Posted on 08/01/2003 1:56:57 PM PDT by Commander8
I am a strong diciplinarian and believe if you start teaching from birth, they will at least have the 'background' to base their 'free will' on. That's obvious.
The most devout Catholic family I ever knew, had one son who declared he was an athiest, proving even the best of parents can't be sure of the outcome.
In my first post, I was dissaproving of a parent letting a child lay around, instead of helping with the chores.
I'm afraid you have it backwards. King David took responsibility for his sin. He blamed himself fully and did penance. But what about Bathsheba whose immodesty started the trouble? How often do women take responsibility for their sins?
Let's look at the biggest example staring us in the face today: the murder of tens of millions of unborn babies. Every one of those unborn children are murdered by his or her own mother, the one person in the whole world who has the greatest obligation to love and to cherish and to protect that child. Yet I hear talk about how "every abortion has 2 victims, the mother and the baby." Sorry, every abortion has 1 victim, the child, and 1 murderer, the mother. When are women going to take responsibility?
You can and are only meant to control yourself, not the entire female gender. The sooner you come to terms with this the better off you will be.
That's just not true. I have responsibility for my wife and my daughters. That is the point of the original article. God has placed upon me the authority of leading them to heaven and preventing them from going astray into paths that lead to hell.
She was taking a bath and King David decided to peek.....hellooooooo? So women should bathe with their clothes on? Go back and read the Scripture.
Your wife is not a child, she is an adult. She is responsible for herself. When your daughters become adults they will be responsible for themselves. You overreach. When they die they will give their own accounts of their decisions and their lives. Your opinion won't count.
I have responsibility for my wife and my daughters. That is the point of the original article. God has placed upon me the authority of leading them to heaven and preventing them from going astray into paths that lead to hell.
You just answered your own question here.
I don't think the concept should really be that difficult. There can be more than one with an obligation and responsibility for each person. My wife has responsibility for herself, while I also have responsibility for her as the person in a position of authority. Children have their own consciences, and go to confession to confess their own sins, yet at the same time their parents also have responsibility for them. Parents will have to answer to God for the job they have done. Priests will be held accountable for their parishioners, although the parishioners have their own consciences as well. I will have to answer to God for the job I have done in upholding my authority and responsibility in my family. If my wife and children go to hell, then it will be on my conscience as well.
Any minister who talks about marriage and does not include God's plan for uninhibited and enthusiastic sexual expression within marriage should be ignored. I am comming to the conclusion that there are more and more Christian men who are inhibited in the area of sex as they get older and women seem to become uninhibited, assuming they come to realize God's real plan for sex within marriage. Song of Songs is not an allegory about God's relationship to man, although there is some illustrative value; it is pure and simple about sexual love between a husband and wife.
Man, you don't have a clue.
Canticle_of_Deborah, I don't have my Bible handy, but could you post the portion of Song of Songs that is a direct reference to the pleasures of oral sex. It's the part that talks about the north an south wings and grazing in the wife garden of honey and spices. I'd like to see Maximilian explain how that portion is merely an allegory.
Solomon is classically credited with Songs but some attribute it to an unknown poet. As an aside, many college courses study the Bible not in a religious context but solely for its historical and cultural information.
Aside from the bold portion above, this evangelical Christian has no disagreement. Many Christain, and non-Chriatians, do no realize that wherever the Bible mentions or refers to the sexual bond between a husband and wife, it is associated with the relationship between God and his Church. The only conclusion one can make is that the sexual relationship between and husband and wife is not just physical, but also 'spiritual'.
Don't stop praying. Read about Solomon's son Manassah in I Chronicles, and the prodigal son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.