-
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.
"SEX" vs Romance & Spirit Led Intimacy
- Thread starter forcedelune
- Start date
forcedelune
New Member
FollowingHim said:
Yes, I have lived out these principles in a previous marriage. Unfortunately, no life or marriage is immune to the power of sin to impact us. She had some resurfacing addictions, from before we met, that eventually drove her to some pretty terrible things and our marriage did not survive it in the end. My current wife sadly struggles with ongoing medical problems which directly effect her in this area, but we have hope that she'll be able to get through such issues in the next year or so. She is in complete agreement.
forcedelune
New Member
Isabella said:
Actually, I have thought it through in that regard. Long story short (for now)...my push is that the system needs to be changed so that such a scenario will never occur. There are many ways of doing so and they are all very reasonable. We need to be a society that respects women's privacy and modesty once more. As it is now, we may give lip service to the idea...but the medical establishment has made no real effort to prevent women from having their modesty violated in such ways. Our current medical establishment is not very learned or interested in "preventative" care. Their primary focus is to treat the symptom after the problem has already occurred. We need preventative care when it comes to modesty of women as well (1 Timothy 2:9).
The scenario you present is not really meaningful in a faith based Christian discussion, because it is more akin to moral relativistic reasoning to decide what one should do. I could just as easily ask you, "what if the Taliban kidnapped your child and gave you the ultimatum that they will not execute your child if you will just rape and murder another person's child?" Some of our soldiers did similar acts to their people at Guantanamo Bay...so it's not out of the realm of responsibility that they would want payback.
The point is that these are of course tough situations in which one is presented with life and death if they will just simply compromise from the Word of God. Most of the early Christians were willing to be tortured and murdered just to not bow the knee to Caesar as god and renounce Jesus. The average Christian today may be morally relativistic and reason that it's just words and clearly not worth dying for. Our Christian fore bearers did not follow such worldly philosophies, so I don't think these scenarios are good points of reference for us to ignore the Word of God either.
forcedelune
New Member
Another thing we've been conditioned to accept is that clothing is not so much to cover the body, but rather to decorate it. The need to cover those more private areas of our body, for modesty's sake, is no longer a welcome idea in our society. If the weather is fair, we just strip down to the "bare" minimum and have a "good time"...oblivious to the hidden damage we're causing to the hearts and lives of those around us.
The key is that most women (and men) have given up on seeking the Lord to meet their needs in these areas and have been convinced by the world (contrary to God's Word) that there is no escape (compromising your modesty is necessary). Well, you just have to decide in whom you will believe. The Word is clear and the fruit of modesty is well worth any persecution the world can dish out- for us taking a stand on holiness. We need to be taking to heart that "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety..." [1 Timothy 2:9] "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." [Joshua 24:15]
This second way of men coping with their wife's accepted immodesty has a huge impact on marital intimacy and this is what most men in our culture choose (or are conditioned from a very young age) to do. This area of a man's heart is a MAJOR part of what enables him to be truly intimate (at the heart level) with his wife. Once a man shuts this area of his heart down (knowingly or unknowingly), intimacy at the heart level is minimal if any.
This has proven very frustrating for so many wives in our culture...the men just seem to be lacking in heartfelt expression for and during intimacy. They are instead flesh focused, absent minded, or at the most they will only interact with her at a mental/emotional level. This is taking away the most important element: for those in the marriage bed to share from the deepest places of their heart (completely and openly) in order to experience and be led by the Spirit into truly fulfilling intimacy together.
The Word presents a much more balanced way for men and women to deal with this need in a husband's heart. Scripture is very clear that the wife belongs to the husband (she is his private property), but the Word also says that the husband belongs to the wife (he is just as much her private property as she is his). Now, as we know from the whole of Scripture, the husband has primary authority over his wife...but the point of the following verse is that the wife also has legitimate rights to be intimately fulfilled by the husband:
[1 Corinthians 7:4] "For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority {and} control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority {and} control over his body, but the wife [has her rights]."
Personally I think that's beautiful and I love that God offers this blessing of making us so completely one (body, soul, heart, and spirit) with whom we marry- so that we will belong to each other in the Lord. In the husband's heart especially, if he is naturally sensitive to his wife, an emotional bond forms toward her more intimate and private places of her body. If those areas are exposed to other men, he will feel a deep pain like no other and will be tempted to close this area of his heart (desensitize it)...so that he doesn't have to feel this dull knife cutting at his heart again and again. It actually has very little to do with jealously and everything to do with a man's God given emotional sensitivity to his wife's most cherished places shared during their times of intimacy.
The key is that most women (and men) have given up on seeking the Lord to meet their needs in these areas and have been convinced by the world (contrary to God's Word) that there is no escape (compromising your modesty is necessary). Well, you just have to decide in whom you will believe. The Word is clear and the fruit of modesty is well worth any persecution the world can dish out- for us taking a stand on holiness. We need to be taking to heart that "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety..." [1 Timothy 2:9] "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." [Joshua 24:15]
This second way of men coping with their wife's accepted immodesty has a huge impact on marital intimacy and this is what most men in our culture choose (or are conditioned from a very young age) to do. This area of a man's heart is a MAJOR part of what enables him to be truly intimate (at the heart level) with his wife. Once a man shuts this area of his heart down (knowingly or unknowingly), intimacy at the heart level is minimal if any.
This has proven very frustrating for so many wives in our culture...the men just seem to be lacking in heartfelt expression for and during intimacy. They are instead flesh focused, absent minded, or at the most they will only interact with her at a mental/emotional level. This is taking away the most important element: for those in the marriage bed to share from the deepest places of their heart (completely and openly) in order to experience and be led by the Spirit into truly fulfilling intimacy together.
The Word presents a much more balanced way for men and women to deal with this need in a husband's heart. Scripture is very clear that the wife belongs to the husband (she is his private property), but the Word also says that the husband belongs to the wife (he is just as much her private property as she is his). Now, as we know from the whole of Scripture, the husband has primary authority over his wife...but the point of the following verse is that the wife also has legitimate rights to be intimately fulfilled by the husband:
[1 Corinthians 7:4] "For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority {and} control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority {and} control over his body, but the wife [has her rights]."
Personally I think that's beautiful and I love that God offers this blessing of making us so completely one (body, soul, heart, and spirit) with whom we marry- so that we will belong to each other in the Lord. In the husband's heart especially, if he is naturally sensitive to his wife, an emotional bond forms toward her more intimate and private places of her body. If those areas are exposed to other men, he will feel a deep pain like no other and will be tempted to close this area of his heart (desensitize it)...so that he doesn't have to feel this dull knife cutting at his heart again and again. It actually has very little to do with jealously and everything to do with a man's God given emotional sensitivity to his wife's most cherished places shared during their times of intimacy.
forcedelune said:
What???? Is it me or does this just not make sense? It HAS happened, it CAN happen, you can't just say it will never happen so my point needn't be addressed. Who are you to tell women how their modesty needs to be protected? You are not a woman and as far as I can see, despite not being especially learned in that area, there is NOTHING in the Bible which says a woman cannot be seen by a male doctor, this is just extremism pure and simple.
There is a huge difference between walking on a beach front in a skimpy bikini and being seen at the doctors. All people are obligated to take care of the bodies they were given and that is a higher priority than what you think is the best way to preserve a woman's modesty.
B
*edited in a missing word.
Modesty is most importantly a matter of the heart that is lived out through a person's life, by the way they behave, interact with the opposite sex, dress, comport themselves, etc. Modesty is far more than hemlines and necklines, or makeup and jewelry (or lack of it).
Is a woman being immodest by having a male physician attend her? I am a female, had eight babies with a midwife, but with my ninth, I had an unplanned hospital birth, and the doctor was a male. He wasn't there to look at my lady parts, and I wasn't there to show them to him. Would I have rather had a woman doctor? Perhaps, but one wasn't available, and I had a baby coming out of me, so I chose to choose life for my baby rather than an exaggerated form of modesty.
In order for woman to only have female medical attendants, half of the medical field would have to be female. This would cause a great conflict with my worldview regarding the way that I believe God would have woman function, which is as a help meet for man. Yes, technically a woman can have a busy, demanding career and still be a help meet for man, but it is very difficult and rarely happens. What normally happens is that a woman who has a rewarding, demanding career continues in said career and has a difficult time fulfilling the role of being a help meet. What a conundrum for one who espouses patriarchy!
**DISCLAIMER** I am not condemning nor have I at any time condemned women who work outside of the home or women who have demanding careers.
Katie
Is a woman being immodest by having a male physician attend her? I am a female, had eight babies with a midwife, but with my ninth, I had an unplanned hospital birth, and the doctor was a male. He wasn't there to look at my lady parts, and I wasn't there to show them to him. Would I have rather had a woman doctor? Perhaps, but one wasn't available, and I had a baby coming out of me, so I chose to choose life for my baby rather than an exaggerated form of modesty.
In order for woman to only have female medical attendants, half of the medical field would have to be female. This would cause a great conflict with my worldview regarding the way that I believe God would have woman function, which is as a help meet for man. Yes, technically a woman can have a busy, demanding career and still be a help meet for man, but it is very difficult and rarely happens. What normally happens is that a woman who has a rewarding, demanding career continues in said career and has a difficult time fulfilling the role of being a help meet. What a conundrum for one who espouses patriarchy!
**DISCLAIMER** I am not condemning nor have I at any time condemned women who work outside of the home or women who have demanding careers.
Katie
Well said Katie, the implications on the workforce are a very good point - extreme modesty could only occur under extreme feminism...
For us, for routine medical matters my wife can see male doctors unless the issue could require an examination of anything private, when I insist she gets an appointment with a female doctor. I also would not use a male midwife, birth is a routine thing that can be planned to use female assistance, provided all goes well.
However in an emergency, I want her alive. I would be eternally grateful to any man who was willing to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation if she needed it, cut off her bra to attach her to a defibrillator, or do anything necessary to keep her alive. I would not hesitate to do the same myself to anyone else's wife. Like Bels I see nothing in the Bible that requires such an extreme standard of modesty that you would refuse necessary medical assistance.
For us, for routine medical matters my wife can see male doctors unless the issue could require an examination of anything private, when I insist she gets an appointment with a female doctor. I also would not use a male midwife, birth is a routine thing that can be planned to use female assistance, provided all goes well.
However in an emergency, I want her alive. I would be eternally grateful to any man who was willing to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation if she needed it, cut off her bra to attach her to a defibrillator, or do anything necessary to keep her alive. I would not hesitate to do the same myself to anyone else's wife. Like Bels I see nothing in the Bible that requires such an extreme standard of modesty that you would refuse necessary medical assistance.
forcedelune
New Member
sola scriptura said:
Surely we can be more creative as human beings and as Christians than this. If you're worried about women spending too much time at the hospital (away from their families and husband), then women could be trained just to handle any birth related issues at hospitals and only so many hours a week. You may come back with another situation, but I'm sure I can come up with another good solution...the point is it can be done.
It should be our goal as Christians to honor God's admonition that women dress modestly...not ignore it because the world says we should. If we're worried about emergency situations arising that would put us in compromising positions, then we as Christians are the most responsible to try to bring more women into the profession in order to respect women's privacy and standards of modesty. It can be done...we just have to be willing to do it and show that we consider respecting women's privacy and modesty as something worth doing. Most of our medical community does not respect women in this way (when the rubber truly meets the road, such as in your emergency example).
Overall, I think what you were getting at is kind of putting us in a moral relativistic situation with no choice but to do something degrading one way or the other...like, what if your family was kidnapped by Al-CIA-da and you were given the option to either rape another family's child or have your self and your children be executed on the spot? What do you do? Please don't answer that question...it's just to make a point. It's better to do our part to prevent the terrorist emergency situation from ever happening in the first place.
forcedelune
New Member
In summary...to the extent that we seek and follow the Lord to have a pure & holy (set apart) heart unto Him (as well as unto our marriage partner)...to the extent that we guard what is private and should only be shared with those whom we are "one flesh" with (including private areas of our hearts and our bodies)...to that same extent we will be able to enjoy a wonderful blessing of the most fulfilling intimacy between our partner and the Lord (in the Marriage Bed and in every other expression of our intimate times together).
This now leads us to the next step in this journey. How can we discern what thoughts and images are harmful to our hearts? How do we determine what is modest and acceptable, in order to maintain a healthy conscience and a pure heart?
In other words...what are the day-to-day building blocks, which will result in either a holy sanctuary (marriage bed) unto the Lord or that will result in the damaged (compromised) experience of intimacy that the world offers as the norm? We need to address an issue that is central among the building blocks, which will either make or break our ability to experience true Spirit Led Intimacy in the Lord: porn.
This now leads us to the next step in this journey. How can we discern what thoughts and images are harmful to our hearts? How do we determine what is modest and acceptable, in order to maintain a healthy conscience and a pure heart?
In other words...what are the day-to-day building blocks, which will result in either a holy sanctuary (marriage bed) unto the Lord or that will result in the damaged (compromised) experience of intimacy that the world offers as the norm? We need to address an issue that is central among the building blocks, which will either make or break our ability to experience true Spirit Led Intimacy in the Lord: porn.
forcedelune said:
Make up your mind. Either women should only be in the hospital for a few hours a week for birth related reasons, or they should be fully trained as doctors and surgeons to deal with any emergency where a woman may come in, therefore keeping them away from their family.
Lets put forth a realistic scenario then, that could happen today and does happen every single day. A woman has a heart attack. She is rushed into the emergency room where her heart stops. Her heart is shocked into starting again. She then requires open heart surgery to fix the problem.
In this scenario, if you were in charge, the woman would die in the emergency room, as they would not have been able to shock her heart back to working again unless there were all women present. Then you would require an all woman team in the operating theatre to be doing surgery on her. Do you have any idea how many people are in an operating theatre? All of these people would have to be women. This is not one woman missing tea with her family to be at a birth and then going home again. These people all needed to be at the hospital already as it was an emergency situation.
Heart attacks are the main cause of death in the western world. I bet everyone here has either had a heart attack or knows someone who has.
So forcedelune, what say you? All those women in the operating theatre? Or the woman dies?
Forcedelune,
I am sure you mean well by trying to cover all aspects of a woman's modesty in all situations, but you seem to be looking at the problem backwards .
Is modesty important to God? Absolutely! Which is more important to God, modesty at ALL times or preserving life? I vote with preserving life, because scripture is replete with the principle of choosing life, and sin is not being committed against another when a person is attempting to choose life in a medical situation that might not meet normal modesty standards.
Regarding your postulation regarding the requirement to rape a person or else be executed. The grave sin committed by raping someone in exchange for saving my own life or even the life of my child would not be acceptable in the eyes of God because I would b perpetrating sin against another, while I know that my life and the life of my child belong to God and He alone gives and takes life.
Why doesn't this same principle apply to the situation in the hospital? Because there is no inherent sin involved in a male physician doing the honorable thing of saving my life, even though he might accidentally see my bare chest. It is all about intent. Re-think your position, with the added inclusion of what each person's intent is in the situation.
Also, for a woman to be able to spend a few hours a week working in a hospital, she would have to spend 8 years in medical school, 80-100 hr weeks during residency, etc. It really isn't that easy of a problem to solve the "need" for an all woman medical team.
I am sure you mean well by trying to cover all aspects of a woman's modesty in all situations, but you seem to be looking at the problem backwards .
Is modesty important to God? Absolutely! Which is more important to God, modesty at ALL times or preserving life? I vote with preserving life, because scripture is replete with the principle of choosing life, and sin is not being committed against another when a person is attempting to choose life in a medical situation that might not meet normal modesty standards.
Regarding your postulation regarding the requirement to rape a person or else be executed. The grave sin committed by raping someone in exchange for saving my own life or even the life of my child would not be acceptable in the eyes of God because I would b perpetrating sin against another, while I know that my life and the life of my child belong to God and He alone gives and takes life.
Why doesn't this same principle apply to the situation in the hospital? Because there is no inherent sin involved in a male physician doing the honorable thing of saving my life, even though he might accidentally see my bare chest. It is all about intent. Re-think your position, with the added inclusion of what each person's intent is in the situation.
Also, for a woman to be able to spend a few hours a week working in a hospital, she would have to spend 8 years in medical school, 80-100 hr weeks during residency, etc. It really isn't that easy of a problem to solve the "need" for an all woman medical team.
When I was doing my rotations through hospitals I joined my "team" to do rounds at 8am. One time one of the doctor residents was not able to answer a question about a patient because although he had been at the hospital since very early in the morning (or possibly through the night - because they did that every 4th day too without getting the next day off) he "had not had time" to see the patient that morning. The Attending turned to him and said " I like you - I really do, but if you EVER do that again I will fail you on the spot"
One of the female residents and I had a long discussion. We both had 2 young children. I was a single mom, she was married. She was asking how much money I was likely to make when I graduated, how long it took for me to get my training, what hours I was having to put in as a student and once I graduated. When we lined ourselves up side by side, by the time she pays off her student loans, I was ahead financially. Then you factor in that she rarely sees her kids and family and the social costs to her as an individual and to her family for her to become an MD were extremely high.
The concept that she shows up delivers a baby to preserve their modesty and then goes home and plays Suzie Homemaker is quite frankly insulting to the training and dedication that these people have.
One of the female residents and I had a long discussion. We both had 2 young children. I was a single mom, she was married. She was asking how much money I was likely to make when I graduated, how long it took for me to get my training, what hours I was having to put in as a student and once I graduated. When we lined ourselves up side by side, by the time she pays off her student loans, I was ahead financially. Then you factor in that she rarely sees her kids and family and the social costs to her as an individual and to her family for her to become an MD were extremely high.
The concept that she shows up delivers a baby to preserve their modesty and then goes home and plays Suzie Homemaker is quite frankly insulting to the training and dedication that these people have.