feminist who fights for the right of women to live the traditionally biblical life. But as we now know, there is no room within Christendom for a Christian feminist. Darn, missed opportunity.

 

Fine, let's just let things run their course. If some men are so turned off by the word "feminist" without determining the meaning behind it, and shut out a potential partner just because she called herself a feminist, then both parties are better off not being involved with each other.

[Guest]

Well, after going through the list...

I'm sorry to disagree again with most people here.

 

I think this list is an ideal list.

That is in an ideal world this would always be the case.

 

Of course in an ideal world people wouldn't want things that go against God as well, no one would be atheist (this is the ideal world from a Chrsitian perspective.. I can't speak for your side so bare with me resident atheists) and everyone would work hard and help each other.

 

Unfortunately we are not in an ideal world.

But honestly, I would have trouble marrying someone who has already been married if it was my first marriage. I don't know if I'd have the same qualms with my second marriage (and I admit I do get upset and jealous when guys who have been divorced get with girls who haven't been married and are waiting, it's like what the heck when is my turn coming? You get what I'm saying, Like man come on! but once again this isn't a perfect world and there is constant unfairness and the sooner we accept that the sooner we realize that such a list like this even though it may be ideal it is not possible for everyone).

 

But yeah... if you're a virgin woman and won't ask me about my height then please PM me. I think we should talk. =)

 

Okay back to topic...

In a world where so many things happen that are out of the control of the individual you can't put stringent laws and rules like this and expect everyone to follow. Christianity and following God is about the perfection of character through trial and error, you go from your current imperfect state and move forward to try a more perfect state by the grace of God and your requested portion of the Holy Spirit. 

 

While I agree the list is for an "ideal" situation, I know that such situations are so few and far in between that if all christians started following it, very few would succeed in it and even fewer would have the chance to experience the happiness that comes in marriage and intimacy... which is also something I don't believe God wants to take away for us.

 

I guess, I'm inconclusive as to how to respond to this list.

['tis the Bearded One 661]

It doesn't?

 

"Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." - Eph 5:24

 

In just that verse alone there is a massive qualifier: "as the church is subject to Christ". Now substitute "church" with "humans" (since the church of christ is the collective of believers) and we can get a bit of an idea. Does God force his law on us? No. God gives us absolute choice whether we choose sin (and thus its consequences) or a life in Him (and its consequences). Frequently death is phrased as the punishment for sin - and thus the tendency to see God as the 'bad guy' who punishes us when we don't follow His 'arbitrary' laws. I think its better to view death as a consequence of sin. Why is it a consequence? Choosing sin is choosing a separation from God, sin is antithetical to the character of God, and since God is our only life force (unless you believe in the immortality of the soul - thats a big other topic) it has obvious consequences....

 

Consider also some of the other texts in Ephesians 5:21-33: 

 

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

 

Verses 26 & 27 also give a bit of an idea with what kind of an attitude the husbands should be treating their wives. Regarding verse 24 - Does God impose laws that are not to our/the church's benefit? No. Since husbands are not omniscient their council or commands are necessarily limited.

 

Futhermore, if wives are to obey everything their husbands dictate, how do we deal with instances where doing so would break the law of God? Husbands are not the God of their wives. Compare the scriptural statements regarding how children should obey their parents (and importantly) in God. There is not the slightest obligation to obey something which goes against the law of God.

 

In regards to Jesus dealing with divorce in the book of Matthew, I don't think I understand what you mean. He addressed it and explained to the people that God gave them that allowance because their hearts were hardened. That doesn't mean that divorce is good, but it was allowed for the protection of a woman and her not being tossed aside with no hope. 

 

Matthew 19:7-9:

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Note that it was Moses NOT God who gave them allowance and only because of their hard-heartedness (ie refusing to believe what God said is sin). Also, as far as I know these writs of divorce were more to the detriment of the wife considering the trivial grounds that were used as reasons and the economic status of women at that time. Divorce could also be used to separate mothers from their children. Imagine a barren wife being divorced on that ground. In those times who would have willingly married such a divorced woman even without any stigma of adultery? But regardless of your interpretation of Moses and his writs of divorcement, Christ clearly states that it was not how it was intended from the very beginning and clarifies that only adultery gives permission for the innocent party to remarry. 

 

I'm not saying an abuse-suffering spouse has to stay with her abusing spouse (see my previous post). Note that Christ doesn't say that "divorce" equals adultery. If a woman feels she has legitimate grounds for "divorce" short of adultery then that is fine. It will not however end the marriage according to scripture thus if she (or her "ex"-husband) has sex with someone else then they are committing adultery. "Divorce" is not so much the issue as the sexual conduct AFTER "divorce" because a divorce not on grounds of adultery has no effect on the continuance of the marriage. 

 

 

 

Sure times are different, but a man who is an abuser has effectively tossed aside his wife.

 

I think "abuse" is an entirely too flexible condition to equate with divorcing or giving the unrestricted right to divorce. We tend to associate the term with extreme repeated abuse but those adjectives are not required to consider something as being abuse. I don't think there would be any couple married for a decent amount of time and who love eachother who have not at some point in time committed or received some sort of abuse towards/from their partner even if it was not particularly malicious. 

 

 

I also reject the idea of comparing suffering an abusive marriage to suffering for Christ. 

 

It appears you are differentiating laws based on how obedience to those laws is fulfilled when the importance part is obedience. If you consider obedience to the seventh commandment to be less necessary than obedience to the first/ninth due to the character of the sin then what are your thoughts in regard to humanity's original sin? What could possibly be more innocent when it comes to the character of a sin than eating the fruit of a tree that they were forbidden from eating???? The pivotal part is that it was an act of disobedience and that applies equally to the (knowlingly) breaking of any and all moral laws in scripture. That is why James 2:10 can state: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

I don't think it necessary to wait for adultery to break a union with such a person. These kids have every right to the possibility of a father who is not an a-hole, whether there has been proof of adultery or not. 

 

Getting married again and providing for you and yours is not wrong.

 

You are entitled to your beliefs but if you claim that scripture supports your beliefs please provide the evidence for it.

As far as remarrying out of necessity. If one accepts that it would break the moral law then really you'd have to admit that you would be better off without remarrying considering Romans 8:28. It can be very much a part of perspective and faith. Even insofar as death is concerned. I know someone who rationalised blatent sin on the basis that he needed to do it to survive. What if it was his time to die? What if God through death intended to preserve him from great earthly suffering or possibly loosing his eternal life? What if God chose to use that situation to let him die because God knew that if he continued to live he would have lost his eternal life? Just a thought...I think we all too frequently overvalue our mortal shuffle on earth though understandably so.

 

 

To tell them that they should have chosen someone better to marry...isn't that just yet another example of blaming the victim? 

 

Again, I'm not saying a victim has to "stay" with an abuser and accept abuse. 

 

 

But how come adultery is the only sin that suddenly gives someone a free pass to divorce? What about all the sins that lead up to the eventual adultery? I just don't understand how a person could be unfaithful in a million different ways, but as long as they don't put P in V, then their spouse will be doomed to a sexless, loveless marriage and/or life.

 

Good question. I have contemplated it a little myself though I haven't studied into it much. While reasons can be interesting, strictly speaking a moral law given by God doesn't need to make sense to us - that is why religions are grouped within divine command theory: reasons behind the command have no bearing on its validity. We cannot even comprehend every aspect of events in the Bible. 

 

If any sin could give grounds for ending a marriage then there would be extremely little certainty to the covenant of marriage. Perhaps it is because of the central tenet of exclusivity, the high association with intimacy and trust that sex has, or how sex can be the culmination and expression of the closest human connection possible and thus the gravity of the offence when it is violated in the marriage.

 

Also I believe your definition of adultery is entirely too narrow. Matthew 5:28 establishes that merely intending to commit adultery without even completing the act (aka attempted adultery) and without any necessary physical contact constitutes adultery. Interesting (at least in Australia) attempted murder is punishable to the same extent as completed murder, similarly I think God's law doesn't require physical completion of a sinful act for sin to have been commited.

[Johnny 261]

'tis the bearded, your statement was that there was no command in scripture for wives to follow their husbands as leaders in everything, but there is such a scripture almost verbatim. Wives are also told in scripture to submit to their husbands even if their husbands are nonbelievers who are obviously not always going to do everything right or act the way they should. What people choose to do with these scriptures is certainly up to them, but it's inaccurate to say they're not there.

[mewaiting 226]

If you want to rant about feminism, perhaps you should take it over to the "feminazi" topic. But no, avoiding feminists is not a "no brainer" for men.

I don't think this is even close to a rant - and moreover, this is a religious topic.

['tis the Bearded One 661]

'tis the bearded, your statement was that there was no command in scripture for wives to follow their husbands as leaders in everything, but there is such a scripture almost verbatim. Wives are also told in scripture to submit to their husbands even if their husbands are nonbelievers who are obviously not always going to do everything right or act the way they should. What people choose to do with these scriptures is certainly up to them, but it's inaccurate to say they're not there.

 

Did you read my post? 

Are you saying scripture places upon wives the moral command to obey their husbands in absolutely everything? 

 

Here are two threads that discuss the topic:

http://forums.waitingtillmarriage.org/topic/1319-thoughts-on-submitting-to-your-husband-and-the-role-of-a-husband-as-being-the-leader/

http://forums.waitingtillmarriage.org/topic/3586-obeying-your-husband/

 

Let me know if those don't answer your inquiry.

[Johnny 261]

Yes, I read your post, 'tis the bearded one.

 

My statements here were not really meant to evaluate the possible exceptions to Ephesians 5:24 or to discuss the broader doctrine of submission. There are other threads for that, as you pointed out. My point is simply that there being exceptions to an instruction doesn't mean the instruction isn't in there. For instance, the Israelites were commanded not to kill, and yet, as we know, God also commanded them to kill people quite frequently, but we can't accurately say there's no commandment not to kill.

 

As for Eph 5:24, there is the commandment that wives be subject to their husbands in everything. What "everything" entails is a matter for each person's heart, but the scripture states what it states, and I think we should be wary of reading our interpretation into the wording, since some people may not know the Bible as well as others. Rather, people should be directed to what scripture actually states first, and then they can be "convinced in their own minds" (Romans 14:5) from there.