Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Fortunately, I don't make any claims to being a Christian. The rampant hypocrisy was a large part of what drove me away or led me to question my Christian upbringing.

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Christianity is based on a book that most of it's followers haven't even bothered to read in its entirety. It's literally considered "The Word of God" and they can't make time to read it. And when people do read passages like the above, they immediately start rationalizing their actions. "Oh Jesus didn't really mean you have to give your possessions away. He's just saying rich people have to be extra sorry for their continued refusal to actually do what he said."

And I find something else applicable. The highest virtue is to be respectfully equal, another one of those passive virtues. They are good, but not sufficient lacking anything else.



"Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good: in its precepts (as has been well said) "thou shalt not" predominates unduly over "thou shalt." In its horror of sensuality, it made an idol of asceticism, which has been gradually compromised away into one of legality. It holds out the hope of heaven and the threat of hell, as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life: in this falling far below the best of the ancients, and doing what lies in it to give to human morality an essentially selfish character, by disconnecting each man's feelings of duty from the interests of his fellow-creatures, except so far as a self-interested inducement is offered to him for consulting them. It is essentially a doctrine of passive obedience; it inculcates submission to all authorities found established; who indeed are not to be actively obeyed when they command what religion forbids, but who are not to be resisted, far less rebelled against, for any amount of wrong to ourselves. And while, in the morality of the best Pagan nations, duty to the State holds even a disproportionate place, infringing on the just liberty of the individual; in purely Christian ethics, that grand department of duty is scarcely noticed or acknowledged." -JS Mill

And to think today Christianity is actually considered patriarchal in nature.

[jpetr48]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

That is probably true of many Christians, but most of the ones who I am close to do read it everyday. Also a Christian is no where near perfect. A christian is simply a sinner saved by Grace. We can do nothing to win salvation. We merely have to accept the free gift offered us by His Grace. It is very true it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, because too often his real God is his wealth and things he believes he owns. However, nothing is really ours, it is only on loan to us from the true owner, the creator of all things, God. There are many who would say they are Christians, but only God knows who is truly is.

+1
I read the bible thru every day too as part of a yearly plan and not because i have to or am trying to be someone i am not- but because of what you say Jim and that is Grace of Jesus Christ
Some of the best charitable giving and investing principles (>2000 verses) not to mention marriage are in the Bible - it took 43 years- to understand and accept.

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Hmmm. Just shed personal liability? I guess that was the whole original point of the corporation.

Exactly. I would not expect to find that more of the Rockefellers' wealth is held through entities than personally although I don't know how to find that out.

It's like being a sole proprietor: what's the point other than it's easy? One can debate the wisdom of allowing people to shield themselves from liability, but given situation I can't see why people would choose not to do so.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

+1
I read the bible thru every day too as part of a yearly plan and not because i have to or am trying to be someone i am not- but because of what you say Jim and that is Grace of Jesus Christ
Some of the best charitable giving and investing principles (>2000 verses) not to mention marriage are in the Bible - it took 43 years- to understand and accept.

and it took me 38 years, and I went to church most of those 38 years. I was one of those "christians" who really was not one. I was only one if someone asked me what my religion was.

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

We can do nothing to win salvation.

"go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven"

How much simpler could he have made it?

If your point is that the Bible is inconsistent and other places say other things, I won't argue that. But I fail to see how anyone can read the above verse and not see it as a road map to salvation laid out by Jesus Christ himself that is so easy to follow a child can understand it.

I don't mean to offend you by questioning your faith, but how can you not see that? How, as a someone claiming to be a Christian, can you not immediately and obviously see what you are being asked to do and go do it? Jesus says: Do this, have treasure in heaven. You respond: There's nothing I can do to win salvation. I simply have no way of understanding that line of reasoning. Does having treasure in heaven not equal salvation?

The chapter even further explains the choice. The rich young man (who claims to have kept all the commandments) walks away sorrowful because he refuses to give away his many possessions. The disciples are then assured that since they have already followed the advice, they will have salvation.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

"go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven"

How much simpler could he have made it?

If your point is that the Bible is inconsistent and other places say other things, I won't argue that. But I fail to see how anyone can read the above verse and not see it as a road map to salvation laid out by Jesus Christ himself that is so easy to follow a child can understand it.

I don't mean to offend you by questioning your faith, but how can you not see that? How, as a someone claiming to be a Christian, can you not immediately and obviously see what you are being asked to do and go do it? Jesus says: Do this, have treasure in heaven. You respond: There's nothing I can do to win salvation. I simply have no way of understanding that line of reasoning. Does having treasure in heaven not equal salvation?

The chapter even further explains the choice. The rich young man (who claims to have kept all the commandments) walks away sorrowful because he refuses to give away his many possessions. The disciples are then assured that since they have already followed the advice, they will have salvation.

It’s true that Jesus told the rich young ruler to give up his wealth and follow Him ( Mark 10:21 ). On another occasion, Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” 1 ( Mark 10:25 ).


On other occasions, Jesus didn’t rebuke friends who owned property or command them to sell their homes and businesses. In fact, He often ate with people and stayed at their homes. Friends like Mary and Martha or Zacchaeus the publican were clearly not among the poor. He was even buried in the newly excavated tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin.


So why, then, did Jesus set up what seems to be such a stringent requirement for this particular young man? ( Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30 ).


Jesus knew the young man’s heart. He knew that he was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the Master would give him a specific task or good deed to perform that would win eternal life, one that wouldn’t require him to humble himself and unconditionally set his life under the authority of Christ. Instead, Jesus set up a requirement that clearly illustrated the basic issue: the rich young man’s desire to retain control of his life.


Jesus wasn’t implying that salvation can actually be earned by good deeds. Even if the rich young ruler would have given away his riches and followed Christ, he wouldn’t have earned his salvation. However, if he had done so, he would have surrendered his desire for autonomy and acknowledged God’s authority to do what He wanted with his life.


Jesus felt compassion for this young man. But because He knew that the ruler was seeking to manipulate God, He had no choice but to send him away with a clear awareness of his failure.


The Bible makes it clear that possession of wealth involves responsibility, including a responsibility to be compassionate to the poor. But the Bible doesn’t say that all Christians should sell everything they have and give the proceeds to the poor. The hearts of some people, like the rich young ruler’s heart, may require such drastic measures. But for others, giving away everything would be an act of poor stewardship—an unwillingness to make wise, compassionate use of the gifts given by God.


On the other hand, Jesus indicated that a poor person is spiritually in a better position to receive the gospel( Matthew 19:23-24 ; Luke 6:24-25 ). A poor person can’t look to wealth to shield him from the reality of his spiritual poverty and dependence upon God. Poor people have their worries, just as wealthy people do. But poverty is a blessing in disguise when it makes it harder for a person to maintain the illusion of control, and easier to see his need for God. Furthermore, the best things in life aren’t related to wealth. A person in good health is better off—even in material terms—than a well-to-do person with a terminal disease. A person with a small income can enjoy friendship, love, and the beauty of the natural world just as much as a wealthy person can.


What really matters is the purpose that possessions play in our lives. Are we looking to possessions for the meaning and security in our lives, or are we looking at them as blessings that can help us fulfill our role in God’s kingdom?


The apostle Paul left no doubt regarding the means of our salvation and assurance:


For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).


And what about our physical needs? Although Jesus doesn’t tell us that possessions are evil in themselves, He clearly defined where our focus should be:


Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well (Matthew 6:33).

The above says it better than I could, but it is exactly what I would have tried to say, It is from
http://questions.org/attq/does-jesus...r-possessions/

You can not take an isolated quote from the Bible without knowing the whole Bible to understand where it fits. Also if the Holy Spirit is not guiding you then you will usually think that it is all foolishness.

jim

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

When I say "equality" I don't mean that everybody is the same or equal in abilities. I mean that no one has the right to oppress or demean another human being just because they have the ability to do so. Female human beings don't deserve to be bought and sold and beaten to death merely because they are female, any more than blacks deserved to be bought and sold and beaten to death merely because they were black.

Shiny, I agree women were beaten and sold because they were female and the majority were physically weaker than men throughout history.

However I do not agree that blacks were beaten and sold into slavery simply because they were black. Honestly that is a naive statement one born out of some sort of liberal theology that permeates the social mind in the West.

Blacks were slaves because they lacked the technological advancements to defend themselves in a world where man took on man, nation took on nation in a win at all costs scenario.

At one time certain groups of whites (Vandals, Germans, Spanairds, Greeks, Arabs etc etc) were also beaten and sold into slavery not because of the color of their skin but because they were weaker: intellectually, militarily and technologically.

The Arabs were even up to 1888 taking slaves from Scandanavia to the Middle East when the enslavement of blacks at least in the US was over.

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

gwynedd, you might really enjoy that essay i linked to. it's fascinating and fun, and not at all about being pc. frankly, i recommend that essay to anyone and everyone. but i particularly mentioned it to you, gwynedd, because i think baumeister is making some of the same points you did, albeit in a more playful tone.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

The best part is that if anyone tries to tell you that maybe values other than money should motivate people, it's so threatening to the entire system that they'll spend months labeling that person a Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Evil-doer. Even the Pope. It doesn't matter how much the idea of a pope being marxist is laughable on its very face. The owners can't have anyone defining virtue in any terms outside of billions...

Once, in the same day, I was called by two different people: A socialist by one and a Nazi by another.

I felt my duty was done.

I have offended god and mankind: Da vinci

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

The above says it better than I could, but it is exactly what I would have tried to say, It is from
http://questions.org/attq/does-jesus...r-possessions/

You can not take an isolated quote from the Bible without knowing the whole Bible to understand where it fits. Also if the Holy Spirit is not guiding you then you will usually think that it is all foolishness.

jim

Like I said from the beginning, when confronted with black and white instruction from Jesus himself, Christians will do anything to rationalize not following it. So some guy on the internet claims that somehow he knows what Jesus really meant when he said that.

If the advice ONLY applies "for this particular young man" and his situation, why do the disciples immediately apply the advice to themselves and ask Jesus what they will get for obeying it? More importantly, why does Jesus confirm that for doing what he said they WILL be rewarded? The obvious answer is that clearly he meant for it to apply to a wider group.

The kind of tortured logic that website displays results from trying to find the answer one wants to find instead of the truth.

Even if the rich young ruler would have given away his riches and followed Christ, he wouldn’t have earned his salvation.

Apparently Jesus is a straight up liar according to some guy who claims to know what Jesus really meant and also claims to know whether or not someone thousands of years ago would have achieved salvation. Which is interesting because in this very thread you claim that only God knows that.

99% of Christians won't accept the obvious because it creates cognitive dissonance between what they know they should do and what they want to do. So they seek out an alternative explanation that makes it all OK. They continue to believe that "What Jesus Would Do" is live a life of luxury while the poor eat mud to fill their bellies. Or that because they can't be perfect, they get to not even try.

I doubt you'd ever believe my version even though my version is simply that the meaning is clear and requires no extra-biblical interpretation that concludes it's non-applicable. And as you say, my thinking is invalid a priori because it's not guided by the Holy Spirit. I hope I haven't been too offensive as that wasn't my intent.

[DSpencer]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Once, in the same day, I was called by two different people: A socialist by one and a Nazi by another.

I felt my duty was done.

I have offended god and mankind: Da vinci

You were called a socialist and a shorthand name for National Socialist in the same day. Please explain the irony that I seem to be missing.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

"Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good: in its precepts (as has been well said) "thou shalt not" predominates unduly over "thou shalt." In its horror of sensuality, it made an idol of asceticism, which has been gradually compromised away into one of legality. It holds out the hope of heaven and the threat of hell, as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life: in this falling far below the best of the ancients, and doing what lies in it to give to human morality an essentially selfish character, by disconnecting each man's feelings of duty from the interests of his fellow-creatures, except so far as a self-interested inducement is offered to him for consulting them. It is essentially a doctrine of passive obedience; it inculcates submission to all authorities found established; who indeed are not to be actively obeyed when they command what religion forbids, but who are not to be resisted, far less rebelled against, for any amount of wrong to ourselves. And while, in the morality of the best Pagan nations, duty to the State holds even a disproportionate place, infringing on the just liberty of the individual; in purely Christian ethics, that grand department of duty is scarcely noticed or acknowledged." -JS Mill

I passed this quote along to a religious friend of mine. Here is his response:

"I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a quote which so completely misunderstands and misstates Christian beliefs and the message of the Bible as this. It has all the ear markings of an intelligent individual, puffed up in pride, who has read the Bible without understanding what they are reading as they have done it filled with the pride of man’s “wisdom” but with zero spiritual wisdom or discernment.

It does not anger me, nor does it pose serious questions or points that it challenges me. It does however sadden me, deeply sadden me, that one could so completely misunderstand a topic of such deep importance. I would like to understand your reason for sharing this, as if this is something which you believe we should talk, if you are open. Sentence, by sentence it is almost completely backward. We’re not talking a difference of opinion, we’re talking completely and utterly false. It’s akin to if I told you the duty of police officers is to rob banks and sell drugs. It’s that backward.

You need to understand, I’m not responding in a reactionary manner out of being offended that someone would write something against my beliefs. It’s out of deep sadness that someone could so completely miss God’s Word of salvation and His love for us.

Next move if yours, would love to have a serious discussion, if you are willing."


I emailed the quote with no explanation just to see his initial response.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

You were called a socialist and a shorthand name for National Socialist in the same day. Please explain the irony that I seem to be missing.

Correct, Nazi meant a national socialist but in the minds of the lay people, Nazi is a colloquial American term for someone who espouses "far to the right political views."

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Like I said from the beginning, when confronted with black and white instruction from Jesus himself, Christians will do anything to rationalize not following it. So some guy on the internet claims that somehow he knows what Jesus really meant when he said that.

If the advice ONLY applies "for this particular young man" and his situation, why do the disciples immediately apply the advice to themselves and ask Jesus what they will get for obeying it? More importantly, why does Jesus confirm that for doing what he said they WILL be rewarded? The obvious answer is that clearly he meant for it to apply to a wider group.

The kind of tortured logic that website displays results from trying to find the answer one wants to find instead of the truth.



Apparently Jesus is a straight up liar according to some guy who claims to know what Jesus really meant and also claims to know whether or not someone thousands of years ago would have achieved salvation. Which is interesting because in this very thread you claim that only God knows that.

99% of Christians won't accept the obvious because it creates cognitive dissonance between what they know they should do and what they want to do. So they seek out an alternative explanation that makes it all OK. They continue to believe that "What Jesus Would Do" is live a life of luxury while the poor eat mud to fill their bellies. Or that because they can't be perfect, they get to not even try.

I doubt you'd ever believe my version even though my version is simply that the meaning is clear and requires no extra-biblical interpretation that concludes it's non-applicable. And as you say, my thinking is invalid a priori because it's not guided by the Holy Spirit. I hope I haven't been too offensive as that wasn't my intent.

One thing you said is completely true. If you truly read the gospels and listen to them then you can only come to one of 2 conclusions, either Jesus is the biggest liar who ever walked the earth or he is exactly who He says he is God! The evidence is there if you want to find it. Jesus said many things like the one you said, and when He was talking only to an individual, his comments were meant exactly for that individual and what that individual needed. Since you don't really know who I am ( and of course you can assume I am lying if you want), but my wife and I donate more than 25% of our annual income which is less than $100,000. I know many many others who do that and more. Anyway, I assume I can say nothing to change your mind and I know you can do nothing to change mine so at the moment I guess we should leave it as we are. I will pray (although I assume you do not think that means anything) for you each morning. Thanks for listening.

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

this has become a very confused thread.