07
Aug
10

Mom Speaks

This is from Arielle’s blog, The Antenna. I think this is a great comment by poster “Mom” and I wanted to make this comment available over here. I don’t know if Mom blogs or not (thanks to the the new Echo commenting system) so cannot link back to her.

Actually, because a lot of Christians do not think that the “Old Testament” or what they call “the law” is important, they miss a lot of G-d’s heart. Who do you think really wrote it? Was He just being whimsical and decided it wasn’t really important and that when His Son made atonement for sin, then anything goes?

He actually has quite a lot of instruction for sex in the Torah (1st five books – Genesis through Deuteronomy). There are whole sections that define it to only for marriage and the penalty for having it with non-marital partners or animals is death. If a man did take a virgin, then he was to dwell with her unless her father annuled it. Then there is the restriction to not do it while the woman is having her period. Actually, the restriction is for 7 days and then if her period goes over the 7 days, then it is 7 days from when it ends. The penalty for transgressing again is death. Orthodox Jews see it as 7 days from when the period ends, which would be 12 days on the average out of every month that they do not have sex. I’m sure Jewish men are as highly sexed as any other man on the planet but they see and acknowledge G-d’s wisdom in this design. The woman gets a little vacation every month, and in more ancient cultures they had a separate place they spent that week and they were served, so it really was a break for them.

The reason for no relations during the time a woman is “bleeding” is that the contents are the product of the death of the ovum. Semen is a product of life. The two mingling is a mixture then of life and death and G-d hates mixture. He says it is profane. The uncleanness is the death involved, not the woman herself.

A man who is obsessed on sex is probably a sex addict. If he is taking care of his own needs and has to have porn if he isn’t getting sex on a daily basis then there is a problem. It is not an indication that it is a need, but that the man is addicted to the chemical reaction that takes place. His choices to not control himself, but to engage in “pornea” (what it says in Matt 19) show that it is lust he is dealing with and not an actual relationship with his wife. Yeshua/Jesus said to look on a woman other than a man’s wife is sin, so that would be what porn is. If a man masturbates and then his wife actually desires the physical union, but he is not ready because he took care of his own needs, then he has defrauded her. A major part of the nations and the worship of idols was centered around sex if you study it out.

Yes, sex is designed as good and is important to a healthy marriage, but does that marriage become bad if something happens to one or the other partner that the sex part of the marriage is no longer possible? Our relationship is to be deeper than that.

If you study out where G-d made a woman for man because it is not good for a man to be alone, the word “alone” means lonely. Man’s true need is for companionship, and that is what will endure the whole life together. Another place where the man is to show restraint is after the birth of a child and it is 40 days after a male child and twice that for a female child. G-d is protecting the mother and child through that. The woman is more likely to conceive (scientifically proven) during that time until the hormones of nursing her child make her far less likely to conceive. The reason it is longer after a girl baby is because of the female hormones involved, the woman is more likely to conceive for that much longer. It is not in the best interest of the mother or the baby for the mother to be pregnant again right away. A man that cannot wait, is acting selfishly.

So G-d did put boundaries on the sexual relationship in a marriage. He does not want men engaging in lustful behavior (as they do in looking at porn and also in masturbating) He actually does want a man to seek Him first, just as He does a woman. If a man has to put aside his own physical desires, that does make him needy and that need is fulfilled in seeking G-d. That is a truly godly marriage relationship.

It has been expressed on these discussions and also the blog that is being discussed that the reason a man married the woman is for sex. That is not a good foundation and puts the woman in a position that G-d did not intend for her. A woman is so much more than a means of fulfilling a man’s sexual urges. She is the help fit for her husband. That means that she is the part that is missing and he needs her, not the sex. I believe that is one reason that G-d has set boundaries on the sexual relationship in marriage, so she truly knows that she is valued as a person and not just a sexual toy. A man could buy a blow-up doll if that is all he wants.

We are to speak the truth in love, so if the husband needs his wife to wear sexy lingerie, then he should communicate that very clearly in love, not use anger to get his point across. The blog mentioned, does look down on women, if you read through it enough to see it. I think that G-d had the man name all the animals before He made the woman for him to show that the human relationship is set apart from that of the animals. Yes, man has animal urges, but he has a higher calling to put those urges under G-d’s lordship and seek to have a higher relationship with his wife where he truly does love her more than himself. I can tell you that G-d never manipulates us. He says that jealousy and selfish ambition are earthy, selfish and of the devil, so He never uses those to cause us to love Him more. A man is made in His image, he should not do so, either.

I don’t agree 100% but there is a fine line that we Christian men must walk. While some portions of Game are good, others are not and each man needs to find that fine line between enough and too much.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Mom Speaks”


  1. August 8, 2010 at 4:19 AM

    She posts as Mom on my blog because she is my mom. Over at Heidi’s and elsewhere she posts under her name, Serena. I believe she’s been too busy to blog for quite some time. I am blessed to be the daughter of a woman that has tried very hard to live for God and not for her own selfish desires. She has been a great example to me.

  2. 2 Dave
    August 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM

    My father is a preacher, I gotta say, some of this woman’s ideas are dead wrong.

    First of all, Adam was instructed to name all of the animals first because woman was an afterthought. If Adam hadn’t said anything, there wouldn’t even be any women. God tried TWICE to make a woman and BOTH times,the woman sinned against the man and against God. GOD couldn’t even make a decent woman, that should tell you something. Furthermore, Adam was instructed to name the animals because they were HIS animals, God gave them to him.

    “That is not a good foundation and puts the woman in a position that G-d did not intend for her. A woman is so much more than a means of fulfilling a man’s sexual urges. She is the help fit for her husband. That means that she is the part that is missing and he needs her, not the sex. I believe that is one reason that G-d has set boundaries on the sexual relationship in marriage, so she truly knows that she is valued as a person and not just a sexual toy.”

    What IS the position that God intends for woman,after the Fall? That’s very simple to ascertain. It says it right here:

    Gen 3:16

    “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    Men are commanded to love their wives, but nowhere in the bible does it say that we are to “value them as people”. However, the instant a woman can explain to me what exactly that means,I will start immediately.

    Seriously, it’s very confusing.

    Do I not value women as people RIGHT NOW? Why is that assumed to be the starting point? How do you “value” ANYBODY “as a person”?

    Are there multiple ways to value people? I’ve just been valuing everybody the same,based on their personality. Should I start valuing EVERYBODY “as people”,rather than as intelligent,kind,crafty,quirky,etc.?

    And of course,lastly, why does it matter how a person is valued as long as they ARE valued?

    Does it matter whether somebody uses a pipe wrench or a c-clamp to fix my plumbing if it gets correctly and permanently fixed either way? I would think not, but then again, I’m not a woman.

    “He says that jealousy and selfish ambition are earthy, selfish and of the devil, so He never uses those to cause us to love Him more.”

    Also dead wrong.

    “I am a jealous God, thou shalt worship no other God before me.”

    God himself is jealous, and believes himself more worthy of worship than any other god. A man may,in fact, be justified in believing himself worthy of respect FIRST, if he is a righteous man. There’s nothing wrong with that.

  3. 3 Triton
    August 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM

    God tried TWICE to make a woman

    Uh, I’m not following you here, Dave. Are you referring to the Lilith myth?

    The reason for no relations during the time a woman is “bleeding” is that the contents are the product of the death of the ovum. Semen is a product of life.

    Not really buying that. In the Bible, blood represents life. Semen does not. Also, an emission of semen (that occurs outside of a vagina) makes a man ritually unclean, too, so I’m failing to see a fundamental life-and-death difference.

    A woman is so much more than a means of fulfilling a man’s sexual urges. She is the help fit for her husband. That means that she is the part that is missing and he needs her, not the sex.

    Jesus didn’t seem to need a wife. Or Paul. Or countless other Christian men throughout history. I like Serena, and I think she’s a fine woman, but this part here is awfully reminiscent of Marriage Mandate philosophy.

    God himself is jealous, and believes himself more worthy of worship than any other god.

    Correct. There is nothing wrong with jealousy. I think people too often confuse envy and jealousy. Envy should properly be defined as coveting someone else’s stuff, and jealousy should properly be defined as guarding one’s own stuff from the envy of others. Unfortunately, even some dictionaries often call them synonyms, so confusion of this matter is likely to continue.

  4. August 8, 2010 at 11:51 PM

    Ok, I can’t help myself.

    God tried TWICE

    There is no try. Only do.

    G-d doesn’t “try”. He doesn’t have to. He just.. Well, does it.

    🙂

  5. August 9, 2010 at 1:31 PM

    Saul of Tarsus was a member of the Sanhedrin. At some point prior to joining that group, he would have had to have been 1. 40 years old, and 2. Married. We aren’t told what happened to his wife. Apparently at the time of writing the letter to the Corinthians he was single. So Paul aka Saul had a wife at some point in his life.

    No one knows if Jesus was married or not. We aren’t told. Knowing women, He probably couldn’t have made her happy if He was. Of course if he was married and she survived His death, could she remarry? If she did, I can hear her talking about her second husband, “He just isn’t as good as Jesus”.

  6. 6 Triton
    August 9, 2010 at 7:08 PM

    Saul of Tarsus was a member of the Sanhedrin.

    Doubtful. The Bible does not mention Paul being a member of the Sanhedrin. Paul was a Pharisee, but not every Pharisee was on the Sanhedrin.

    And Paul’s young age at the time (somewhere between 28 and 31 at the time of his conversion if Wikipedia’s timeline is correct) would make it unlikely that he would be a part of a council of elders.

    His age would also make it unlikely that he was widowed or divorced, so I think it’s a safe presumption to say he never married. Though I readily admit it is a presumption, not a stone cold fact.

    No one knows if Jesus was married or not. We aren’t told.

    I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that he never married. Otherwise, he would make himself vulnerable to charges of producing an heir. In Jesus’ absence, such descendants might decide to claim the throne of Israel. Bad juju all around; much safer, theologically speaking, just to remain celibate.

    If she did, I can hear her talking about her second husband, “He just isn’t as good as Jesus”.

    But the second husband probably would have stuck around longer. 😉

  7. August 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM

    Sorry for not getting back sooner. I’ve been working long hours.

    Acts 26:10
    And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.
    NIV

    There was only one council in Jerusalem that had quasi authority to pass a death sentence, the Sanhedrin. Other contemporary sources, I believe Flavous Josephus, but don’t have my copy of his works handy so I can’t look up the quote, claim Saul turned Paul to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

    I’m going to stick with the Bible and people who where actually alive during the time as being more authoritative and credible than Wikipedia.

  8. 8 Triton
    August 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM

    Doing something on the authority of the Sanhedrin does not make one a member of it, any more than FBI guys enforcing Supreme Court decisions means that the FBI is part of the Supreme Court.

    I doubt the 71 guys on the Sanhedrin did very much of their own dirty work at all. Judas Iscariot comes to mind, not to mention the arresting soldiers who were with him.

    Furthermore, consider Acts 7:58:

    “And cast him out of the city, and stoned him, and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.”

    Saul is described as a “young man”. While the term “young” is admittedly subjective, I don’t think anyone would consider a 40-year-old man to be young. And since Stephen was stoned in A.D. 34-35, and Paul had his conversion in 37 A.D., I think it highly unlikely that Paul was ever 40 years old prior to his conversion.

    I’m going to stick with the Bible and people who where actually alive during the time as being more authoritative and credible than Wikipedia.

    I only referenced Wikipedia for the chronology; nothing more. But here is another chronology, if you find Wikipedia’s unsatisfactory:

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm

    This one has Paul being 29 years old at the time of his conversion.

    The general consensus seems to be that Paul was born some time in the first century A.D.

    Summary:

    Paul never explicitly admits to being a member of the Sanhedrin.

    Paul was almost certainly too young to be on it anyway.

    Paul mentions some of his relatives: a sister, a nephew, and a few kinsmen of unknown relationship. He does not mention anything about ever having had a wife or children of his own.

    Conclusion:

    There is not nearly enough evidence to conclude that Paul was ever married, and the proper presumption, in my opinion, is that he never married.

  9. August 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM

    In order to vote one arguably had to be a member. Perhaps they let just anyone vote, sort of like undocumented workers in a presidential election.

    Your age and date of conversion is unsupported by the info in your link. Its a proposed time line, one that has a footnote acknowledging that Biblical scholarship is divided on the info presented. To my thinking that means the issue does not have a general consensus, even among those leaning towards your position.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: