I thinking having children is so important that if that man the husband does not provide a child and dies his brother has to provide a child for him.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Becoming one
- Thread starter Hisdaughter
- Start date
I thinking having children is so important that if that man the husband does not provide a child and dies his brother has to provide a child for him.
Having an heir IS that important, but it doesn’t prove that becoming one is child-based.
I think its part of it.
It either is or it is not the making of one flesh.
Being part just doesn’t help define it.
Re: Having sex, or whatever aspect of it "flesh echad" means" is "part of it," when it comes to making a baby.
Becoming 'one flesh' (the sexual union) is a "necessary but NOT sufficient condition" to having a baby. (Miracles notwithstanding). There's more to it, and it certainly doesn't happen with 100% certainty.
But it doesn't happen WITHOUT that, either.
People tend to confusion "necessary AND sufficient," with "necessary but NOT sufficient." Sometimes (usually when they become bureaucrats or congress-critters) they don't even grok what 'necessary' means...
Let me try it this way, without getting to "engineering nerdy":
Becoming 'one flesh' (the sexual union) is a "necessary but NOT sufficient condition" to having a baby. (Miracles notwithstanding). There's more to it, and it certainly doesn't happen with 100% certainty.
But it doesn't happen WITHOUT that, either.
People tend to confusion "necessary AND sufficient," with "necessary but NOT sufficient." Sometimes (usually when they become bureaucrats or congress-critters) they don't even grok what 'necessary' means...
Yes, it is definitely proof that they fulfilled a measure of becoming one.
But lack of conception is in no way proof that they haven’t become one.
If this bit of logic doesn't create understanding on this matter, I'm not sure I have the patience to continue therein.
Sexual Union ALWAYS results in two bodies of flesh unifying = One(unified) Flesh
Therefore sexual union can and does equal one flesh
You can tell because it literally says two bodies unified, and the context is sexual copulation.
Sexual Union SOMETIMES results in pregnancy
Pregnancy OFTEN results in a child born
A child born OFTEN results in a child growing to maturity
Therefore:
Pregnancy cannot equal one flesh because it does not always happen when the two bodies are unified.
Pregnancy CAN be a result of one fleshedness.
A child being born cannot equal one flesh because it does not always happen.
A Child being born CAN be a result of one fleshedness.
A child growing to maturity cannot equal one flesh because it does not always happen.
A child growing to maturity CAN be a result of one fleshedness.
Two bodies being joined together (unified flesh, echad basar) always results in two bodies being joined together. It's literally the definition of the term, it's there in hebrew, english, black & white.
The idea that united flesh means:
If pregnancy was what defined one flesh, then barren women would never be one flesh with their husband.
Women who miscarried would not be one flesh with their husband.
Women who were not currently pregnant would not be one flesh with their husband.
This is a simple logic test. Go to the scriptures to get your definition, not the ideas echoing between your ears.
Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
1 Co 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
This is not some emotional or spiritual thing, this is not hollywood or disney animated movies. This is simple.
What is happening is you guys are falling prey to eisegesis. You're reading into scripture what fits your own preconceived notions. This is exactly the same foible of western monogamy only proponents. They believe marriage is monogamy only by definition, so all the scripture is interpreted to support that idea, they even add in words and ideas to make it seem like their mono only idea fits. Their definition is different than scripture and they made it up to suit their own perspective and ideas on the matter.
Don't eisegete your own ideas into scripture.
Sexual Union ALWAYS results in two bodies of flesh unifying = One(unified) Flesh
Therefore sexual union can and does equal one flesh
You can tell because it literally says two bodies unified, and the context is sexual copulation.
Sexual Union SOMETIMES results in pregnancy
Pregnancy OFTEN results in a child born
A child born OFTEN results in a child growing to maturity
Therefore:
Pregnancy cannot equal one flesh because it does not always happen when the two bodies are unified.
Pregnancy CAN be a result of one fleshedness.
A child being born cannot equal one flesh because it does not always happen.
A Child being born CAN be a result of one fleshedness.
A child growing to maturity cannot equal one flesh because it does not always happen.
A child growing to maturity CAN be a result of one fleshedness.
Two bodies being joined together (unified flesh, echad basar) always results in two bodies being joined together. It's literally the definition of the term, it's there in hebrew, english, black & white.
The idea that united flesh means:
- Two spirits twining together > is not in scripture.
- Making music > is not in scripture
- A child being conceived > is not in scripture.
- Two people holding hands > is not in scripture.
- Purple dinosaurs hopping up and down > is not in scripture.
If pregnancy was what defined one flesh, then barren women would never be one flesh with their husband.
Women who miscarried would not be one flesh with their husband.
Women who were not currently pregnant would not be one flesh with their husband.
This is a simple logic test. Go to the scriptures to get your definition, not the ideas echoing between your ears.
Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
1 Co 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
This is not some emotional or spiritual thing, this is not hollywood or disney animated movies. This is simple.
What is happening is you guys are falling prey to eisegesis. You're reading into scripture what fits your own preconceived notions. This is exactly the same foible of western monogamy only proponents. They believe marriage is monogamy only by definition, so all the scripture is interpreted to support that idea, they even add in words and ideas to make it seem like their mono only idea fits. Their definition is different than scripture and they made it up to suit their own perspective and ideas on the matter.
Don't eisegete your own ideas into scripture.
That's an idea I haven't run through the gray matter before. Good point.
It is usually women that are stuck on some kind of emotional or "spiritual" (whatever that might look like... I don't know) oneness being what marriage is about. I think many are just not prepared for the literal physical experience.
I find much of Christianity's "imaginative interpretations" to be senseless and frustrating.
People "married" to each other should have a very high degree of agreement about life, family, priorities. This is why men should be up front and clear about their expectations, and women should be certain they want what he wants in life.....BEFORE making commitments.
Staying together is easy when you aren't fighting about life!
A man having penetrative sex with a man has become "one flesh" with his husband. This couple can come to complete agreement is every facet of life and have a wonderful romantic relationship that would supersede success of hetero relationships. Problem: no child can ever be created in this fashion. Scripture DOES NOT SAY that these two are honorable but instead abomination with the punishment being severe. This is never written as pertaining to man/woman one flesh relationship. It is eisegesis to say that a man/woman relationship is romantic. It is nice and beautiful but still reading into scripture. Heck, Solomon had his favorite twin roes but was still married to a few more never mentioned ladies.
The idea that united flesh means: two distinct DNA strands unite...... Is Not In Scripture. But it still exists. Scripture is not a science document but science proves the scripture and encourages our faith. It can still be both the uniting of bodies and uniting of sperm and egg. No damage is done to scripture by believing both. It's not the first time I have been called mad.
The idea that united flesh means: two distinct DNA strands unite...... Is Not In Scripture. But it still exists. Scripture is not a science document but science proves the scripture and encourages our faith. It can still be both the uniting of bodies and uniting of sperm and egg. No damage is done to scripture by believing both. It's not the first time I have been called mad.
No. A man doesn’t have penetrative sex with his “husband”. Comparing the sexual union between a man and a woman to what happens between two men is an absurdity.
Sorry, but all a man doing that has become is 'abomination,' oh, yeah, and worthy of death.
And, personally, I wouldn't abuse the term 'husband' to describe something He forbids.
To use the engineering/math jargon I employed earlier, they have committed the 'necessary AND sufficient condition' for the reward.
(And, no, the DNA doesn't do anything, of course, except probably terminate.)
Separately, I don't find the DNA argument compelling, but neither is it irrelevant. It FITS with what Scripture has told us, but just isn't specific to any terminology the Bible contains. But it's nothing close to a 'proof'.
(It's a bit like the 'pork' thing, IMHO. He never says WHY we aren't to eat, or even touch the carcass in that case, of something which is clearly "not-food," athough that too is not explicit, but a clear, even undeniable implication. Turns out - we know now - there are lots of health implications, from diseases which "cross the species barrier," due to the DNA similarity, to enzymes He put in there to digest dead stuff. Pigs don't sweat - the literal garbage they eat stays in the 'flesh'. And so on. Lots of good REASONS for not eatin' 'em. But the fact He says not to is both necessary AND sufficient.)
(It's a bit like the 'pork' thing, IMHO. He never says WHY we aren't to eat, or even touch the carcass in that case, of something which is clearly "not-food," athough that too is not explicit, but a clear, even undeniable implication. Turns out - we know now - there are lots of health implications, from diseases which "cross the species barrier," due to the DNA similarity, to enzymes He put in there to digest dead stuff. Pigs don't sweat - the literal garbage they eat stays in the 'flesh'. And so on. Lots of good REASONS for not eatin' 'em. But the fact He says not to is both necessary AND sufficient.)
You're so right about some women not being prepared for the literal physical experience. Hello!
Society has brainwashed girls and women into thinking the act of sex is just something fun and uncomplicated yet the reality of actually doing this can be quite overwhelming. It is less overwhelming when it's with a man who is committed to the woman but when it's 'casual' and the woman realizes that it's anything but casual is when she's going to have to come to grips with some serious emotions.
I will stop here because I've written about it before but the fact is that for a lot of women sex is a deeply profound experience that can result in great joy or great trauma...or sometimes even a mix of both. Any man who thinks he can have casual sex with a woman is lying to himself and it makes me think of the moral lesson in this old movie:
Agreed. I look at it this way. The sexual union is the obvious one flesh anyone can see. But there is often more going on in spiritual matters than appears at first blush and one wouldn't expect an ancient text to go into the intricacies of genetic science.
What is your take on Mark 10:9 ?
Autonomy may be a limitation of the physical world, but not the spiritual world. The Bible is filled with joined spirits. Indeed the the concept is central to the faith.
Our understanding of God is as of joined spirits commonly referred to as the trinity.
God joins man and wife in marriage (Mark 10:9) (which I am thinking is a big reason why he hates divorce).
And of course marriage is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Indeed we are joined with Christ in baptism creating a new creature. When we celebrate communion it is not just a meal at the table. We are celebrating the fact that we are one with Christ. That is what internalizing his body and blood mean. He is a part of us. Indeed our whole salvation depends on this fact. It is not us separate, it is that we are part of him.
In John 15 the vine and branches are not two plants. They are one plant. This idea is central to the faith.
I guess i will settle with being "not irrelevent". Much has been made about the one flesh admitedly on my part but now how about the whole "asunder" idea? After the one flesh aspect then the deed is done and each can go their way. Is not THAT being asunder? It indicates that the one flesh SHOULD NOT STOP! Well, after bit the whooppee would wear out wouldnt it? What is Matt 19:6 really saying? Is it where once a person is one flesh then they are permanently joined together? Are we still joined with that person from years ago even though we havent SEEN each other in eons?
The union between man and wife should continue. She belongs to him, that’s where the cleave part needs to be taken into consideration. Cleave unto his wife and they shall be united flesh. Cleave, look up that word in the hebrew and read a bunch of it’s uses to understand the meaning of the word.
It’s saying when a man cleaves to his wife and they begin a sexual relationship, that unique bond should not be severed and the woman should not go be another man’s.
This is where many on the forum disagree. But in my mind, one flesh means sexual union. Nothing more. A man can be one flesh with a harlot and not take her to be his wife. I would classify that as the sin of fornication.
I could be wrong about it though nobody has shown me scripture to change my mind.