The Bible teaches everything about romance and marriage.

[wh666]

This part I disagree with.

The rest is spot on.

Thank you floaty.


Can I ask out of interest though, why do you disagree with the quoted opinionated bit? What aspect do you disagree with? Are you religious and it has offended or is it aspects which you can't see why I would feel the way I do?

[FloatyBoaty]

Thank you floaty.

Can I ask out of interest though, why do you disagree with the quoted opinionated bit? What aspect do you disagree with? Are you religious and it has offended or is it aspects which you can't see why I would feel the way I do?

Allow me to correct a bit; I quoted more than I meant to - so just this part:

I agree. However I usually find that, even if religious people aren't forcing their beliefs on others, their views and unwavering belief in their faith, could be admirable but is usually damaging and hateful. The bible is a very hateful book, which can be illustrated with asking religious folk why the devil is evil and why god is great.

I feel there is little good in the bible and whatever is good, is overridden by hatred, vengeance and the most disgusting morals regarding family and society that today are unthinkable. On a related subject, what kind of monster names their child Dinah?

I disagree that the Bible is hateful, vengeful and damaging - it is the people who create this portrayal of such lies. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and not to hate at all. Also, to "anger and sin not".

It doesn't really offend me, and I can see why you think that. Everyone is free to believe what they want, and the Bible even tells us to "seek out your own salvation", however one can be misguided by those who claim to be but are not - the "wolves in sheep's clothing".

Just because modern society believes something wrong or right doesn't make it so. Something on Facebook I'd like to re-quote (more or less):

As everyone goes insane, the sane become the crazy.

So basically, I disagree with you because I've found this way to be the true way. It's up to you to find yours as well. (though I do hope you choose this path )

[Yan Yan]

Hmmm!
If we look at Paul's letters to Timothy, it seems that the early Christians practised polygamy. Also, like the Jews they felt honour-bound to take the wives of their dead brothers into their own household and 'raise up children in the name of the brother'.
Modern American translations change "husband of one wife" to " a man married only once". There's a surprise!
The problem with using the Bible as an appeal to higher authority is that it has been politically-corrected for 2000 years.

The Old Testament view of marriage and gender relations is a million miles away from the New Testament rules. Yet, according to the Gospels, Jesus himself had little interest in such trivia. Saving men's souls was the first priority. Like all the world's major religions, benign treatment of women was an element, but submitting to enslavement of their narcissistic needs is barely mentioned. Unless of course we like the story of Samson and Delilah.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

With all due respect to all here, literalism toward any written word, be it the Bible, the Constitution of the United States, the collected works of Gloria Steinem, even the sum total of all the transcendent enlightenment as channeled to us by the great Dinohip51, is simply not a serious argument.

No one is ever swayed to a new point of view by someone saying, just read this, then you'll know.

That way lies cults and armed feudal camps of paranoid coreligionists run by fanatics and warlords.

Sort of like the blogosphere.

[FloatyBoaty]

However, there is a difference between "sex" and "rape". One is the sacred/fun/loving coming together of 2 partners...the other is using your partner's body against them for your own needs, and discounting theirs.

Since we're on the subject, I have a scenario. I'll use two unknown people - Jon and Jill - as character placeholders.

Jon takes Jill without Jill's permission because Jon desires Jill. Jon does not want to let go of Jill and makes this known to Jill. Since Jon has want for Jill, the line that defines rape is ambiguous until Jill makes the decision. Even worse, this line can shift later on because of influence by Jill's friends and family.

How does one define rape in such a situation?

[Yan Yan]

With all due respect to all here, literalism toward any written word, be it the Bible, the Constitution of the United States, the collected works of Gloria Steinem, even the sum total of all the transcendent enlightenment as channeled to us by the great, is simply not a serious argument.

No. But sometimes we need our brothers to listen. They won't listen if we always arrogantly proclaim that our understanding is better than theirs.

[wh666]

Since we're on the subject, I have a scenario. I'll use two unknown people - Jon and Jill - as character placeholders. Jon takes Jill without Jill's permission

She either leaves with him, going to bed willingly, even if she hasn't said a word, or struggles to get away, shouting and fighting. So which is it here?

Jon does not want to let go of Jill and makes this known to Jill. Since Jon has want for Jill, the line that defines rape is ambiguous until Jill makes the decision.

Not at all, by staying with him, she may not be reciprocating that yearning, but is accepting what is happening instead of rejecting it.

Even worse, this line can shift later on because of influence by Jill's friends and family.

Then it is not rape.

You cannot change your mind on consent, just because one might regret their whore-ish tendencies in the light of day, or be disappointed that the sex wasn't as enjoyable as they think they deserve.

> If you lie in bed/on a sofa/etc, taking it, or indeed giving/riding it, without protesting and fighting, then it's consensual.
> If you fight and push someone away, then if you are in bed with them already, you're a cock/pussy-tease but to then have someone carry on is rape. One should be careful about getting in to close situations with those they aren't attracted to though. It isn't very respectful to lead someone on.

It is very clear to sane people what is rape and what isn't.

Allow me to correct a bit; I quoted more than I meant to - so just this part:

I disagree that the Bible is hateful, vengeful and damaging - it is the people who create this portrayal of such lies. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and not to hate at all. Also, to "anger and sin not"

God smites a lot of people in the bible. Also in some parts, he teases people, rather vindictively inflicting suffering.

Take one example of the pharoh and the jews. The pharoh was going to let the jewish slaves go free, but god hardened the pharohs heart, stopping him making the right choice, then inflicted revenge on the pharoh. It seems altering the will of man, isn't entirely fair. Through these actions, the chosen people had to wander the desert when there was no need.

Then I find the book of job/epistle of james very damaging and hateful. God takes an honourable man and inflicts suffering on him to settle a bet with the devil, pushing him to the brink of sanity and then doesn't even apologise and argues with the man he's tormented.

It doesn't really offend me, and I can see why you think that. Everyone is free to believe what they want, and the Bible even tells us to "seek out your own salvation", however one can be misguided by those who claim to be but are not - the "wolves in sheep's clothing".

Thank you. It is nice to discuss theology, but it can be a sensitive area. I especially agree with the bold bit. Ones choice of spiritual leanings and faith, is perhaps the only free will one has.

Just because modern society believes something wrong or right doesn't make it so. Something on Facebook I'd like to re-quote (more or less):

Very true. One of my favourite parts of the bible which I quoted, where a new husband should take a year with his wife, would get comments in modern society of the man being a "useless layabout", however I think it is quite a nice concept.

So basically, I disagree with you because I've found this way to be the true way. It's up to you to find yours as well. (though I do hope you choose this path )

We can't agree on everything, otherwise debates would be very dull. Even with differing views in some areas, I'm sure we agree in many others.

[FloatyBoaty]

Before this goes much further, this isn't a promotion of rape, and all that legal stuff.

She either leaves with him, going to bed willingly, even if she hasn't said a word, or struggles to get away, shouting and fighting. So which is it here?

Either way, she can cry rape; not much of a difference. Or, she may feel unable to do anything and only give light resistance.

Not at all, by staying with him, she may not be reciprocating that yearning, but is accepting what is happening instead of rejecting it.

I think too may people put emphasis on the act itself and not enough on what happens afterward. Legally, it would still be rape either way.

To play devils advocate, things change with time. Also, the outside circumstances could have an impact on it. It could be that by taking Jill, Jon is giving Jill a bed, roof and food. It could also be that there is no one else to help Jill. And, it could also be that this is the only way for Jon to help Jill.

The point is that it is much easier to simply keep sex only between husband and wife. Equating sex with marriage would eliminate these obscure dilemmas. If Jon takes Jill as his wife through such means, is that for the better or for the worse? Who knows.

Then it is not rape.

You cannot change your mind on consent, just because one might regret their whore-ish tendencies in the light of day, or be disappointed that the sex wasn't as enjoyable as they think they deserve.

Very true, though not always according to the law.


And as for the rest, it appears we have different views of the Bible.

[Traveler]

@wh666

I see your point that the scenario I described initially is probably closer to "giving in to sexual abuse" than actual "rape". However, I still feel that if a spouse drugs/ties up their marriage partner and has their way with their incapacitated body...it is rape. Married or not, men and women don't *literally* become one mind/soul/body. It's a nice romantic sentiment, but hardly true.

@Floaty
I am unsure what your definition of the word "take" is...Do you mean "take Jill's viginity" or "take for a wife"?

[wh666]

@wh666

I see your point that the scenario I described initially is probably closer to "giving in to sexual abuse" than actual "rape". However, I still feel that if a spouse drugs/ties up their marriage partner and has their way with their incapacitated body...it is rape.

Oh definitely, from our moral standpoint anyway.

Married or not, men and women don't *literally* become one mind/soul/body. It's a nice romantic sentiment, but hardly true.

That's what the bible preaches. It also says a woman must honour and obey.

If people choose to get married, they should be well aware of what kind of commitment they are making. A good first step is to read the bible.

[FloatyBoaty]

@wh666
[...]Married or not, men and women don't *literally* become one mind/soul/body. It's a nice romantic sentiment, but hardly true.

You'd be surprised at what a true marriage is like.

@Floaty
I am unsure what your definition of the word "take" is...Do you mean "take Jill's viginity" or "take for a wife"?

sexual intercourse.

[FloatyBoaty]

Oh definitely, from our moral standpoint anyway.

Modern standpoint. Drugs are bad, so that's out. Besides, one is not allowed to withhold from the other without mutual consent. Not only is that in the Bible, it is common sense that anyone here would agree with.

[michael k]

You are all crazy

[julie]

Haha, great post, IMO. You ask an awesome question, IMO.

Hmmm. Interesting is the way the bible makes 2 people 1.

I see over and over and over again relationships where the 2 had 2 lives. I always say, "How come you never went out together?" Like, she has her friends and he has his friends. Or she had friends and he became part of her friends, or he had friends and she became part of his friends. Where did they as a couple come into the picture?

Christians have weekends and camps that are all about the couple. I don't know of any other group who does this.

[FloatyBoaty]

You are all crazy

And you're not?