False desire and true desire

One big issue that I’ve seen that husbands run into when they start to follow God’s Word again by acting the head of their marriage is that they have trouble distinguishing false versus true desire.

One of the issues that stems from is the the application of dread.

  • There is legitimate dread/fear from a husband starting to act as the head in the relationship again because the old dysfunctional and sinful patterns are being disturbed. This is a good thing. You want to break the cycle of the wife acting as the head, rebelling, or otherwise being contentious and nagging.
  • There is illegitimate dread from actually threatening or inducing fear.

The issue that I see that most Christian husbands have is that the second point often does result in better sex. It is legitimately true that if you use the a threat point of divorce (like many pastors tell wives to use against their husbands), it does often result in a wife being more enthusiastic about sex and more submissive. But this misses the point.

One of the main points of marriage is about emulating Christ and the Church. Christ does not rule by fear but by love. Christians don’t follow Christ because we’re afraid of hell. We follow Him because He showed His love for us that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

“Threatening” certainly works (to an extent at least), but it also does not induce true desire. It’s a false desire that masquerades as true. False desire does not make one more holy, though it can get some results like sex. True desire does, and it also gets the righteous results like sex.

This is why Jesus admonishes the disciples to use authority correctly: to love and serve others.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The problem, most of the time, is that we believe that we know what works better than God, or we don’t believe that God will work His power through us. And then we flail around messing up relationships around us by using worldly measures like trying to threaten those close to us.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to False desire and true desire

  1. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    One of the main points of marriage is about emulating Christ and the Church. Christ does not rule by fear but by love. Christians don’t follow Christ because we’re afraid of hell.

    When I read the Letters to the churches in Revelation I get a different picture than you are painting. The summary statement from Rev 3:19 does show fear as one of Christ’s sanctification strategy.

    Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

  2. @ Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    When I read the Letters to the churches in Revelation I get a different picture than you are painting. The summary statement from Rev 3:19 does show fear as one of Christ’s sanctification strategy.
    Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

    I think we’re getting into semantics here.

    As I noted in the previous post, “love” also includes teaching/correcting/rebuking/etc, and it is not motivated out of (irrational) fear.

    Rational fear is the fear of God. Irrational fear is generally self-serving/man made.

  3. theasdgamer says:

    DS, frankly I don’t see how a man can avoid his wife having dread if he is desirable to woman. It goes with the territory. And it’s clear from the Song of Songs that a desirable man will have lots of women chasing after him. Women in Jerusalem were singing about David–and not because of his godly character. (“Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands.”) Women aren’t civilized like us men–they are bloodthirsty.

    I don’t advocate trying to create dread by threatening divorce. Better to improve yourself so that people find you winsome–and if you are an adult, it’s appropriate to flirt with women. Otherwise you are some sort of eunuch. If a man is winsome and flirts, women are going to find him attractive and dread will occur and it’s totally Ok.

    Dread is fundamentally based on the principle of Preselection.

  4. Sharkly says:

    The commands given to the disciples, as the future church leaders, are not intended to be applied to husbands. Church leaders are not the head of Christ’s bride, and are not to interlope and act like the bridegroom, which is Christ. The church is to submit to Christ in everything, and Christ is to be the head. Marriage is like Christ and the church, not like Christ’s servants interacting with his bride. If I had slaves or servants, I would ask them to serve my wife also and not to lord over her, but I myself was not asked by Christ, my head, to obey my wife, like Adam did. I am asked to be her Lord, like Christ is to His church.

    1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
    As far as using dread, We are to live with our wives according to knowledge, or understanding. Sometimes when an evil wife confounds a good situation, making your options less than ideal, you may have to resort to less than ideal measures to restore her according to the knowledge that you have. Dread is not a tool I ever like to use, but sometimes my wife seems so mentally fallen, that jealousy is one of the few things that still functions correctly in her mind. During our ongoing divorce, my wife is resistant to any attempt of mine to draw us closer toward reconciliation, however she still seems to mate-guard, wanting to keep other women away from me. So I have intentionally placed doubts in her head, in order to try to save my sons’ home. It seems to have helped, in spite of her protestations, and her attempting to smear me over it at her church.

  5. SnapperTrx says:

    The verses in Matthew you focus on are not intended for the institution of marriage but for the interaction of the men in the church. What you are doing here is applying it incorrectly, just as many pastors incorrectly apply Jesus washing the feet of the disciples as an example of husbands and “servant leadership” in marriage. I don’t suggest your doing it intentionally, but I would caution you not to fall into the same trap.

    Jesus warns us, “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” That is not respect/awe fear, that is fear-fear. Its a frightening prospect, as it should be!

    Authorities always have the right to wield the rod for reproach, correction and justice. If that rod happens to be verbal then better that than physical, if it can be avoided. Rather one heed the warnings of police officers about the threat of physical reproach than physical reproach, but that option is entirely up to the ones under authority! I’m not advocating physical correction towards ones wife, but better to induce dread than allow things to fall apart, wouldn’t you think?

    As Jonadab pointed out, God reproves and disciplines. One is verbal, one is physical. If we are to emulate Christ and Christ and God are one then husbands certainly wield the same authority. That this romantic/chivalric era frowns upon it does not make it wrong. God threatened the children of Israel with the removal of His provision and protection if they failed to turn away from false gods and back to Him. If that isn’t dread game I don’t know what is, though I would never recommend threatening divorce, as I understand christians are forbidden from it. Unfortunately, however, the other tools that COULD be used for dread in the past (leaving, obtaining another wife) have been removed by the church and the state.

  6. @ asdgamer

    DS, frankly I don’t see how a man can avoid his wife having dread if he is desirable to woman. It goes with the territory. And it’s clear from the Song of Songs that a desirable man will have lots of women chasing after him. Women in Jerusalem were singing about David–and not because of his godly character. (“Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands.”) Women aren’t civilized like us men–they are bloodthirsty.

    Fame/status is different from actually going out and attempting to make someone jealous on purpose.

    1. I don’t advocate trying to create dread by threatening divorce.

    2. Better to improve yourself so that people find you winsome

    3. –and if you are an adult, it’s appropriate to flirt with women. Otherwise you are some sort of eunuch. If a man is winsome and flirts, women are going to find him attractive and dread will occur and it’s totally Ok.

    1. Agree.
    2. Agree.
    3. Disagree

    There’s no reason to flirt with other women. I never seen this be a good thing. Yes, it may make your sex life better, but sex life is not an indicator of holiness, and there are other ways to do this.

  7. @ Sharkly

    The commands given to the disciples, as the future church leaders, are not intended to be applied to husbands. Church leaders are not the head of Christ’s bride, and are not to interlope and act like the bridegroom, which is Christ. The church is to submit to Christ in everything, and Christ is to be the head. Marriage is like Christ and the church, not like Christ’s servants interacting with his bride. If I had slaves or servants, I would ask them to serve my wife also and not to lord over her, but I myself was not asked by Christ, my head, to obey my wife, like Adam did. I am asked to be her Lord, like Christ is to His church.

    Jesus is describing how authority is to be used. Headship is also a form of authority. There are clear applications from this.

    Dread is not a tool I ever like to use, but sometimes my wife seems so mentally fallen, that jealousy is one of the few things that still functions correctly in her mind. During our ongoing divorce, my wife is resistant to any attempt of mine to draw us closer toward reconciliation, however she still seems to mate-guard, wanting to keep other women away from me. So I have intentionally placed doubts in her head, in order to try to save my sons’ home. It seems to have helped, in spite of her protestations, and her attempting to smear me over it at her church.

    The issue of a rebellious wife is similar to rebellious Israel. God makes it clear through Paul in Romans that Christ’s sacrifice for the Gentiles is supposed to stimulate a righteous jealousy for the Jewish people.

    The issue is not jealous itself but by ruling with (irrational) fear. That’s why I made the distinction between them.

  8. SnapperTrx says:

    Jesus is describing how authority is to be used. Headship is also a form of authority. There are clear applications from this.

    There are differences in authorities, though, and the authority structure within the church is not the same as the authority structure between husband and wife, nor between kings and subjects. Does the church have the authority to wield the sword against its members? No. That authority has been given to kings to wield against criminals. In the same way a husband has a different type of authority over his wife than the church has over its members. Churches can cast members out who continually sin, a husband cannot cast his wife out because he is duty bound to provide and protect her, though that does not prevent her from leaving if she chooses.

    It sounds like your melding things together into one giant lump of authority rather than parsing out the differences between types of authority, but the bible clearly indicates that there are different types of authorities for different applications. The church, the state, the home. Kings, employers, fathers. Yes the all wield authority, and they may share aspects of authority, but they are not the same authorities.

  9. @ SnapperTrx

    It sounds like your melding things together into one giant lump of authority rather than parsing out the differences between types of authority, but the bible clearly indicates that there are different types of authorities for different applications. The church, the state, the home. Kings, employers, fathers. Yes the all wield authority, and they may share aspects of authority, but they are not the same authorities.

    I disagree. Any authority can be wield, whether by kings, the Church, or husbands, as lording it over someone.

    As Jonadab mentioned too, Jesus uses his authority in love to instruct, correct, teaching, rebuke, and so on with the Churches in Revelation 2-3 and which Christian husbands should also be doing. I’ve mentioned this multiple times before.

    Obviously, many pastors like to use this as a passage to tell husbands they should serve their wives, but don’t recognize that Jesus told/command what the disciples to do all the time out of the same “servant heart.”

    The nature of the passage is mainly about humility and thinking of others when using authority, not any particular way a husband a husband should “serve.”

  10. theasdgamer says:

    DS, I see the Feminine Imperative pushing on you to not flirt with women other than your wife. I see women flirt all the time, including godly women. Men, however, tend to not flirt.

    It used to be considered ungentlemanly to not flirt with women. Why has that changed?

    I see flirting occurring in the NT without reproof. Obviously, there must not be any commandment against flirting.

    A man who flirts with women and makes them laugh and giggle builds his status–certainly, Proverbs recommends having a good reputation, to which status contributes.

  11. @ asd

    DS, I see the Feminine Imperative pushing on you to not flirt with women other than your wife. I see women flirt all the time, including godly women. Men, however, tend to not flirt.

    1. I don’t believe in the “feminine imperative.” I believe in men and women being tempted to do evil or fleeing from it and doing good.

    2. I don’t see a godly reason to do so, and in fact believe you can easily make a case against it.

    1 Thess 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.

    We can agree to disagree, but this blog is not the place for advocating or advising things that are questionable at best and can easily lead to temptation and sin.

  12. theasdgamer says:

    @DS’

    Call “it” “the Feminine Imperative” or “Feminism”–makes no difference to me. It’s an evil philosophy that oppresses men and women. There is more than simple fleshly temptation at work here.

    If Jesus flirted with the Samaritan woman at the well (and the context demands it based on the reaction of his disciples who wondered at Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman at the well as well as the Samaritan woman’s response), then His example is a godly reason to imitate Him.

    You can easily make a case that not flirting makes you seem weird and awkward like a eunuch and that this attitude is a great deal of what inhibits young men from flirting with women despite clear biblical examples and that this contributes to screwing up the lives of men. I also examine things carefully and advocate abstaining from the form of evil. Too often “Christians” give off an asexual vibe which was advocated by some of the gnostics. The asexual vibe opposes God’s creative purpose and is a great evil. (As another example, I used to think that lying was breaking one of the Ten Commandments, but no longer think so. Lying isn’t necessarily evil at all.)

    I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree. I want you to know that I don’t find God behind the anti-flirting position. But if you feel like flirting is a sin, by all means you ought to abstain from it. I see light flirting as part of the fun of life that God made for us and is totally in accord with His creative purpose.

  13. @ asd

    If Jesus flirted with the Samaritan woman at the well (and the context demands it based on the reaction of his disciples who wondered at Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman at the well as well as the Samaritan woman’s response), then His example is a godly reason to imitate Him.

    They were surprised because Jews don’t usually talk to Samaritans as they were unclean because they were Israelites mixed with the surrounding cultures.

    I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree. I want you to know that I don’t find God behind the anti-flirting position. But if you feel like flirting is a sin, by all means you ought to abstain from it. I see light flirting as part of the fun of life that God made for us and is totally in accord with His creative purpose.

    I do not think flirting is a sin.

    Unmarried men and women SHOULD flirt with each other if they are interested in marriage.

    I think married people flirting with each other (or married flirting with singles) is questionable at best and easily goes the route of “committing adultery in the heart.”

  14. theasdgamer says:

    @ds

    I am encouraged that you don’t see flirting as a sin. Flirting can merely be for entertainment and it used to be considered as generally for entertainment and good manners.

    Dancing is merely a social way of bringing the sexes together in a way so that they can evaluate one another’s attributes; for singles, this was to be able to figure out whom they might want to marry. Married people found dancing to be useful for all kinds of social reasons. Flirting is to be viewed in the same light as dancing. It can be enjoyable in itself and it can be used to facilitate social bonds even though sex may not actually be on the table.

    I don’t agree with your view of the reason that the disciples found it strange that Jesus was talking to the Samaritan woman. If the main point had been the disparities between Jews and Samaritans, then Jesus would have encountered a Samaritan man (and He encountered many Samaritan men in the following days). No, the whole context of the passage is sexual and the disciples found it strange that Jesus was talking to a strange woman. The woman clearly saw that Jesus was flirting by her response (“Give me some of this water so that I won’t have to come to the well to draw.”) . The woman’s response was a solicitation for sex. There is no other way to read her statement. Jesus then moves to show His prophetic credentials by enumerating the woman’s many adulteries. Jesus didn’t mention any other of the woman’s sins. Jesus then moved to show His messianic credentials, which was His ultimate aim. Jesus’ opener was clearly to flirt with the woman. The theme of the passage is sex.

  15. @ asdf

    I don’t agree with your view of the reason that the disciples found it strange that Jesus was talking to the Samaritan woman. If the main point had been the disparities between Jews and Samaritans, then Jesus would have encountered a Samaritan man (and He encountered many Samaritan men in the following days). No, the whole context of the passage is sexual and the disciples found it strange that Jesus was talking to a strange woman. The woman clearly saw that Jesus was flirting by her response (“Give me some of this water so that I won’t have to come to the well to draw.”) . The woman’s response was a solicitation for sex. There is no other way to read her statement. Jesus then moves to show His prophetic credentials by enumerating the woman’s many adulteries. Jesus didn’t mention any other of the woman’s sins. Jesus then moved to show His messianic credentials, which was His ultimate aim. Jesus’ opener was clearly to flirt with the woman. The theme of the passage is sex.

    It’s not my view. It’s pretty much the dominant view of Christian theologians for good reason.

    Even if there was flirting, which there could have been (I won’t deny that), the goal of the flirting was to generate interest so that Jesus could preach the gospel to her and city.

    This is not the same intent as flirting with other women when married, unless you’re telling me that you’re preaching the gospel to these women at the club.

  16. theasdgamer says:

    @DS

    The dominant view of Christian theologians doesn’t even mention flirting or the theme of this passage. Note that theme is distinct from theological purpose. One takeaway from this passage is that there is nothing inherently wrong with flirting; another is that flirting might be done for reasons other than mating.

    The goal wasn’t merely to generate interest, but to make it possible for the woman’s sin to be exposed and for her to be saved. To do that, the theme had to be sex.

    I think it’s necessary here to also mention the occasion where a woman was wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair. That was strong flirting. A woman’s hair is one of her most intimate and personal possessions. Jesus failed to condemn this woman at all.

    The commandment is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Let’s not add to it like the Pharisees did.

  17. SnapperTrx says:

    I think married people flirting with each other (or married flirting with singles) is questionable at best and easily goes the route of “committing adultery in the heart.”

    I feel like you might be reaching a bit to far with this. A man flirting with a woman who is not his wife is a far, far cry from “adultery of the heart” as described in the bible. Flirting is nothing more than a playful interaction, and can easily be done with zero desire for sex or lust.

    David committed adultery in his heart before he laid a hand on Bathsheba because he purposed to have what was not his and was willing to do whatever, and actually did whatever, it took to have her.

    He and the married man at the counter flirting with the waitress because she is cute are worlds apart.

    Honestly I’m kind of shocked that you are equating the two.

  18. Novaseeker says:

    I agree with DS.

    For *married* men, “flirting” is at the very least spiritually troubling. It is showing playful sexual/romantic interest for a woman other than your wife. In the Christian context, regardless of Game and dread, it is at the very least troubling, because it is “flirting” with behavior that is quite sinful. The very word itself reveals how problematic it is when the man doing it is already committed in marriage to another woman.

    This is one of the areas where Christian morals contradicts Game, and where the Game aspects have to give way.

  19. theasdgamer says:

    Nova, you should take a long, long look at whether or not the FI is pushing on you.

  20. Novaseeker says:

    ASD —

    It isn’t the FI. I am an Eastern Orthodox … our approach is personally austere for the most part. Flirting isn’t really a part of the program. I mean single men, sure, because they are looking for a mate, and with single women it’s fine. That’s perfectly appropriate. Married people with others? Not appropriate. You are to avoid the near occasion of sin, and the temptation to it as well, not flirt with temptation. This approach well predates any FI and is based on simple Christian virtue for men and women alike. There is a price for doing that in this culture, as DS himself states above, but it is the Christian price we pay for living in this culture.

  21. theasdgamer says:

    Nova, each must avoid what he sees as sin. You must do what you see as prudent and that’s Ok by me. For me, to avoid flirting is imprudent and I don’t have the same issues with flirting that you do–for me, flirting is no big deal and is not an occasion for the flesh due to autism and rules following. For married men with solid self-control, even non-autists can flirt without giving an occasion to the flesh.

    I’m sure you can see that your perspective mirrors the FI. And I don’t agree that the FI wasn’t around when Christ was on earth, although it lacked the power it has today.

    Personal austerity can easily arise out of self-deception that the FI isn’t the real reason for the austerity and thus we must examine ourselves carefully. I further have issues when someone makes a blanket statement and says that it is not appropriate for married men to flirt.

    Christ set us free from the Law and Christians shouldn’t attempt to enslave ourselves with our own legal constructs that have the appearance of prudence but really don’t add to godliness or purity.

    Now, I am convinced that the definition of “adultery” has been impacted by the FI and that it originally did not apply to married men. You can only find one instance in scripture which might support it and that scripture has many variant readings. It would be foolish to base one’s support for the FI definition of “adultery” on one instance in scripture. Clarity is required before any prohibition of polygamy by men should be issued. Scripture tolerates polygamy at the very least. Scripture also doesn’t prohibit slaves from sleeping with their masters.

    I think that the FI was active in the Church from its earliest days.

  22. @ asdgamer

    Nova, each must avoid what he sees as sin. You must do what you see as prudent and that’s Ok by me. For me, to avoid flirting is imprudent and I don’t have the same issues with flirting that you do–for me, flirting is no big deal and is not an occasion for the flesh due to autism and rules following. For married men with solid self-control, even non-autists can flirt without giving an occasion to the flesh.

    The problem here is not what “each must do.”

    The problem is recommending it to other Christians, especially those who may not be as strong morally or be able to avoid temptations. If you feel you can do it without sinning fine, but you’re clearly ignoring the dangers to other Christian husbands.

    This is precisely why Paul discusses food sacrificed to idols doesn’t matter because there’s only one God and he’s not defiled by it, but if it causes one of his brothers to stumble he would never do it again. This is an area which husbands can easily start to stumble, which we see quite often with other Christians in the secular manosphere where there are stories of them going down the rabbit hole and falling into sin.

    Please refrain from advocating questionable at best things like flirting with other women for married men on this blog. I won’t ask again.

  23. theasdgamer says:

    @DS

    You misrepresent my position. I am not recommending that all married men flirt, especially if they consider it to be sin or if they lack self-control. I don’t think that I was unclear about this.

    If you take the position that flirting is questionable then you must also take the position that married men having sex with single women is immoral. Perhaps you could do a post on that topic and provide scriptural support for your position. Otherwise your reason must simply be, “Because I said so” and your silence of dissent without providing support is autocratic and treats your readers like we are children. That sort of approach throws Christianity in a very unfavorable light since you claim to be Christian.

    I’m not a child and you ought not treat me or your other readers like we are children. If you repeat this bad behavior, you will lose me as a reader. You can ban me and I can ban you by not following your blog. Is this what you want?

    I have another point relevant to your OP. Let’s suppose that a husband inspires awe in his wife like Christ inspires awe in the Church. The Dread in the wife in this situation is that she will misbehave and her husband will withhold his attention. Certainly all Christian husbands should aspire to inspire awe in their wives by their behavior, keeping in mind that women aren’t necessarily awed by the same things that men are awed by. So, another post you might do is about how to inspire awe in your wife.

  24. @ asdgamer

    You misrepresent my position. I am not recommending that all married men flirt, especially if they consider it to be sin or if they lack self-control. I don’t think that I was unclear about this.

    I did not get that impression, but thanks for the clarification.

    If you take the position that flirting is questionable then you must also take the position that married men having sex with single women is immoral. Perhaps you could do a post on that topic and provide scriptural support for your position. Otherwise your reason must simply be, “Because I said so” and your silence of dissent without providing support is autocratic and treats your readers like we are children. That sort of approach throws Christianity in a very unfavorable light since you claim to be Christian.

    That’s called adultery. If you’re a Christian and want to have sex, it’s only in marriage. Even in polygyny where there’s more than 1 wife, the sex is only in marriage. Speaking of polygyny:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/polygyny/

  25. theasdgamer says:

    I used to think that married men having sex outside of marriage was adultery, but I no longer think that way after looking at the Hebrew word for adultery at a conservative Christian online Bible dictionary. I tell you, the FI is cunning and pervasive.

  26. @ asdgamer

    I used to think that married men having sex outside of marriage was adultery, but I no longer think that way after looking at the Hebrew word for adultery at a conservative Christian online Bible dictionary. I tell you, the FI is cunning and pervasive.

    Interpretation and application of Scripture aren’t limited to single words.

    It’s pretty obvious that Jesus Himself taught one man and one woman as did his disciples. The Church excluded men with multiple wives (though it was not “illegal” it set a bad example) from leadership positions (1 Tim 3). No disciple or early Church father thought that having unmarried sex or even a married man having sex with another woman was right.

    I’m going to go with the Bible and Church history on this one.

  27. theasdgamer says:

    The point is “What is adultery?” I don’t think it means what you think it means. Nor do I think that you think it means what the early church fathers thought it means. Paul makes it abundantly clear that slaves are free to have sex with their masters. That has to be unmarried sex because slaves have never been allowed to marry. Married men could have sex with their slaves. This is the biblical view. I haven’t studied the Church fathers on this question, but I suspect that they didn’t diverge from Paul.

  28. @ asdgamer

    We know what adultery means:

    Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    I’ve already commented on this verse that it doesn’t apply to singles as you can’t commit adultery if you’re not married. But it sure as heck applies to those married.

    I know of no verse where Paul specifies masters can have sex with their slaves. And, to my knowledge, no verse that implies it either.

    Just because something was “permissible” in the OT does not mean it is in line with Christ in the NT.

  29. theasdgamer says:

    “Adultery [N] [B] [S]
    conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. ”

    https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/adultery/

    If you google other links, you come up with the same thing.

    Clearly, a single man can commit adultery with a married woman.

    Sometimes we find that we know less than we think we know.

  30. theasdgamer says:

    When it comes to fornication, anything that the Bible considers sexually immoral falls under the category of fornication, which includes incest, marrying a woman without her father’s consent, adultery, and marrying a divorced woman.

    Having sex with slaves was no big deal; having sex with prostitutes was considered foolish; marrying multiple women was Ok but it prevented your assuming leadership roles in the church.

    You won’t find any examples in the Bible of a married man committing “adultery” with a single woman and you will find several examples of married women committing adultery.

  31. theasdgamer says:

    To complete the point, if adultery implies a married woman, then Mt. 5-27 is referring to a married woman, and only to a married woman.

  32. theasdgamer says:

    The point about slaves is covered in 1 Cor. 7. The entire context is sexual–marriage, circumcision, and slaves’ freedom to have sex. Slaves were property and masters could deal with their own property however they wished. It might offend our modern sensibilities, but that was the morality of the time.

  33. @ asd

    conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin.

    Whether it’s adultery or fornication, all of those are forbidden. I’m not seeing a difference.

    The application about slaves is moot (if it was even considered “permissible” no one owns slaves now anyway and not everything permissible is good). I’ve seen quite a few people make the same case about how marriage = sex in the OT while ignoring the fact that none of this can be done today.

    No one who is a true Christian should want to anyway.

    You’re playing a dangerous game with your faith here. Even if it’s supposedly permissible I wouldn’t agree anyway because the totality of Scripture is against doing anything that would seem immoral too.

  34. theasdgamer says:

    “Whether it’s adultery or fornication, all of those are forbidden.”

    Who says that a married man having sex with a single woman is fornication? Some theologian imposing Victorian morality? Show me from the Bible. There should be beaucoup examples in the Bible if what you are saying is true.

    Or maybe it’s gnostic heresy or the FI encroaching on our freedom. I’ll throw your own words back at you, “You’re playing a dangerous game with your faith here.”

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s