***
Is there such a thing as “rape” in a Christian marriage?
***
JA note: Thanks to Kathi for putting this post together this week as I’m finding my groove with a new term back at college.
***
***
Robert posts on his blog, A Man, His Wife, and the Bible and is married to Amanda. That is all that we know about Robert, although I do think that his Doctrines and Beliefs tab tells us quite a bit.
With regard to physical abuse, Robert believes that it is not grounds for divorce. Robert also believes that emotional abuse is overused and overblown by women today. He does think that both sexes are capable of emotional abuse, but it is more “culturally acceptable” for women to be emotionally abusive.
Adultery is the only Biblical grounds for divorce, and adultery is defined as “physical intercourse with someone not your spouse.” Forget that emotional stuff because everyone does it.
When children enter the picture, a wife is to teach them to honor the Lord and her husband. And, let’s not forget that a wife is to submit to her husband in all things – including his sexual desires – which does not surprise me in the least about Robert’s view of sexual abuse considering the following (added spaces for easier reading):
Sexual Abuse:
Biblically, we do not believe marital rape is possible. Scripture clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that a wife’s body is her husbands and a husband’s body is his wife’s.
We believe consent is given at marriage.
We believe the teaching on marital rape is a poison in the well of women’s hearts and minds towards their husbands and marriage & does much damage. However, we also do not condone a husband taking his wife against her will and strongly state that a man should not do so. In situations of repeated and enduring refusal, professional help and Matthew 18 need to be worked through & not force to be used.
We also believe that denying a spouse sex is just as much abuse as forcing sex upon a spouse.
Lastly, we do not believe sex where a man and woman engage in sex while intoxicated is rape.
In closing, we put equal responsibility on each party in such a situation. Any marriage where sexual abuse is taking place needs to get help from a pastor, or in some situations law enforcement. (Source)
Let’s pause there for a moment and look at the definition of marital rape:
Marital rape can be defined as any unwanted intercourse or penetration (vaginal, anal, or oral) obtained by force, threat of force, or when the wife is unable to consent. (Source)
Back to Robert…
How in the world can he honestly say that he does not believe that marital rape is possible when he states that he does not condone a husband taking his wife against her will? Taking a wife against her will is the definition of marital rape, therefore you must believe that marital rape is possible.
Robert doesn’t go so far as to say that sexual assault is a woman’s fault, but when I read this, I think he comes pretty close. He almost makes it sound that sexual assault is a result of a woman denying sex to her husband. And then to say each party has equal responsibility, but if raped while intoxicated is null and void? In the end, I think Robert’s belief that marital rape is not possible is because there are enough loopholes to get a man out of being accused of raping his wife.
Oh, by the way, when Robert says, “We do believe,” he is referring to himself and his wife, Amanda. He makes it very clear in the Doctrines and Beliefs that they both believe these things. This makes me sad for Amanda and I want to know if that is what she really believes. I certainly hope that this man is not a pastor. I can’t imagine that any woman who comes to them with problems in an abusive marriage will receive any help.
photo credit: Klardrommar via photopin cc
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Bridget said,
It’s like my analogy above about making Toast.
If you are hungry, do you just place the toast into the toaster and move the lever, or do you stand there praying about if making Toast is godly and biblical to start with? And what is the most biblical, God-honoring kind of bread to use in making toast, whole wheat or white bread?
Getting hung up on what is “biblical,” or how to resolve disputes in a “godly” way to the Nth degree, or how to live life, seems to just makes things unnecessarily convoluted.
If I recall correctly, Bike Bubba was also arguing extensively in favor of exhaustive use of Matt 18by Christians in an older thread, with chapmened, in cases of how churches should handle child sex abuse, or some other subject.
I’m really not concerned with the feelings, welfare, or redemption of abusive people, under Matt 18 or any other biblical teaching. I’m more concerned that victims of abuse receive help and compassion. I think helping and protecting victims is the priority, not restoring an abuser.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Bubba:
So it is harder to deal with abuse when you are out of the abusive situation and not being abused anymore, and easier to deal with it when you are actually still being abused.
Umm.
Are you really saying it’s not better for the victim in the short or long term to get out of the situation? Because I’m really not sure what you’re getting at with the above. Not all families and friends are automatically non-supportive, and there are women’s shelters and victim support networks for this kind of thing. If the victim’s personal/physical safety is in question, THEY NEED TO GET OUT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Ed:
Esp. when he actually doesn’t forbid it and explicitly says it is appropriate if the spouse has been unfaithful.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bike Bubba said,
I’ve pretty much already walked away from the Bible by this time… and my life has become simpler and happier.
I don’t wish to return to the odd, evangelical or conservative Christian preoccupation of analyzing everything by “what does the Bible say.” I used to live that way, and it did not help me before.
When you live life that way, you become paralyzed by in-action. You get so caught up debating on things like, “what is the Godly way to handle X,” that you don’t do anything about X.
You’re doing that with abusive marriages, for instance.
You’d rather women stay married to these abusive putzes, while we all sit around and debate how / when / if a woman should leave a spouse, rather than the wife get the heck out of dodge and to safety immediately.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, for those of you who have already read my posts above, but…
1. Atheists don’t hinge any or all their life choices on “God’s Word,” and their lives are not necessarily worse than that of many Christians I see.
I open my browser almost every day and read news headlines of Christians who commit rape, robbery, child molesting, etc.
Following the Bible has not eradicated sin from the lives of professing Christians… so what is the point in “being biblical” about everything
2. Christians cannot agree on the “biblical” way of handling about any topic.
Toss out about any subject, and I can guarantee you (depending on what it is), you are likely to get 45 different, very passionate opinions on what the “biblical” view on said topic is, all that differ from one another.
You might as well, therefore, decide for yourself, the best approach to handle Subject X.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Missdaisyflower,
I love your points, A LOT.
It’s like trying to decide whether to have Steak and Lobster, or Lamb Chops.
Let’s use the Bible to decide which meal makes God happy, huh?
Well, the Bible states that God hates Lobster. It’s in scripture.
There, I’ll take the Lamb Chops, because God states that he hates shell fish. Gotta be all legalistic and such. There is no lobster in the Kingdom of God. And if we catch anyone eating lobster, gotta give’em a Matthew 18 sanction.
You are right! Those are the people who are anal retentive.
Ed
LikeLiked by 4 people
The problem I have seen, and caused me to be in a desert place for over a year is that people take ONE scripture and make an entire doctrine or belief system out of it. Yes, it says God hates divorce, but when you take that scripture and put it together with the entire Bible…it does NOT mean a person can never get divorced. The church needs to stop placing burdens on others and not lifting a finger to help.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Youre so right, Gracie, the loudest voices against divorce probably are the same ones who abandon the abused wives in their own churhes.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I find it irritating that Bike Bubba will not accept that other Christians, ie. pretty much every other person here, do not interpret the Bible the way that he does when it comes to abuse and divorce. Why is it when we come to different opinions based on our own study, you accuse us if walking away from God, ignoring Scripture and the like? Are you always right? Is everyone else wrong and if so why? Because we aren’t real Christians or because we are stupid?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Marsha said-I find it irritating that Bike Bubba will not accept that other Christians, ie. pretty much every other person here, do not interpret the Bible the way that he does when it comes to abuse and divorce. Why is it when we come to different opinions based on our own study, you accuse us if walking away from God, ignoring Scripture and the like? Are you always right? Is everyone else wrong and if so why? Because we aren’t real Christians or because we are stupid?
I call it bible bullying. For example- “That’s what the bible says! So if you disagree with me, (because I am the only one here who can hear God correctly you know) you are disagreeing with God!!!” I have encountered that so many times it makes me want to barf.
LikeLiked by 4 people
my plan is not Gods plan,, if your getting the snot slapped out of you,, you run for the door and take the kids with you,, why is that so hard to understand,, its quite simple,, LEAVE,,
LikeLiked by 2 people
BB, You said: Another practical reality is that if one does, as Brenda’s link does, push people to divorce, it becomes harder to deal with abuse, not easier, because you’re asking the victim to walk away from home, friends, relatives and the like.
Where did you get the idea that anyone was pushing a person into divorce–far from it. Barbara and those at ACFJ give the Biblical realities of divorce. They do not tell anyone that they must divorce. You let your mind wander in directions that are not there. I know plenty of victims who choose to stay–it is their choice. They definitely would encourage a target to leave if her safety is in danger–but no one is trying to tell anyone to follow through with divorce.
LikeLike
Gracie,
Again, an abuser is probably not a christian, so THEY DON”T CARE ABOUT BIBLICAL DISCIPLINE!
You are absolutely correct. They don’t care about what God thinks, what the church thinks etc…unless they are faking the whole thing and want to be seen as upstanding Christians. There are plenty of those out there as well. Many who are preachers and missionaries. Their spouses not wanting to say anything because their ministry would be in jeopardy. Their ministry SHOULD be in jeopardy. They are not living out the gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly many of them do fake it. Fake apologies, fake repentance. I saw it in my old church with a friend. He made her look like she was crazy. Most abusers are narcissists. They know how to play the game. They know how to go to every counseling session, go through biblical discipline, look repentant, praise God during worship. Then go back home and and the monster emerges once again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gracie said: The problem I have seen, and caused me to be in a desert place for over a year is that people take ONE scripture and make an entire doctrine or belief system out of it. Yes, it says God hates divorce, but when you take that scripture and put it together with the entire Bible…it does NOT mean a person can never get divorced. The church needs to stop placing burdens on others and not lifting a finger to help.
BINGO!! I think you just won the jackpot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brenda,
What you said to Gracie, Bingo!
Gracie said:
“…you take that scripture and put it together with the entire Bible…”
Seems like it only takes about a week for some to read a Harry Potter book, and those that do, know every twist and turn, rhyme and reason of everything.
But self proclaimed experts can’t even do that with a Bible. To them, it’s all about a particular chapter, rather than the whole book.
That’s what you get when adhere to “expository preaching”. You don’t get the whole story, nor do you get “The Rest of the Story”.
I put in my mindset that we have ONE BOOK called the Bible, not 66 books that make up a Bible.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hester quoting Bubba
Has Bubba ever read any books or blogs on domestic violence?
In these marriages (abusive marriages), the only solution I have seen put forward by experts on this topic is usually is for the woman to leave the abusive husband.
That may mean going to a shelter for abused women. Those women are told not to tell the spouse where they are.
A lot of abusive husbands view the wife as being their possession, like a car or chair or table. The abusive man will therefore chase the wife down to forcibly take her back home -or- some of them will shoot the wife dead if, or when, she tries to leave, or if they find her at a shelter or at a friend’s house.
Women in these relationships have been shot or stabbed and killed by the abusive husband or boyfriend and killed outside courthouses seeking restraining orders.
These types of abusers (which seems to be a large percentage) cannot accept a woman (in their view,their possession) have autonomy and leaving him.
So professionals counsel these women that when they leave the abuser, to do so quietly, in secret. These women may be coached not to contact their family (at least for a time), because the husband may be spying on her family to get tabs on where she is, so he can track her down and kill her.
Is Bubba not aware of any of this at all?
Sometimes it may be in a woman’s best interest not to rely on friends or family because a lot of well meaning (but ignorant about spousal abuse) friends and family will advise the woman to go back to the husband and try to patch the relationship up some more. This is usually bad advice because it’s just more enabling of the abuser.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just had this come to mind- Ezra 9 & 10- The people were told to divorce their foreign wives due to their detestable practices. Isn’t abuse detestable? This is what is called ‘using the whole counsel of scripture’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gracie,
Yes, but a small “but”…in that case it is a “putting away”, not a divorce. The way that Ezra explains it, it’s as if it’s an annulment, because they all did a sacrifice, and that was that. They had married Gentile women from the Promised Land that God commanded them not to do. So that sin had to be dealt with by putting away, and doing a sacrifice. No divorce. It’s as tho the marriage never took place to begin with.
But, your premise is right.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed,
I don’t see there is a lot of depth in a Harry Potter book and have never read one. I can read and reread the Bible and get more from it each time. Ed I don’t think it’s even a whole chapter, a fragment of a verse more likely.
Brenda
LikeLike
Daisy,
the husband may be spying on her family to get tabs on where she is, so he can track her down and kill her. this is so true!!
I know a woman who’s X treated her as property, very familiar for those of us who have been there. She was beaten regularly, tied to the bed and burned with cigarettes, locked in the closet while her babies were left unattended. Each time she would leave and run for her life, he would find her, bring her back and the penalty was worse each time. The final time, he stabbed her in the belly just missing her 3rd child. When she woke up from the coma 2 months later, she had a baby boy waiting for his mother to wake up. After that she was finally able to break free and never saw him again. She was one of the lucky one’s. As you said, they will track you down.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brenda,
I agree. However comma, before I ever began studying for the purpose of “get[ing] more from it each time”, I first read the whole Bible as a Harry Potter book…not once, but five times. Then and only then did I begin to concentrate on TOPICS, because I could then say to myself, “Self, I know I read that somewhere before”, and then I would seek and search until I found it. And, I would find it all over the place, not just in one part of the Bible, but in many parts of the Bible. And this was long before I ever even owned a Strong’s Concordance, too.
Now, in the case of blogs, I either already know the references by heart, AND/OR I already know the key words/phrases to seek when going to biblegateway.com. I’m very quick because the topics that I raise on this blog and others, I’ve already studied it, especially when debating others. I learn information also by debating others, not to necessarily agree with them, but to at least find out the why’s of what they believe, and then I use the same book, the Bible, to counter their beliefs.
Bottom line, I learn a lot, and I have fun with it. But again, my point about Harry Potter was for people to get familiar with the whole book before beginning to discuss a topic. Expository preaching, in my opinion, is NOT ENOUGH. But the reform people seem to use that exclusively. You miss a lot that way.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I don’t like lumping a group of people. I know there are very bad reformed folks and others that are not. I’m not sure why they fly under the same flag, but there should be something that separates them.
I get your point about reading the whole book. I try to read through the entire book once a year and also do individual studies. You are absolutely correct. References to the OT are made in the NT and prophecies of the NT are made in the OT. It is definitely one book. The breakdowns were put in to make it easier for us.
I really don’t like debating all that much, but there are certain topics that I feel strongly about. This post from talking about Marital Rape to all kinds of abuse to divorce for these causes is an on going quest for me to educate others. Based on the evidence presented, I feel strongly that Robert is an abuser, marital rape exists and Amanda could Biblically divorce if she isn’t locked in a cabin somewhere.
Brenda
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just to chime in…I’m still enjoying reading all of the comments! You guys are great and every time I think of something to say, someone’s covered it.
A little off topic…I was at the high school all day listening to senior’s presentations about their graduating projects. One kid did a research project on religion and its affect on society. He wants to study psychology. The panelist next to me said, “I don’t understand how religion and psychology go together.” My mind immediately went here and I thought she could certainly learn a lot here.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Brenda,
I agree with you. As far as lumping groups, it is true that the Reformed people do indeed espouse expository preaching as their methodology of bible study.
Based on the comments of both Robert and Amanda, If that was indeed Amanda, but I’m not so sure, it sounds to me like she’s bought into (brainwashed) Robert’s theology of “submitting to your husband”, and therefore, there is nothing that will get her to come around to our way of thinking. She is indeed being abused, but they both seem to think that this kind of submission is the godly loving thing to do, when in fact, it’s just the opposite.
As I said yesterday, the way that Jesus presented the word “submit” was in the arena of “relax, I’ve got your back”, not as a task master. Submitting to Christ is easy. It’s people like Robert that makes it difficult for his wife. But, she has bought into it.
John 15:15
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
“….As I’ve noted many times before, I concede fully that most people haven’t seen church discipline working well. That is a nasty blot on our records. However, that doesn’t mean we should not try, and I personally know people who have been injured more by a lack of proper church discipline than they were actually hurt by the sins involved…” -Bike Bubba
@Bike Bubba,
Most churches (including those that say that they practice Matthew 18) are not trained and equipped to handle domestic violence and other serious problems.
In fact, the churches do more harm than good and to the wives. The people in power in churches are usually men who aren’t trained to deal with these situations.
My former church, as I’ve stated here before, had pastors/elders who were incompetent to deal with all of the big issues that commonly come up in peoples’ lives: alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, etc. It’s a rare pastor/elder who can get it right.
And in many cases “church discipline” is carried out against the victim, and honestly who needs that?
Did you see the video above of Barbara Roberts talking about the Scripture about God hates divorce and its meaning from the Hebrew?
(Note: Perhaps the one case of Matthew 18 working that I’ve read about is a man who was having an affair and had moved out of the family home. Another Christian man who knew him casually and they did not even go to the same church started confronting the sinning husband. It worked.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a little off topic too but I was thinking today of something a friend told me. He ran a nonprofit which operated a battered women’s shelter. They followed professional sports because if the local team lost a big game, they knew that they would get an influx of battered women that night. Imagine being beaten because your spouse is mad about a sports team’s loss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chapmened said,
I was brought up to believe in a lot of the same stuff Amanda and Robert believe.
As I grew older, I noticed inconsistencies with it (gender complementarianism), and reading the Bible again, and going back and studying portions of it, helped me to see there is something wrong with it.
I later read books by Christians who are gender egalitarians that threw even more light on the topic, and that cemented it for me. Even further, in the last few years, having read books about topics like domestic abuse and codependency, helped me to see how wrong traditional gender roles are.
So, I have some hope that one day Amanda (and maybe even Robert) will have their eyes open or at least reconsider their views on these subjects.
As I’ve said before, I do think a prime motivator for defending antiquated gender roles (which are not biblical), by some Christians is a concern for the social decay in the United States.
I think gender complementarians are greatly upset, troubled, or scared by the dissolution of marriages, acceptance of homosexual marriage, legalization of abortion, etc, and they honestly feel the way to fight these things is to sit around defending “biblical gender roles” (complementarianism).
However, I am a social conservative myself – one does not have to embrace abortion, homosexuality, or whatever other controversial social topics, in the course of jettisoning “gender complementarianism.”
One does not need to adhere to gender complementarianism (GC) to defend traditional marriage, pro life views, and so on.
I also find it funny that so many GCs think their position is “biblical,” and they insist those who reject their views have been influenced by secular feminism, when, in reality, GCs have allowed 1950s American secular culture (ie, June and Ward Cleaver of “Leave it To Beaver” television show) to filter how they read biblical texts that mention men, women, and marriage.
I think other types of people – men who are abusers, or power hungry male preachers – use gender complementarianism as another tactic or excuse to abuse, control, contain, or silence women.
Anyway, I feel that with more life experience, Amanda may grow tired of the GC view and life style and some day be willing to really listen to what Christian gender egalitarians have to say.
After you’ve lived under “traditional gender roles” for decades (like I did), you tire of it and start to see more and more double standards and contradictions in it, you start to question the whole thing.
I think she should read books like “Boundaries” by Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend too… or any books about codependency, people pleasing, and boundaries would probably be helpful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I figure a lot of MRAs are guys who got burned BAD in a divorce or breakup and have gone on a Revenge Binge against anything female. Either that or they can’t refuse Captain Bonerhelment’s orders. Or (like the Santa Barbara Shooter, who left behind a Manifesto and thousands of Selfies), they’re singing this theme song into the mirror and fly into a rage when nobody else sings along…”-H.U.G.
I agree, H.U.G. And also a lot of guys who have a lot of (unresolved) anger about their own childhoods. Same with gang members (all kinds): Tell us about your relationship with your father? Usually it’s non-existent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know the conversation we were having above about how some Christians make much too much out of being “biblical” or saying they want the “biblical” approach to anything and everything?
This guy in the story below worked at a church. He has been accused of molesting two little girls. One site copied some of his tweets before his Twitter was removed.
Church Videographer Molests Girls, Admits To Crime In Front Of Victims’ Father: Cops
Here is one of the quotes from his Twitter (remember, this guy fondled two girls, ages 4 and 6, I think, in a church, you can see some of the screen grabs from his Twitter on the article above, and another site also had copies):
See in that quote how he mentioned the words “biblical”?
I’m not sure why Christians keep placing so much emphasis (some, I understand and agree with), but so very much emphasis on “being biblical” when “being biblical” didn’t keep this guy from doing what he allegedly did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John 15:15
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Ed,
Words that bring peace, joy and love to my heart.
Brenda
LikeLiked by 2 people
Daisy,
It is good to hear that you were able to find your own view point and not stick with what you grew up being taught. If I were able to bring in books to the Amanda’s of the world Cloud and Townsend would be among them. Leslie Vernick’s books are very good. Setting boundaries and sticking with them is crucial for all people. You have to know who you are and what your limits, expectations and goals are in marriage, the work place and even church.
Divorce from spouses, friends, family, employers and church home is the last place that anyone wants to go, but when your alternatives run out and you’ve exhausted all other possibilities, it is there as recourse and may be the most loving thing you can do for an abusive offender.
Although, I like being a woman and have no desire to be a man, I do want to be treated with respect and dignity just as a man would be. I was hesitant about going to a living room discussion group at church because I thought it would be all men bringing up their perspectives and questions while women sat back and listened. I found out that women were welcome to bring their questions and concerns so I am going to try it on this Sunday and see where it leads. I will find out for sure whether it is really more egalitarian or not. I probably will sit quiet the first time around, but that is just me. I like to get a feel before bringing out the big guns, so to speak. I want people to be aware that abuse is real and not to sweep it under the rug. It is important to stand up for the oppressed. I think there are way too many people in the church that are more concerned with achieving the American dream, a house, summer home and a fat pension than they are getting their hands dirty and digging in and helping others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Daisy,
Some folks hide behind a façade. Men and even women will put themselves in a place where they can get easy access to children. My stepfather married a young woman with 2 baby girls. I was one of them. My sperm donor, Dad, abandoned us before my sister was born. Mom had to put an ad in the newspaper in order to divorce him. She had no idea where he was. The even SF moved in quickly knowing the circumstances. He got himself a young wife and 2 little girls to mess with.
This Broyles guy did pretty much the same thing only in a different way. It isn’t that they care about anything biblical or even know Jesus, it is a means of finding their targets. Easy access to those they can devour and defile. It is all smoke and mirrors. In addition to their crimes against people who cannot fight back, they make it hard for the rest of the world to think following Christ is a good thing. My heart goes out to these little children. I hope their parents are wise enough to get them good counsel right away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Missdaisyflower,
You had said:
“I’m not sure why Christians keep placing so much emphasis (some, I understand and agree with), but so very much emphasis on “being biblical” when “being biblical” didn’t keep this guy from doing what he allegedly did.”
Here is what I see as “biblical”. FREEDOM.
Others, however, see the word “OBEDIENCE”. Sure, I see that word, too. But I see both words in this: OBEDIENCE TO FREEDOM
1 Corinthians 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
Colossians 2:20-23
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
FREEDOM. Why was America founded? To worship God based on our own conscience, not by the dictates of someone elses conscience. FREEDOM.
Let’s obey freedom.
Ed
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ed,
FREEDOM. Why was America founded? To worship God based on our own conscience, not by the dictates of someone elses conscience. FREEDOM.
Let’s obey freedom.
Like that very much.
Brenda
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brenda,
A couple more:
James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Tim – So your version of the Bible does not contain Ephesians 5 : 22-24 ? ”
Oh no! It seems your version is missing Eph 5:21!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“FREEDOM. Why was America founded? To worship God based on our own conscience, not by the dictates of someone elses conscience. FREEDOM.”
From James Madison in “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”.
“Because experiences witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Because what influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments have on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority. In many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny. And in no instance had they been seen as guardians of the liberties of the people.”
LikeLike
Lydia,
I see comments like those from the atheists all the time in regards to US History. But they lack the rest of the story in those famous author’s writings in their defense of Christianity. I recently debated a professing Christian that is on the same side of atheists in regards to her revised version of US history. She quoted several famous quotes from the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and a few more.
But, I gave her the rest of the story. I quoted their sayings that included the defense of Christianity from these same people.
James Madison
4th U.S. President
“A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.”
–Written to William Bradford on November 9, 1772
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia,
Part of the quote of James Madison that you quoted:
“Because what influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments have on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority. In many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny. And in no instance had they been seen as guardians of the liberties of the people.””
Second President John Adams, a signer of the Bill of Rights — “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is no force of law in public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘thou shall not covet’ and ‘thou shall not steal’ are not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
Oliver Ellsworth, third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — “The primary objects of government are peace, order, and prosperity of society. To the promotion of these objects, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support, and among these, religious institutions are eminently useful and important.”
6th President John Quincy Adams directly addresses the Ten Commandments –“The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal code as well as a moral and religious code. These are laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every Nation which ever professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of secular history to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as the Ten Commandments lay down.”
LikeLike
Lydia said,
“Oh no! It seems your version is missing Eph 5:21!”
I raised that same point with him back on page 2 or whatever of this thread. He never responded to any of my posts.
IIRC, he only replied to other men in the thread (or people with male sounding screen names). My screen name is obviously more feminine sounding.
I bet if my name was “Tough He Man Tough Guy” he probably would’ve addressed my points.
I have to say at least Robert addressed at least one of the points I raised, even if it was only to mock it. Robert at least addressed a woman on here, but the second or third guy who showed up only replied to the men in the thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. To Lydia,
Lydia said,
“Oh no! It seems your version is missing Eph 5:21!”
Several months ago, I raised the same point with another gender complementarian guy who buys into secular MRA garbage.
When I pointed out Eph 5,21, to him, he moved the goal posts and mentioned some other New Testament passages about Sarah (I think) being obedient to her spouse, as if to say, this is what God expects of all wives.
It’s interesting that when you call them out on one Bible verse, how they ignore it or mis-use it, they move the goal post, ignore you on that, then bring up another one.
So you have to play this endless game of wack-A-mole with Bible verses.
I seldom have the patience to debate some types of Christians (especially the gender complementarians), because the debates get tedious. They want a Scripture Verse for every single point you raise.
You answer them on one verse, they quickly dump that and bring up another and another and another.
A lot of times, gender complementarians are reading into (eisegesis) those verses anyhow (they assume the Bible is supporting their view about marriage and women but it is not).
And these are people who claim they are going by the “plain meaning” of Scripture, while I, according to them, have supposedly have been influenced by secular feminism.
LikeLike
Ed, I view the Founders through the lens of men who were very familiar with the church state mentality and knew the horrors of it throughout history including very recent history for them. It is not like there were not still some vestige of Puritan thought around in the mid 1700’s. It was not like the Divine Right of Kings was eradicated. They believed that most people could be self governing. Quite a radical thought at the time. They put forth an idea (not fully developed or even declared with the Declaration) that would not die.
I believe the idea that adult humans could self govern comes from God. I believe it was His intention at creation along with His wise guidance, of course. I still believe that. Sadly most folks don’t.
I think we ought to be careful how we present the Founders because they were quite familiar with the horrors of “religion” and the state church which existed even in some areas of the colonies. I do not see why it is necessary to present them as evangelical Christians declaring a New Jerusalem of sorts. They were not. They were against that thinking which was of Puritan thinking.. They were reading Locke, Bacon and Newton and were definitely seeing Providence in self governing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia,
According to the declaration of independence, it is the JOB of the US Government to protect God given rights, AMONG THOSE (showing that there is more than just the three) are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
According to the US Department of Immigration web site, it states that the Declaration of Independence is the promise, and the Constitution is the Fulfillment of that promise.
I don’t think we need to be weary of the intent of the founding fathers intent. They intended God to be in government, regardless of people’s re-interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists. He never told the Baptists to keep their opinions out of government. He was relaying that Government was not going to dictate how they ran things in their church. Part of the We The People was them church going people. They have a say in government. That letter was to comfort them, not to belittle them.
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
In addition, it may be noted that Thomas Jefferson attended Christian church IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, a government building.
So, is it separation of church from state? Or is it separation of state from church?
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
To follow up on Ed’s comment, the establishment clause originally only applied to the federal government. Some of the states had established churches for for some time after independence.
The idea that most of the framers were Deists or agnostics is not really supported by the evidence, although it is a claim which is repeated often.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keith,
Absolutely! Many falsely claim that Benjamin Franklin was a deist. But here is what he actually said:
“”Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
“That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;
“But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.”
–Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.
And that was the same problem that Thomas Jefferson had in regards to the deity of Jesus. But he still believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed, we are talking past each other. I don’t disagree with your overarching view. I do warn against overlaying our present evangelical understanding on to the founders. how on earth you came up with me being weary of the founders intent is beyond me. I personally think they had guys like Calvin, Puritan despots and the Georges Archbishop of Canterbury in mind when they declared religious freedom.
there are some real crackpots out there like David Barton who tries to sell rewritten history. there is nothing wrong with taking historical context into consideration when we are reading about the founders or their own words. my guess is they would have never have dreamed the government should pay your doctors bills and many other things that have happened over the last 100 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia00: Plus, SCOTUS will tell us what the Constitution says, whether it says it or not. (Insert smiley here)
Equally important is the content of the Common law, which many states, including the Commonwealth of Virginia specifically adopted upon independence. Thus even our jurisprudence in such mundane matters as criminal law, rules of evidence etc. has strongly Christian roots, which are often unrecognised by the secularisers.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Well, I gotta say that I sort’a disagree a little bit. If you look at each and every signer of the Declaration of Independence, they came from all sorts of differing Christian beliefs, not agreeing with each other, crack pot or not, which is why I posted the words of Ben Franklin. He knew that there was differing beliefs out there about God. And he was OK with that, and why? Because he had differing beliefs. He didn’t know who was telling the truth, or telling lies. And he was OK with that.
In regards to paying for doctors and such, Boston Tea Party! We the People have the right to revolt against a tyranny. We are the militia, but some don’t want us to be well armed.
But then again, it can be argued that we the people allowed those laws to be passed, because we the people were not being represented by our representatives, and yet, we elected them. Whose fault is it, in the end? We the people. We were dumb enough to let it happen.
Ed
LikeLike
I’ve found it interesting that once all had signed the Declaration of Independence they all walked down the road to the little church there got on their knees and prayed for the country and guidance. I’m kinda thinking you won’t find Congress today having that kind of solidarity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brenda,
You are right. At the last democratic convention, God was clearly absent.
Ed
LikeLike
“Lydia00: Plus, SCOTUS will tell us what the Constitution says, whether it says it or not. (Insert smiley here) ”
You have that correct, sir.
Ed, I do not disagree with anything you have said! You keep missing my point. They wanted to be a nation of laws not a theocracy with Divine Right of Kings or a Puritan New Jerusalem. They were not pulling out the OT. They knew where that led from recent history. And you and I both agree that laws protecting individual liberty (and the value of an individual) are from God’s intention for creation where they would not be needed!.
Not sure what the problem is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia,
Well, I guess it was your 7:41 AM comment that confused me. You didn’t clarify a point. Your quote of James Madison had a strange context totally away from my point of freedom. I had no idea what you were/are really trying to say, because the quote of James Madison that you provided made it sound like believing in God was a superstition, for he said: “…superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
That is the type of quote we hear from Atheists about Christendom all the time, so it seemed to me that you were defending their position, not mine position.
So, how could I come to the conclusion that you were discussing that our founding fathers didn’t want a theocracy? You didn’t explain that, nor did your quote of James Madison indicate that.
To me, his quote just seemed to say to me that anyone that believes in God has a screw loose.
Now do you understand why I had a problem?
Ed
LikeLike
“James Madison that you provided made it sound like believing in God was a superstition, for he said: “…superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
And I did not explain the context. But, think of their recent history of the Puritans which was nothing but superstition, bigotry and persecution. Think of Jonathan Edwards in respect to the Founders. James Madison also saw some Baptist preachers in jail in Virginia for preaching Baptist doctrine which was against the law at the time! He wrote a friend about it and it is interesting how he discusses it.
I think it is a mistake to say we are a “Christian Nation”. I think our laws are founded on Christian principles. But, if you had said we are a “Christian nation” to them, I think they would have cringed because they knew where that led. Whose Christianity? Calvin’s? Pope’s? See what I mean?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia
“I think it is a mistake to say we are a “Christian Nation”.”
I don’t think it’s a mistake at all. When the Declaration of Independence was written, the Creator mentioned does not represent just any god. There was a particular God in mind. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
If there was another creator in mind, who was it? A generic god? Regardless of your thoughts on the Puritans, etc., it was still a Christian sect, so I do not see any mistake in stating that we are a Christian nation.
But, here is what I do see in TODAY’S society. Just like in France, some people did not assimilate into OUR Christian society. But that was not the way it was in the beginning.
I proudly stand up and say that we are a Christian Nation. As you know, I was in the US Navy, and we do learn a lot of history while in the US Navy about the US Navy, the US Military, and the Christian God USED TO BE at the forefront, even when I was in. So much for the separation of church and state.
So, when people argue FOR the separation of Church and State, to them that means that God is out of the picture in any government, and you know what? I have a problem with that. A major problem. I do not believe in the separation of Church and State in that regard. I believe in the separation of State FROM Church, but not the other way around.
We are a Christian nation, IMO.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it is a mistake to say we are a “Christian Nation”.
Lydia,
Christians are followers of Jesus Christ and Him alone. Would you prefer to be under Sharia Law? I pray that we don’t go so far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe in the separation of State FROM Church, but not the other way around.
Ed,
Exactly. We were founded on the belief that God is in charge and no government could tell us how to worship. No state church forcing us to believe what they believe. Were there those that did un-Christlike things?–yes, and there always will be. That is a fact in this fallen world. If we allow those at the top, our current President, Supreme Court, to declare we are not a Christian Nation, God will divorce us just like he did Israel. We are already well on our way. I pray that this country wakes up.
Blessings, Brenda
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chapmaned24 said: “Based on the comments of both Robert and Amanda, If that was indeed Amanda, but I’m not so sure”…
Ed, I’m with you; I don’t believe that was Amanda. In fact, I’m not sure that it was evena woman writing that. I picked up on a couple of ‘tells’, & if it was a woman, she was writing what a man told her to say.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Psalm 33:12
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord
When we say, “God Bless America”, THAT is the God to whom we ask to bless us, whether you be a Puritan, Catholic, Calvinist, non-denomination, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc., or even Jewish.
That God, The Lord, is Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, or if you want to pronounce the name of Jesus in Hebrew, as some Christians mandate, etc.
There is NO Christian sect that is going to be in agreement on many things, and there will be internal battles between all sects until the end of time, constantly finger pointing, etc. I am included in that finger pointing.
God knows who his people are, and his people are of a wide range of beliefs. I do believe that Puritans are Christians with strange beliefs. The same with Calvinists. But not all Calvinists and Puritans are Christians, that is for sure. The same goes for all sorts of Christian sects. This nation began based on different Christian sects, all with a common denominator. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
On this blog, we are always discussing topics that we agree that are not salvation issues. So, knowing what is NOT a salvation issue, what is the salvation issue?
If we can agree what that salvation issue is, then why is it hard to assume that there are Puritans, or even dare I say, Calvinists who are Christian? Some people are shocked to hear a preacher state that he believes that there are Catholics that are Christian. I am not in shock. I believe that there are many Christians in the Catholic faith. What does God judge?
If God is the judge, what does he judge? Romans Chapter 2 shows us that IGNORANT people are judged based on their own conscience of what they know, not what they don’t know. How the ignorant people handled their own GUILT. That is what they will be judged on.
So, When I say that we are a Christian nation, Psalm 33:12.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zooey111,
Yes, I was telling Julie Anne the other day that I thought the words of Amanda was a bit manly. There was no sign that I could see of a feminine wording. In addition, there was a HEAVY emphasis on the topic of passwords/email accounts. That was a sign to me that something just isn’t right in this. No one that I know talks like that.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Christians are followers of Jesus Christ and Him alone.”
Really? I had no idea.
” Would you prefer to be under Sharia Law? I pray that we don’t go so far.”
yes, I would prefer Sharia Law. But wait, I thought you were the one who believes women are limited in function within the Body of Christ.
But if we are a “Christian Nation”, what IS to stop us from being a Muslim Nation? It would just be a matter of allegiances by our citizens, right? I mean if we have Christian prayers in schools and the 10 C hanging everywhere in government buildings, why not the 5 pillars of Islam? Why not Wiccan prayers before ballgames? They have rights, too, right?
Nope. You guys have missed my points exactly. The Founders did NOT want the government making allegiances but religious people could be in government BECAUSE we are governed by laws not the dictates of any ruler or systematic theology like only Anglican churches in Virginia. Read their writings especially their letters. Read the letters between Adams and Jefferson. (They both trash Plato, btw)
They believed adult white males (not women or slaves) could govern themselves which was radical for that day and time. A lowly born nobody could govern himself! They presented a radical idea that eventually had major consequences for this country and the world. They well understood what happened in Europe’s long history of a state church and with the Puritans which was recent history for them, etc. Yes, they believed in God. Yes they prayed. But they also well understood the dangers of formulating a “religious” nation..
Ok, I am done. Brenda, your crack about Sharia Law was unwarranted and insulting. Considering the fact that you are the one who believes women are limited in how they can operate in Christianity but not males. You are closer to Sharia than I am.
LikeLike
Lydia,
With all due respect to YOUR beliefs, I firmly disagree. Christianity is based on FREEDOM, and no other religion is. None whatsoever.
Christian religion believes that Freedom comes from God. No other religion believes that.
Christian religion believes that it is God that gives us the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. No other religion believes that.
Yes, we are a Christian nation, with all due respect.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia,
I may not want a woman at the front of my church preaching, but I am a strong supporter of women’s rights and Christianity. If Condoleezza Rice would ever run for president I would vote for her, but so far there have been no other women candidates that I felt strongly about.
I have no idea what your specific beliefs are, but with the conversation you bring up regarding Christianity, I thought you were a Christian. I am no where close to Sharia Law thinking.
Respectfully, I pray we will always be called a Christian Nation.
Brenda
LikeLike
zooey111 said,
There is software that can tell if content was written by a man or woman. There used to be a site several years ago where you could paste in writing, and the application would tell you if it was written by a man or woman. I don’t know how accurate that is.
There is a site called,
“GenderAnalyzer – Determine if a homepage is written by a man or woman”
But the site I’m thinking of, you could just paste in a paragraph, not an entire web page.
This site appears similar to what I had in mind:
_Gender Guesser_
Just take some of “Amanda’s” posts, and paste them into that site
LikeLike
Lydia,
“But they also well understood the dangers of formulating a “religious” nation..”
God is the foundation of our nation. If we remove that foundation…then what?
On of the founding fathers that I quoted above addressed that issue. Thomas Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
Again, can the liberties of a NATION be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis. What was that basis? God gave us liberty. And Jefferson believed that.
You had stated:
” The Founders did NOT want the government making allegiances but religious people could be in government BECAUSE we are governed by laws not the dictates of any ruler or systematic theology like only Anglican churches in Virginia.”
I get it…you are against a theocracy. But, I think that we are misconstruing what a theocracy is.
My beliefs have nothing to do with a theocracy. But you seem to think that my beliefs are defending a theocracy. Not so. You said to read Adams and Jefferson, but I just quoted Jefferson, in that we cannot remove our foundation.
Believing that we are a Christian nation is not a belief in theocracy.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding all the discussion above on whether the USA is a Christian nation, and,
“I do not believe in the separation of Church and State in that regard. I believe in the separation of State FROM Church, but not the other way around.”
I don’t know if our nation as founded was “Christian” or not though I suppose some of the founding guys were sympathetic to Christian ethics if not Christian at all.
As to that quote. I’m pretty right wing and not thrilled with militant atheism, and I don’t like militant Islam at all. Nor do I agree with militant homosexuality, where they do things like harass Christian bakers who don’t want to bake them cakes.
Having said that, as I’ve become aware of some of the very, very extreme, legalistic views held by far, far right wing nut Christians, I don’t think I would want the USA to be “Christian.”
Not all persons who claim the label of “Christian” agree on life, politics.
There are Christians who are Dominionists, Reconstructionists, or into “Quivering” and some of the individuals in these groups are trying to force their very narrow life style views on to everyone else (including other Christians who don’t agree with them) by getting into politics and getting their moral / religious views legalized.
Some very fringe, nut ball elements who claim the label “Christian” do want a theocracy, which includes, and is not limited to the following, IMO, severe beliefs, depending on what particular group we are discussing,
-women should not be allowed to attend college, -women should not be allowed to choose who they marry (their fathers get to dictate this), -adulterers should be stoned to death, -homosexuals should be stoned to death
Look at Robert in this thread. This guy claims to be a Christian. He would likely be thrilled if states took marital rape off the crime books and said there is no such thing, and that husbands can sexually attack their wives any time they want.
He apparently feels that men are entitled to sex (even if they coerce their wives, even though he denies that) because the Christian Bible supports this view (in his view). I don’t want to live under law determined by the Christian Roberts of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
missdaisyflower,
When we compare the beliefs of the founding fathers, they certainly differ from the cults of today that profess Christianity, i.e. Robert’s belief system.
I think that our founders had a more firm honest debatable belief than today’s perversion, that it can’t even be compared. We, as a nation, have truly changed, and have moved away from God. Part of that moving away is the belief that we are not a Christian nation. That is a common ground with the Atheists.
My opinion, it’s like Abraham, when he asked negotiated with God about Sodom and Gomorrah, will God destroy this nation if there are five righteous? For five, he would not.
When I was in school as a child, we had no problem with God in school, and I attended public school. At Christmas we had plays, in which I was in, depicting the birth of Christ, and we sung Christmas songs about Jesus…IN SCHOOL. Public school. Not about Mohamed, not about Buddha, etc., but about Jesus. Theocracy? I think not.
We used to have Christmas break. A few weeks ago, I was flagging for a electric company, and we were next to a middle school, and the words on their large reader board said, “Have a happy winter break”. I was like, really?
Every time the atheists sneeze, we are bowing to their demands. Why? Because we are afraid to be called a Christian Nation, we are afraid that people will interpret us as a theocracy. Satan is having a hey day in our nation, all because we are afraid to say it these days, that we are indeed a Christian Nation. That is what makes us an exceptional nation, against such nations that are communists, etc., which is why the word God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. And who added it? Our government did. Was that declaring a theocracy? NO. But some seem to think so.
So, when the atheists sneeze, we bow to their demands, telling children that they don’t have to. My opinion, if you don’t want to say God in the pledge, then leave the country.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we are going to bring up party politics, I feel the need to point out that I am a Democrat. I find progressive politics compatible with my Christian beliefs and right wing politics incompatible. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that God was booed during the 2012 convention. The effort to insert the word God into the platform did not have the two thirds majority needed and many were unhappy when the pretense was made that it did. Nobody booed God.
LikeLike
All: We’ve drifted off track onto a heated political discussion that will go no where. Let’s shift it back please 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marsha,
Sorry but I disagree. However, I will say that when I first learned of the certain sect of Christianity that are pushing their hard line right wing agenda’s, I stopped labeling myself as a conservative Christian, although I am conservative that is a Christian. I believe that there are Christians on both sides of the aisle, progressive, etc. But, how many progressives nationwide believe in God vs. the conservatives?
Who is changing Christmas to winter break? When we used to say, Happy Holidays, it was because there were two holidays, Christmas and New Years Day. It used to be that all faiths (except Jews) celebrated Christmas, even atheists. Now all of a sudden the rest of us have to endure a “winter break” greeting? When I hear that, I ask, “What Holiday?” Things are getting nuttier in America these days.
I agree that it didn’t have the 2/3 vote, but it still had a majority that did not want God in the platform at all. So, the question in my mind is NOT how many voted for or against. My question is for those who voted against it, why did they vote against it? The majority voted against it, but the minority was called the winner. That was not right, based on the call for a vote.
Ed
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
OK
Ed
LikeLike
Ed, you win. I gave you (and everyone) your own new thread. 🙂 Be careful with this heated subject.
Oh, and if any of you would like to copy your comments on this subject from this thread to the new thread, please feel free to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, JA
LikeLike
I have no idea which of our Founding Fathers were Christian, & which were not. Honestly, its not high on my list of things to wonder about.
The only thing I have to contribute in this regard is:
My grandmother used to tell a story about a man in the little Free Methodist Church that she & my grandfather belonged to. This guy would come in every Sunday & Wednesday night carrying the newspaper. He read out loud from the obituaries, ending each one by saying, “and he went to hell”. Or, if he approved of the person, “and he went to Heaven”.
My grandfather got well & truly sick of it. Finally, he stood up, & said, “Brother [Name Deleted], when did God make you His Director of Admissions? Because I never read about it in MY Bible.”
The guy never did it again……
Sometimes, we just have to entrust the souls of those who pass on, to the wisdom of the One Who created them. I suspect, though, that there are going to be a lot of surprises. For all of us, but especially for those whose theology is just a little too *&!@ pat.
LikeLike
Jewish mom desperate for divorce breaks down on stand New York Post link
January 23, 2015
An Orthodox Jewish woman, desperate to obtain a religious divorce, broke down and sobbed on the witness stand Thursday as she accused her husband of raping and starving her.
“The night of the wedding, he made it clear that he owned me and that night he forced himself on me. I didn’t even know what happened. I felt stuck. I had nowhere to go back to,” testified Rivky Stein, 25, who was 18 when she married Yoel Weiss, then 26.
LikeLike
MissDaisyFlower,
Thanks for that article. But this just goes to show that Christian ORTHODOX is crazy.
Here we have a JEWISH orthodox that states that she needs a certificate of divorcement, known as a “get”, so that she can remarry and be happy.
Then we have the Christian ORTHODOX that states, “Keep getting beat and raped, and starved, because that’s what God wants of you, for he put you with him, so let no man save you from abuse. Either put up with the abuse and go to heaven, or remarry and go to hell…your choice. Oh, but wait, it isn’t your choice…God ordained it from the foundation of the world. Sounds like your stuck!”
In all honesty, Christianity has been hijacked by crazies.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed, I agree with your post.
When I posted that story above, I was not trying to bash Judaism, by the way, for everyone reading.
Yes, there is a religious similarity going on between that story and some types of Christianity, but I was more interested in the fact that this married lady said her husband had raped her, and the guy from page 1 or 2 of this thread was denying there is such a situation.
But clearly there is. This woman did not wan to have sex, but her husband forced her to, which is rape in a marital context.
LikeLike
MissDaisyFlower,
I’m glad that you put this in a Jewish context, tho. I didn’t take it as bashing Judaism at all, and I agree as to your premise.
This shows that when a woman gets married, her body is still hers, and that she gives her body to her husband ONLY for the purpose of HER PLEASURE, not for his pleasure. That is why we are to GIVE our spouses due benevolence, not GET due benevolence. Seems that the men in this Christian sect (CULT) seems to ignore that, thinking that she gave her body to him for his pleasure. Not so.
Ed
LikeLike
The following is on a left wing site, and the article contains “adult” language (a few cuss words), but I thought it fit the theme of the original post:
_Utah Politician Not Sure It’s Rape When She’s Your Unconscious Wife_
LikeLike
_What did Paul mean by “A wife has no authority of her own body”?_
LikeLike
MissDaisyFlower,
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and disagree with the article, as well as to agree with the article. Here is why. I’m gonna use the M word, Masturbation, and the O word, Orgasm.
When a person masturbates, they have authority over their own body. When a woman gives her body to her husband, she no longer has authority to masturbate. It now becomes the husbands responsibility to give her an orgasm. She has no power to give herself one, but her husband has the power to give it to her, and that is why it is her husband’s job in 1 Cor 7, to PLEASE her, not to get pleased. If he really wanted to get pleased, he could masturbate, but that is not his job anymore. He doesn’t have power over that aspect, his wife does.
Likewise, just the opposite. Self gratification is out, mutual gratification is in.
The conclusion in my view is that the woman’s body is not given for his pleasure, but for her being pleased. But what is being preached is that she gave her body to her husband so that he can get an orgasm. I don’t see it that way. I see it as just the opposite.
We are told by Paul that to avoid fornication, we should get married. What are we after when we fornicate? Self pleasure, not giving pleasure, but to get it, to receive it. Self is in.
So, in that essence, I cannot understand the writers insinuation that people in a marriage were making vows of celibacy. I never heard of that one before. Is that really the “historical” context, or is that one a fabricated one? I don’t think that Paul was discussing that in the context of mutual consent to not have sex for a time. Seems a bit odd that someone would think of this as being a historical truth.
Every time that I turn around, it seems, that everyone blames “pagans” for everything, when the pagans really had nothing to do with most things that they are being blamed for. At least, that is the story that I am being told by my self proclaimed pagan friends.
Ed
LikeLike
I am very late to this post, I realize. I did want to leave a few words for people who may read this later, though.
We did have the “pleasure” of being graced by Robert’s presence and we do try to follow him when he’s discovered out and about on the World Wide Web posting in public places.
I am sort of jealous that you also got “Amanda” to post. We were never that lucky. She has apparently gotten much braver since Robert’s time with us. He’s welcome to return at any time, btw.
Ken Alexander also visited us. Their visits were about as productive at FJ as you have found them here. Lots of mansplaining, MRA bs and statistics pulled out of a certain orifice.
As JA stated, we have similar goals in terms of who we dislike and who we follow. We are first and foremost a snark site, so we are a little more rough around the edges than SSB, but our membership is made up of an international group of folks that run the gambit from Christian to Atheist and everything in between. As far as I am aware, we don’t have any “militant atheists” that are active posters and I know for a fact that the atheists we do have as active posters dislike them just as much as anyone. Extremism in any form is not good and this is the type of stuff FJ is against.
Regarding the About Us page: That is the original about us that was made in 2005 and the site has changed since them in some ways that the About Us page does not convey very well. I think it’s an important part of our history, so I have kept it up, but I am finding it doesn’t work very well when taken out of context with the whole of the site. I had intended to change it to a more current version, but I did not get it done before I had a surgery that had me in the hospital and a rehab facility for 86 days (hence my lateness to this post). I will be addressing this immediately.
We are a mainly public site so people are welcome to read without registering if they want to see Robert’s own words on our site. You can find his posts here: http://www.freejinger.org/forums/search.php?author_id=9949&sr=posts which should let those who are not fond of colorful language to avoid it.
One more thing, regarding the threats and harassment he claims they have suffered at the hands of FJ. I asked him a number of times to point out any ACTUAL threats or harassment many times and much like Ken Alexander, who often makes the same claims against us, he was unable to because things like quoting your exact words back at you is not a threat or harassment. It got to the point that the claims he was making on his blog were getting close enough to the defamation line that I had a cease and desist letter being written (by a real attorney, not some imaginary one kept on retainer). He closed down his blog and “moved to Alaska” a couple days before it would have gone out.
I’m always happy to answer any questions about FJ if people have them.
Curious
Owner Free Jinger
LikeLike
Thank you, Free Jinger, for your insight. I read a lot about Robert and Amanda at your site before I posted this as I was trying to figure out his disconnect between marital rape and taking a wife against her will. I’ll admit, I was frustrated by the conversation because Robert answered several people’s questions, except for mine. I wondered if it was because I was attempting to talk hermeneutics (and how dare a woman talk about how to read the Bible with a man lest he learn anything) with him or if it was because I wrote about him. Who knows.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t take it personally, Kathi 😉 Both he and Ken Alexander were very selective in what they answered when interactive on FJ. Mostly it was just wall o’ text responses.
Once in a while if a member REALLY pressed, they would get some kind of response, but not necessarily an answer, IYKWIM.
The other thing they had in common was saying they were done commenting, only to come back and post a bunch more. Ken racked up something like 300 posts, but he lasted about a month.
LikeLike
Freejinger – Believe me, nothing lost on my side! Thanks, again, for leaving your comment to be found. I loved it!
LikeLike
“Lots of mansplaining, MRA bs and statistics pulled out of a certain orifice.”
And this would be why I have fun reading FJ. lol. Too funny!
Welcome to SSB!
Thanks for filling us in on the extra details. I’m not sure what you were referring to on the “about us” page (and don’t feel like reading thru this comment thread again). What was that about?
Those 2 men are disturbing. That’s putting it nicely.
Hey, would you mind contacting me at spiritualsb@gmail.com I can’t seem to get myself registered at Fj and haven’t been able to reach anyone. It’s been several months since I tried. Thanks!
LikeLike
Kathi,
I have been finding that men who talk louder or more frequently while leaving the women out are “right” in their own minds. This is one of my ex-h’s tactics now I am finding it in a small group. Instead of really answering questions that I might have, they blurt out a scripture and tell me I’m wrong or attempting to make me feel stupid and move on to the next man that always has the correct answer. Wow, am I disgusted with Christian men who are beginning to look more like patriarchs. Not many women are even attempting to chime in on the conversation.
LikeLike
Brenda R,
How frustrating. I totally understand. When guys dominate the discussion (especially a theological discussion) in a small group setting it can be intimidating for some women who may not feel like they have much to offer. Either they don’t know enough about what is being talked about or they’re taught that it’s not their place to participate in those discussions. I’ve often thrown a loop into the discussion because I have a minor in biblical study and I do enjoy talking about hermeneutics and how we read the Bible. I’ve had guys not know how to respond to me and have been dismissed more times that I care to mention. Which is so different than my college experience – men and women were on equal ground in all Bible and ministry classes. I get lost on theology, though. That doesn’t interest me in one bit.
LikeLike
Marital rape does not exist. A husband and wife grant consent for nonperverse sexual relations upon marriage.
Legislatures have no authority to expand meanings of words. If a legislature (or a court legislating by decree) does so it is invalid. Otherwise a mockery is made of language; the lawyers can play tricks on us with wild abandon – even worse than now.
A husband has no right to enFORCE his right; neither does a wife. Do not return evil for evil. Do good to those who despitefully treat you. This includes your spouse. Return kindness for wrong. This heaps coals of fire on the head of the wrongdoer.
As a last resort, follow the formula for dealing bwmith a fellow Christian who has wronged you.
LikeLike
Harry S,
I hope you’re joking!!!
LikeLike
I don’t think Harry is joking. Harry, there most certainly IS marital rape. While there is the expectation of a sexual relationship when two people marry, that does not mean that a spouse can force their unwilling partner to have sex against their will. That is exactly the Oxford Dictionary of rape, it is certainly not something a Christian should do and it is quite properly illegal.
LikeLike
Well, well. Harry is opposed to taking one’s spouse by force. Just don’t call it rape. Sill, Harry should be pleased that, where I live, they don’t call it rape when a husband forces sex on his wife. They call it sexual assault, a term with which harry can no doubt agree.
Either way, Harry probably does not want to come to my state to test whether the legislature has authority to prohibit and punish non-consensual sex between spouses. Whether or not he thinks legislatures have authority to do so, they certainly have the power. Actually, on the question of secular authority, Harry might wish to consider this:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Romans 13:1-2 ESV)
So, should Harry come to my state to test legislative and judicial authority to punish spousal rape, I will be all too happy so see my tax money applied towards his (hopefully extended) incarceration.
LikeLike
@ Harry S.
Why is it so important for so many Christian men to preach there is no such thing as wife rape?
Why would I want to get married if after that I never had the right not have sex?
Why would any woman that comprehends the misery of sex slavery get married?
Men that preach there is no such thing as wife rape want a sex slave, they are men women do not want to have sex with, and they know it. If they were not so stupid they would be ashamed to let everyone know.
I was sexually terrorized the first ten years of my life by a bible quoting, church going, misogynistic southern Baptist Christian man. I was sick of sex by my tenth birthday. The best and number one right on the globe is the right to say NO to sex, people no one wants to have sex with might pretend this isn’t true.
“Do not return evil for evil. Do good to those who despitefully treat you. This includes your spouse. Return kindness for wrong. ”
I am sure it is to your benefit that you use these arguments. Many do not have to use these arguments because they do not go around thinking they should get away with hurting people.
I am sorry you are to sick to know how vile and embarrassing you are.
Misogynistic rape loving ISIS do not know how vile and embarrassing they are.
With the way sexually abusive men quote the bible I sometimes think it was written by little girl rapist for little girl rapist. I know from experience it sure turns rapist on.
LikeLike
When Spousal Rape First Became a Crime in the U.S.
July 2015
A statement by Donald Trump’s lawyer has highlighted continued misunderstanding about the concept
….Today spousal rape is illegal throughout the U.S.
LikeLike
As usual, ranters resort to creating straw men, accusing people they do not know nor know anything about, to have something to rant again.
I notice that at least one thinks he makes his point by referring to the power of civil government to act without lawful authority. Well, I can state that the federal government of the USA AND the federated government of Russia BOTH have the power to H-bomb Atlanta, or most anywhere either wishes. What does that prove other than itself?
It’s not just a Biblical truth that one can’t steal that which is his own. The civil power, whether legitimate government or not, agrees with this. But both the Bible and civil governments agree that the individual is not empowered nor has the legit authority to use force to take what is his from someone else who is in possession of it. Someone has my car? I don’t have authority to self-help by threatening the thief with deadly force to recover it. In the case of the thief of physical property, or the nonpaying tenant, I have to appeal to the civil authority to use its power to recover my property.
In the case of a wife who refuses her husband his marital rights, or a husband who refuses his wife hers, there is no appeal to civil government other than to obtain divorce papers. The rights of one person to the sexual favors of another are exclusivity and appropriate access. The church can offer counsel. It rarely means anything today, with a church of some sort on every few street corners, but the recalcitrant spouse can be requested to come before the church. If he or she refuses, or comes but will not listen, all the church can do as the last resort is to withdraw fellowship.
If violence is the problem, the civil power is available and usually eager to come with its chains, guns and prisons to deal with the violence. There doesn’t have to be actual physical violence or the threat of. If he yells at her and a neighbor calls the police, the man is hauled off in chains to the pokey. If she screams at him, throws plates, etc., and a neighbor calls the police, the man is hauled off in chains to the pokey, unless she has already shot or murdered him.
LikeLike
pinkapples:
“@ Harry S.
“Why is it so important for so many Christian men to preach there is no such thing as wife rape?”
Because it is in harmony with the teaching of the Bible.
Because long experience shows that even baptized believing Christian wives are wont to make such accusations when the spirit of rebellion comes over them. “Marital ‘rape'” is a weapon they don’t need if they are being abused.
My wife has mounted me while I am sleeping, and the only way I knew it was the tell-tale residues. If she had cleaned them off, I don’t think that I would have known. I suspect that one of our children was conceived in such an act.
What sort of monster would you think me if I had had her arrested and charged with “marital ‘rape'”? Or can you not conceive of a man not being “in the mood”? Having to get up early to go to work at his 12 hour shift crappy job?
Bunk.
But if a man has sex with his sleeping wife, that’s “marital ‘rape'” at her option?
Something’s wrong here.
LikeLike
Do not feed the trolls.
LikeLike
I hope my link (which is back on the last page) doesn’t go overlooked. Here it is again:
When Spousal Rape First Became a Crime in the U.S.
It’s sad how secular culture finally catches up and does the right thing but self-professing Christians still remain in the wrong and in the dark, using the Bible to justify things such as marital rape.
Sex without the woman’s consent is rape, period, end of story, doesn’t matter if the woman under discussion is single, married, widowed, or divorced, or if she has a previous sexual history.
Rape is rape and does not cease being rape just because the victim happens to be married to the rapist.
LikeLike
My first husband did rape me. He would go out drinking with his friends, his ex-girlfriend, and cousins…leaving me alone when I was pregnant, and when I had our son. He would come back to our apt, demanding sex. I resisted because I was hurt by his leaving me alone, and turned off by the drinking. He would grab me, pin me down, and hold me down until I stopped fighting, then proceed. That is rape. Marriage does not change whether or not someone can behave badly and be hurtful or damaging. Its an issue of the heart, and God alone changes hearts. Men who are willing to abuse their wives have heart issues, and the Church needs to stop allowing men excuses for their evil behaviors.
LikeLike
Tonya, that most certainly is rape. I love what you said here: “Men who are willing to abuse their wives have heart issues, and the Church needs to stop allowing men excuses for their evil behaviors.” Thanks so much for your comment.
LikeLike
Yes Tonya and bless you! This idea that men can rape their wives is completely antithetical to the command that men LOVE their wives, and we know that love is patient, kind, not self seeking, etc… I am deeply suspicious of anyone who makes an effort to defend it. Legally it’s rape. Emotionally it’s rape. So…in what way is it not? There is no answer to that.
LikeLike