We have sections you must join to use. You can see the full list here. Most you can join with a click. The medical and pastoral groups require approval.
Note, some groups were not accepting new members properly. That is fixed.
Post in this section can be seen by guests and search engines.
- Posts: 4718
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:45 pm
- Location: All I know is I'm not home yet
- Under the stars
- Posts: 2335
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am
- Location: Place colder than I want to be
@workerbee,workerbee wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:13 pm Things are really good.
I have no unmet needs, I don't feel alone, and I feel like my husband and I are in harmony.
I'm pretty optimistic.
He's very determined, not in a fretful manner, in a 'I'm going to bumble and fumble occasionally, but I have got this" kind of way.
I genuinely believe that I see what I needed to see finally.
It's as if the cobwebs are removed, blinders are off, and he finally sees.
Time to restore the years that the locust has eaten.
Thank you God.
This is an amazing turnaround. I've seen some pretty remarkable answers to prayers on this forum including some in my own marriage, I might add. All praise and glory be to God!
newwifenewlife wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:49 am And talk about painting a broad stroke and taking Scripture out of context using Lev 15 & Acts 15? Doing what you did is what Jesus and Paul specifically spoke against doing putting a Jewish yoke on the Gentile Christians” and Acts 15 only speaks about food, not a woman’s menstrual period.
It seems extremely unlikelythat that is what is intended by that phrase. 'But I speak by permission and not by commandment' may refer to the whole though above- let every man have his own wife and every woman her own husband and all the stuff that follows until 'I speak by permission and not by commandment.' If you marry, you take upon you the obligations Paul describes. But it is not required to marry. It would seem extremely unlikely that Paul was just saying he was telling wives and husbands to sleep with each other by permission and not by commandment. The Torah required husbands to provide their wives with sex, something also taught in Pharisaical Judaism. So it was not a new concept.Even 1 Cor 7 suggestion of “not depriving one’s spouse” is spoken about as a “concession” or “permission” rather than a command (v6).
It may be that Paul's instructions about celibacy and not marrying are 'by permission and not by commandment.' If someone more familiar with the language could chime in, that would be helpful.
I went back and looked over her posts at an earlier stage in this thread and I looked up some of her 'historical' posts previously. In previous threads, it seemed like her husband was a willing partner when it came to sex, and my impression is still that she left the house possibly with the intention to 'leave her husband' or with the idea that he would think she is leaving. I am not 100% clear on that, but that is the impression I got from the thread before the last post I made. I acknowledged I did not have all the details previously.
If you chose to follow that in your marriage, so be it but it seems to me that pulling the “God card” like that doesn’t seem fair or appropriate to workerbee’s situation.
1 Cor 7 deals with formal/legal divorces and NOT voluntary separation with the expressed purpose as workerbee was encouraged to do, a separation to get her husband’s attention and encouragement to action.
What has her husband done that merits 'tough love'? From what I have read, he exhibits 'responsive desire' if she initiates, and he did not initiate as much as she wanted. Is that defrauding one's spouse? Is there evidence of his defrauding her?No one suggested a move towards divorce or not reconciling. Jesus used a tough love on occasion with people, especially those who knew the truth and refused to accept and follow it.
Leaving a drunk husband on the floor in his own non-life-threatening vomit is one thing. That's a passive form of 'tough love.' But threatening to leave if he is a willing sexual partner, but isn't aggressive enough for his wife's tastes? I am not 100% clear that is what is going on in workerbees case. She said she left over hurt and pain, and I addressed how to view the actions if they were made with a more calculating approach, now that presumably the hurt situation has been resolved. Also, if a wife is supposed to submit to her husband, and some of the approaches I have seen labeled 'tough love' do not seem to reconcile with that.
How do you know that? We are both dealing with limited information. It seemed to me that she was signaling leaving him based on how she worded things. Whatever it was, it triggered abandonment issues.She didn’t leave him, she created space so the BOTH she AND her husband could take a timeout AND evaluate what the real issues are and what they want for their relationship.
There are probably a lot of relevant details that were not shared. I acknowledged this in previous posts.
As far as Leviticus 18 and Acts 15 is concerned, the way I view the passage is in light of the fact that unbelieving Judaism that grew out of the Pharisee legal cult would later conclude that Gentiles could be righteous without joining Israel, and in the first century, there was a debate over what to do with Gentiles who acknowledge the God of Abraham. In this larger timeframe, one school of thought was that they had to relate to God through the covenant with Moses. Another viewpoint is that they had a covenant with God through Noah. Judaism would find various things the law required of Gentiles. James' comments seem to express a similar sentiment with 'abstain from things strangled, and from blood' which would seem to be a reference to the passage containing the original Noachide covenant in which Noah was given meat to eat but not the blood.
The law indicates that certain sex acts were forbidden for Gentiles. Examples would be male with male sex, adultery, and sex with one's father's wife. In I Corinthians 5, a member of the assembly, possibly a Gentile Christian had his father's wife. (Paul said it was fornication not named among the Gentiles.) Paul's writings also condemn sex between those of the same sex. My understanding of the definition of 'fornication' is informed by Leviticus 18 and other passages in the Old Testament. Uncovering a menstruating woman's nakedness was one of the sins for which Gentiles were driven out of the land.
Whether you agree with that part or not, probably all of the twelve apostles except for James the son of Zebedee, Paul, and Barnabas sent a letter stating that the decisions of the apostles and elders seemed good to the Holy Ghost. Paul delivered the letters to various churches, indicating his approval. It would not make much sense to try to interpret Paul's theology as being in conflict with this letter.