|
Post by dizzyjam on Dec 11, 2009 22:37:49 GMT -5
You know, this is an interesting thread and I responded earlier to a comment about a book that had been written, but I think everyone may have missed the point of the thread - or at least the point I got out of the original post when I first read it. I think the person is talking about the rules we should have for the "good guys" in Christian fantasy novels. Since fantasy isn't my strong suit, I've really not gotten as involved here in this thread beyond my one other post, but I think a re-reading of the first post should be made, and if I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong. Von, care to comment? Did I understand your original post somewhat correctly?
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 10:29:46 GMT -5
>>With respect to the original points, you would have to infer many of them.
Yes, as we do with many things in Scripture, such as the trinity. But right now, without even infering, we presume several Biblically false ideas, such as that we have to know someone before we decide to marry them. This statement is false in the face of all of the biblical evidence, yet our society accepts it as gospel truth.
>>what of Paul, who says it is better not to marry at all?
In the very next verse Paul says, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
>>Further, I don't think the father's authority is "permanent" unless you are linking that to some of your comments about the changing nature of relationships. Parents should always be respected - even by their adult children.
This is the common American view My point is that it is not what Scripture teaches.
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 10:32:07 GMT -5
You know, this is an interesting thread and I responded earlier to a comment about a book that had been written, but I think everyone may have missed the point of the thread - or at least the point I got out of the original post when I first read it. I think the person is talking about the rules we should have for the "good guys" in Christian fantasy novels. Since fantasy isn't my strong suit, I've really not gotten as involved here in this thread beyond my one other post, but I think a re-reading of the first post should be made, and if I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong. Von, care to comment? Did I understand your original post somewhat correctly? Well, that certainly was the context. It is amazing to read so-called historical novels/fantasy etc. and have everyone running around dating, accepting Sodomy, accepting feminism, etc... which totally obliviates the whole 'historically correct' and 'period' thing. However I am claiming that the list I posted above is, to the best of my Biblical understanding, Biblically correct; that it represents true, Biblical, precepts.
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 10:39:51 GMT -5
>>This smacks very much of the Patriarchal/Quiverful movement. Just to be clear, I hold many doctrines that would be called 'patriarchal' and 'quiverful'. So my list may do more than 'smack' of it >>My husband and I married when I was 16. Most people thought we wouldn't make it beyond a year. We had our 18th wedding anniversary this year. We have five beautiful children. Praise the Lord. We married way late, and have six, and are on our twentieth anniversary (which I think is in May, but I always need the kids to remind me )
|
|
|
Post by Resha Caner on Dec 12, 2009 12:38:26 GMT -5
It is amazing to read so-called historical novels/fantasy etc. and have everyone running around dating, accepting Sodomy, accepting feminism, etc... which totally obliviates the whole 'historically correct' and 'period' thing. I've had similar objections to "historical" novels, movies, etc. At the same time, it seems more that you want to write your view of marriage rather than the historical reality. Sin has been sin for a long time, and the acceptance of Sodomy goes back to ... well ... Sodom (and before). History can be a tricky thing, because there is the way people presented themselves in public, and then there is the way they actually lived within their homes. History was not one long era of Victorian prudery. So, first, you'd have to tell us the era, culture, and family makeup you want to present. Are we talking about a devout Puritan family in seventeenth century New England or a pagan Roman family in first century Rome? However I am claiming that the list I posted above is, to the best of my Biblical understanding, Biblically correct; that it represents true, Biblical, precepts. You asked for opinions, and I gave mine. I'm sorry if we don't agree - and I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. Yet, if it is truly the Biblical view of marriage that you want to delve into, you'd need to quote the Bible, which I haven't really seen yet. I still think some of your points are a long stretch - much more so than the Trinity. No, the word "trinity" is never used, but it is blatantly obvious that the Father is God, and states quite clearly that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is shown doing many things that, if he weren't God, would be blasphemous. From there, if you're talking about all the Greek theological nonsense about the Trinity, then yeah, the logic gets stretched pretty thin in places.
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 13:50:20 GMT -5
>>>et, if it is truly the Biblical view of marriage that you want to delve into, you'd need to quote the Bible, which I haven't really seen yet.
Oh, I have. I have dozens and dozens of pages of Bible quotes, etc. far to long to put here.
I can send anyone interested our current works in progress, just email me at von@vonsbooks.com
Indeed, one of the things that we need the most is someone willing to play the 'devils advocate', ie to take our points and, from Scripture, argue some opposing point. If anyone is interested, that would be great.
>> History was not one long era of Victorian prudery.
No, certainly not. (nor was the Victorian era, for that matter). However everyone seems to err on the side of having (their hero at least) hold what are, basically, twenty first century views. And, on your point of 'in public'... I wouldn't argue with a book that showed the public/private dichotomy. But they don't. They don't (ala Romeo and Julliet) show a couple 'dating' behind their parents back... they show Romeo chatting up Juliet in the street and asking her out for a beer at the local tavern.
Even feminists, you would think, would be better about showing the girl hero facing lots of open, active, and even physical resistance. A girl who acted like a 20th century feminist would (in many cultures) have been tarred and feathered!
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 13:54:45 GMT -5
Here is a short story I wrote based on some of these principles
Let me tell a story to all of you that like romance novels...
(Ok. We love stories. Tell a good one.)
Once upon a time there was a girl...
(Ooooh, good. We like it already. All good books start with a girl... well, unless they start with a boy...)
Now, this girl had a father...
(Aaah... yes. Father vs girl. Grab some hot chocolate, this is going to be a good story.)
The father had sought, and he found someone that He wanted the girl to marry ...
(Yes! And he was really a bad guy, which everyone knew but the father. How is the girl going to convince her father that the guy is bad? Or will they run away, and the father only be convinced later?...)
... and the man was wonderful...
(Well, he may have *seemed* wonderful, but of course we will find out more later.)
However the girl rejected her fathers choice...
(Of course. What an old fashioned and stupid father to try to pick a spouse for his daughter?)
... and instead ran off and became a prostitute.
(Yo. Hold on. This is getting a bit edgy. Sure, some of the more modern novels can include this kind of thing, but this is a Christian site, and we expected something more, something better. What kind of book are you writing here?)
Her father found her laying naked and bloody in a field, abandoned by but still attracted to her many lovers.
(This is going *way* too far. This is getting practically X-rated. And the plot line is all torn to shreds. How is this girl going to meet and find someone better than her fathers pick, if she has proven herself to be such a moral leper, and if he keeps acting in this way?)
He took her home, and, against her will, convinced her to be betrothed to the man of his choice.
(This is a little better. We like the word 'betrothed', it gives the story an old fashioned flavor. And that he convinced her against her will. Poor girl. We can't wait to find out how she gets out of this betrothal.)
Once her will was overthrown by her fathers love, her betrothed began washing her with his words, convincing her of his love for her...
(Oh, sure, lots of words to cover up his basic nastiness. Good try dude, that girl will find you out in the end.)
... and she found out that he himself had taken on himself the punishment for her prostitutions.
(He had done what? This good-on-the surface but actually horrible guy had taken on her punishment? This guy that her father picked for her?)
Guided by his word, she came, over the months, to trust in him more and more, and to be obedient to everything he said.
(This is really bad. It is getting tense. When is she going to wake up and see what this guy is about?)
One day, as a complete surprise, he came and took her to his fathers house, where they consummated their marriage...
(No. Stop. Against the rules. The law says that a romance novel must have the girl wake up *before* they actually, ummm, 'consummate', the relationship. You blew it here dude.)
... and lived happily ever after. Forever and ever in His Fathers house.
To God be be the glory, our faith is not a romance novel.
|
|
lexkx
Full Member
How nice to know that if you go down the hole, Dad will fish you out.
Posts: 125
|
Post by lexkx on Dec 12, 2009 17:21:34 GMT -5
So many thoughts, so little wisdom in airing them all.... (for me, not intended for anyone who has posted or considered commenting)
Okay. Given the affection in which you seem to hold your views, one must assume this is a philosophy by which you live and are trying to raise your family. Certain questions are raised--some of which are listed below.
Are you a son whose father arranged such a betrothal for him?
Are you a father who has successfully arranged betrothals like these for your sons and daughters?
Would your entire family consider you the unequivocated authority of the household?
Are your children, spouse, and parents at peace with this answer?
What role does your wife play in the governing of your family?
What authority does your father have over your household, and is he an active part of it?
What authority do you have in your grown sons' homes?
What do you consider to be a challenge to your authority by your children?
What condemnation do your children face if any part of their lives falls outside the parameters of your philosophical intent?
This discussion was opened with a long list of foundational premises, but there are certain beliefs that underlie those which weren't addressed. Perhaps they don't need to be. When presenting this argument to people who were not raised from the cradle on it, however, submission and judgment become long-term complications. To paraphrase a worldly source, for all that is bewitching in the idea of one's happiness being decided by one person, it is not always possible. How much of this discussion is hopeful possibility, and how much of it is tested and proven?
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 17:30:42 GMT -5
So many thoughts, so little wisdom in airing them all.... (for me, not intended for anyone who has posted or considered commenting) Okay. Given the affection in which you seem to hold your views, one must assume this is a philosophy by which you live and are trying to raise your family. Certain questions are raised--some of which are listed below. Are you a son whose father arranged such a betrothal for him? Are you a father who has successfully arranged betrothals like these for your sons and daughters? Would your entire family consider you the unequivocated authority of the household? Are your children, spouse, and parents at peace with this answer? What role does your wife play in the governing of your family? What authority does your father have over your household, and is he an active part of it? What authority do you have in your grown sons' homes? What do you consider to be a challenge to your authority by your children? What condemnation do your children face if any part of their lives falls outside the parameters of your philosophical intent? This discussion was opened with a long list of foundational premises, but there are certain beliefs that underlie those which weren't addressed. Perhaps they don't need to be. When presenting this argument to people who were not raised from the cradle on it, however, submission and judgment become long-term complications. To paraphrase a worldly source, for all that is bewitching in the idea of one's happiness being decided by one person, it is not always possible. How much of this discussion is hopeful possibility, and how much of it is tested and proven? A great post. Before many of these questions become relevant, I believe that one of the foundational questions needs to be addressed: namely the sufficiency of Scripture. If one first holds that Scripture teaches something, and that Scripture is sufficient and authoritative, then things such as you list become workings out of application. However your list above might be read as a 'pragmatic' challenge... that it matters not what Scripture says unless someone has proved that it 'works'. I reject that challenge, obviously. If Scripture teaches it, then it works... not the other way around. However these principles are present in the relationship between The Father, Christ, and the church... which, I would argue, 'works'.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Dec 12, 2009 20:28:51 GMT -5
Von, you keep citing the Bible as your source, and although I can see some of the things you're talking about as Biblical from a certain point of view, you really haven't listed a lot of scripture to back up what you are saying. So how about posting your list again and for each one list three passages that support it - two from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. You don't have to list every Bible source, just three for each one so that we can all see just where you are coming from exactly. If you have to take some time to compile this before posting I'm sure everyone will understand. I'm not really for this or against it, I'm just observing this conversation and commenting when I see it appropriate.
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 12, 2009 20:58:05 GMT -5
Von, you keep citing the Bible as your source, and although I can see some of the things you're talking about as Biblical from a certain point of view, you really haven't listed a lot of scripture to back up what you are saying. So how about posting your list again and for each one list three passages that support it - two from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. You don't have to list every Bible source, just three for each one so that we can all see just where you are coming from exactly. If you have to take some time to compile this before posting I'm sure everyone will understand. I'm not really for this or against it, I'm just observing this conversation and commenting when I see it appropriate. The problem with that would be (and I know this from painful experience) that I would be strawmanning my own position. A position, like this, without verses, forces people to think. All the verses (and commentaries, and logic, etc.) is currently 14,000 words (and counting). However three verses just tempts people to shallowly dismiss those three verses (or examples, etc.) and thus pass on without further thought. So anyone may email me at von@vonsbooks.com and I will gladly send them the various files. And, as I say, I am desperate for 'devils advocates' who, from Scripture, wish to contradict any of these points and present and opposing persepctive.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Dec 13, 2009 23:35:45 GMT -5
von, I think you missed what I was saying.
We don't need "all" the verses (however many you may be using), nor did I say only give "three" for the whole list, but rather 3 for each of the 23 examples you gave. So using basic math 23 x 3 = 69 verses.
I think if you gave us 69 passages of scripture to back up what you are saying, that would be a bit more than what you think would be "tempting" to just "shallowly dismiss" out of hand.
|
|
von
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by von on Dec 14, 2009 7:49:42 GMT -5
von, I think you missed what I was saying. We don't need "all" the verses (however many you may be using), nor did I say only give "three" for the whole list, but rather 3 for each of the 23 examples you gave. So using basic math 23 x 3 = 69 verses. I think if you gave us 69 passages of scripture to back up what you are saying, that would be a bit more than what you think would be "tempting" to just "shallowly dismiss" out of hand. No, I understood what you were saying. Three verses, for doctrines as in depth as some of these here, are quite insufficient. Ironically yesterday, in church, we were discussing the Jerusalem council. One seemingly simply question there took the apostles and the elders quite a bit of discussion to resolve... the apostles! So take a doctrine like: 1) I believe that God intends for covenants, whenever possible, to be fixed and firm, and not vacillating. Thus ‘engagement’ and ‘courtship’ as currently practiced are unBiblical. Now, just think about how many covenants, in how many situations, there are in Scripture. Suppose I were to point out some verses: say, Numbers 30 as it relates to vows, and 'let you yes be yes' in the NT. First of all, many modern American Christians (in plain contradiction to II Tim 3) would say of Numbers 30 merely 'that is in the OT'. And of the second they would wave their hands and say 'that was just telling us not to swear oaths'... and, voila... a doctrine that exists on every page of the Scriptures has just been dismissed with a bit of handwaving. I have written, in response to a request from the elders of my church, a paper covering three particular issues in this list that interested them (we are meeting on Friday to discuss it). The paper just begins to touch the Biblical evidence, commentators, linguistics, etc., and is 11 thousand words. The problem here is not that the doctrines are not simple enough. They are. The problem is not that they aren't easily supported by Scripture. They are. The problem is that our modern culture, including and sometimes even led by the church, stands so strongly in opposition to some of these. As an example, pretty much everyone expressed confusion and dismay in our church (and we are a very conservative, Inerrant, etc. church) over the words of Our Lord calling the Cannanite woman a dog. They knew they must have been OK, since Jesus said them, but they sure struggled with them! So for me to say: 6) I believe that, in general, Scripture speaks of marriage as happening ‘in youth’, and not ‘when mature’ or ‘when ready’ in the senses of financial stability, education finished, etc. While easily supported in Scripture, flies absoloutey in the face of our modern gnosticism, and will be actively resisted. So, as I say, I will give you a hundred verses on any of these, but I will not give you three. It would be to d**n with faint praise.
|
|
lexkx
Full Member
How nice to know that if you go down the hole, Dad will fish you out.
Posts: 125
|
Post by lexkx on Dec 15, 2009 16:15:56 GMT -5
Part of the problem I think you're going to find--since you are specifically looking for someone to write from an opposing viewpoint--is fairly simple: Anyone who agrees with your stance will have to, by definition, agree wholeheartedly and will not consider an opposing viewpoint. Anyone willing to write an opposing viewpoint will quite probably *have* an opposing viewpoint and will not be interested in long-term head-butting with no positive end in sight. A serious question to consider is why someone is willing to engage in this kind of dialogue. To prove a point? To win someone away? To pursue truth? And no, the three are not always the same. Especially for something like this.
For example (again, from a secular source), there is a story of a family, wherein the matriarch has been cheated on for years. She knows her husband is unfaithful, but she will not leave him. Throughout the story, she asks every person she knows, "Why do men cheat?" She answers her own question each time, "Because they fear death." When the person she asks gives some other answer (insecurity, vanity, defiance), she throws up her hands and leaves the conversation. Finally, she encounters a man who gives the answer "Because they fear death." Satisfied that she has now proven she is right, she abandons the question and moves on to find a solution to her problem. This woman was not in pursuit of truth, and was not interested in convincing others that her view was correct. She wanted her opinion validated.
One of the wonderful things about the Almighty God is the gift of His Spirit. Galatians 4 tells us that He has sent that Spirit into our hearts, crying "Daddy!" And now we are His heirs, entitled to a glorious portion of grace and love, free to be obedient because we choose Him. This gift of His Spirit, only a small part of the glory He pours out, provides a link between believers so that truth can be quickly and easily spoken. That love for God gives us a yearning for His truth, so that one Scripture can point to the truth of Christ and redeem us all.
This, unlike earlier, is a real life example of something a real live Christian learned. In my church, we have an elder we affectionately call "The Eldest Elder." He's the pastor's father-in-law and greatly respected for the wisdom people find in his teaching. Our church has become very involved in a couple ministries in Africa, and our Eldest Elder volunteered to go one summer and teach. He has a course on Biblical parenting he's developed that seemed to be desperately needed by the church we partner with in Africa. When the Eldest Elder arrived, he discovered something amazing. Each lesson he had crafted was designed to move from logical point to logical point, heavy with words and with meaning, each taking about an hour. He sat down to present the first lesson, explaining the principle he would be discussing and one Scripture he intended to use as a starting point. The class, through their interpreters, exclaimed he was correct and Scripture proved it, quoting the final Scripture he would have used. They had skipped forty-five minutes of his lecture by seeing the truth of Christ in the truth he shared. Going through the entire lesson became pointless, because they would point out repeatedly that he had already stated that truth and they would like another, please. This happened every time he taught for two solid weeks. This was not a surprise to me, or to many other teachers present who lean heavily on the Lord to provide their students' understanding, but it was a shock to the Eldest Elder.
Who knew that freedom in Christ could equal a deeper understanding of His wisdom?
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Dec 15, 2009 21:38:05 GMT -5
I like that story you just told of your "Edest Elder". My wife is from Zambia, and I find my conversations with her parents to be light-years ahead of conversations I have with people here in the U.S.A. I don't have to go into much detail. I just say something based on scripture and they fully agree and mention the next point for the conversation. Something that would take many conversations and debate over Herman and his neutics and all sorts of other stuff with people over here only takes a few minutes when I'm on the phone with them. It's wonderful!
|
|