|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Marriage vs God
|
Scots lass
Shipmate
# 2699
|
Posted
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, which has left her husband very unhappy. He maintains that the same part of her brain that loves him is effectively having an affair with Jesus and that she has to choose between the two. Her options as far as I can see seem to be (a) Choose God (b) Insist that she can have both or (c) pick the husband and completely give up faith. Options (a) and (b) will have the consequence of ending the marriage, and to her appear like a choice to do so. The times I've spoken to her about it we seem to go round in circles.
She's asked me to ask the Ship what the thoughtful and considered options of the Shipmates are, and I've put it in Purgatory because she wants the discussion, rather than support. I'm aware that it might get moved depending on how the discussion goes.
Posts: 863 | From: the diaspora | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
d) wait
The excited flush of 'first faith' which he is jealous of will soon go and equilibrium will be restored, hopefully.
<typo>
[ 30. October 2011, 09:59: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
e) Talk about how love is cumulative - no one is issued with a set amount of love, either to distribute thinly between alot of relationships or deeply in one or two; rather different loves grow and strenghten one another, having a child doesn't stop you loving a spouse, having a parent doesn't stop you wanting a partner.
This also makes me wonder if the partner has heard too much of 'Jesus is my boyfriend - Jesus lover of my soul' type songs. Perhaps she could focus on other, less threatening analogies, 'Jesus as elder brother' - the first born of all creation, 'Jesus as friend' friend of sinners, shepherd or other relationship that would be meaningful to her and explain how the two loves can co-incide meaningfully together
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
It's a tough situation to be in. But there are a couple of Bible passages that speak to these kind of circumstances.
St Paul addresses this issue in 1 Corinthians 7:12-17. The basic principle is that the Christian should try to stay in the marriage if their partner is willing. But they should not feel bound if their unbelieving husband or wife chooses to leave them.
1 Peter 3:1-2 encourages wives with unbelieving husbands to win them over by the purity and reverence of their lives. It's important for a spouse who has become a Christian to do everything possible to show in action, not just say in words, that they can love both their partner and God. As Boogie says, hopefully time will allow them to adjust and understand each other.
If the husband refuses to accept that his wife can love both God and him, then that's a difficult and heartbreaking situation. But the Christian wife shouldn't be made to feel guilty in those circumstances - if she's loving both her husband and God, but the husband is making her choose between him and God, then he's the one at fault. Denying one's faith shouldn't be an option.
It's still a gut-wrenching situation to be in though ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Find some other non-Christian husbands with Christian wives to help him realise that the situation can work out? She'd be in an unusual church if there weren't others in her situation around.
But the Revolutionist's quote of Peter is the core - she needs to demonstrate by her life that it can hold together and that he'll get a better wife as a result of the deal!
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Is she sure that's the real reason and not a rationalisation to express his discomfort with some aspects of what she's doing? I had to explain speaking in tongues to someone I knew whose spouse converted via an alpha course. They were very upset and assumed spouse had gone bonkers and joined some cult. It probably wouldn't be getting characterised as 'an affair with Jesus' if it was Christianity of a form the husband was familiar with or which seemed to him 'normal'.
I explained it via church history to my friend and convinced him that even if not all churches did it, it was a respectable part of the Christian mainstream. The thing is, if someone is not religious and doesn't have evangelical family members (I'm guessing this is some version of modern evangelicalism) they may be very freaked out and upset by a conversion and what follows after it. It doesn't look normal or wonderful to them but scary and abnormal compared to what they know.
Does husband have any Christian friends/ relatives of any sort whose opinion he respects and who he trusts and who could be called upon to put in a good word? It probably helps if they are a very different sort of Christian. Sometimes it's just needing a bit of basic Religious Education and context from someone you don't think is trying to convert you. I was happy to do so despite huge theological differences, because I could explain a lot to him and back up his wife as doing something which wasn't my brand of Christianity but which was something unexceptionable and not to be worried about.
Once my pal re-calibrated and figured out that spouse hadn't gone loony/got into some cult, the marriage just settled down and he became quite supportive.
So worth asking: how weird might this seem to him and is there someone who could demystify it for him?
cheers,
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, which has left her husband very unhappy. He maintains that the same part of her brain that loves him is effectively having an affair with Jesus and that she has to choose between the two.
Herein lies the problem with an incarnate God.
Some people do have love affairs with the human Jesus.
It's called projection.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
How awful. sorry for them both.
I'm wondering if the real problem is not quite as he states, but rather a case of general jealousy of God's space in the spouse's life. Grahame Greene's book The End of the Affair gives a really vivid picture of just this sort of thing happening when a man realizes his lover now has a new focus to her life he simply can't compete with--and hasn't yet figured out that he doesn't have to. Because there is a real difference between worship and erotic love, and the most obvious is that you can do both at the same time, indeed worship of the Lord normally enhances the erotic love of a spouse. (Thus all those studies we were hearing about some years ago where they were shocked to find that the religious women (which from the sample seemed to = evangelical and mainline Christians) were the ones who had the best sex life.
But jealousy of a new interest in a loved one's life is very common, not just among spouses but among other family members as well. Sort of like having a new baby come into the family and start demanding time, becoming an obvious source of happiness for the parent, etc. etc. The remaining family members, even the dog, sulk (if they're not mature enough). Usually it sorts itself out over time, as they realize that the parent/spouse's heart is big enough to love them all. But the first little while is rocky, and sometimes people DO make demands like "you have to choose between me and X." It's a way of saying "Do you really love me anymore or not?" A rather nasty way, since it causes so much pain; but a very human thing to do.
For her own sake, I hope she IS experiencing the spiritual ecstasies and joys that often (but not always) come at the very beginning of Christian conversion. They'll pass away soon enough as the new life settles down. But for now they may be a comfort in the face of sharp pain.
Strategy? Well, obviously she wants to show by real concrete actions that her husband is not only still loved but now loved more than ever before. In other words, that the love of God is backing up/strengthening the love of husband. It would probably be a good idea to do some brainstorming on practical ways of demonstrating that stronger marriage love. For instance, is there some minor argument that has been annoying the hell out of him for years? (There usually is, even if it's as stupid as leaving one's shoes in the middle of the floor.) Could she do an about-face on that subject and shock the pants off him? Or for a greater challenge, is there some MAJOR issue (e.g. "I can't stand your mother") that her newfound Christianity might be able to carry her through (again, much to his surprise)? Though of course it's better to actually DO the thing (e.g. visit the mother) than to make grandiose promises about the future, since she is certainly still a sinner and to make a promise is to break one.
(In fact, I hope she stays away from making promises or resolutions of any kind during the first two-three years of her Christian life, because baby Christians are naturally prone to them and have no idea just how strong the sinful nature continues to be, even after conversion--what is easy the first week or month becomes hellishly hard to keep doing the sixth and seventh. The spiritual raptures do fade, it's perfectly normal and healthy--though they may return upon occasions--but they won't be enough to carry her through the difficult task of faithful love for difficult people lifelong. For that she's going to have to learn by doing, by depending on Christ.)
Now, about the husband--I'd suggest a "water" strategy here. As much as possible, don't resist him. Flow around him. He is trying to force a choice, most likely out of panic and jealousy. Stay out of those arguments to the extent you can (sorry, can't find a way not to write in the "you" language, pardon my grammar). Which is to say, don't fight back. Get sleepy/distracted/busy/interested in sex instead. Put the discussion off until later (by which time he'll have had more chance to see how much you really DO love him, by your actions. If you know a fight is brewing, pre-empt it by arriving with another agenda (whether that be sex or "honey, the car won't start"). The arguing will do no good, the basic problem is emotional and not logical, and the only cure for it is patience, love and time. When you must discuss it, try answering the real issue ("Do you still love me? How can I be sure?") and not the official issue ("there's not room enough for me and God both in your life"). That means your conversations will likely sound a bit odd, as he tries to frame it one way (a seemingly logical debate) and you answer in another way ("Yes, I love you and I always will. What would you like for dinner tonight?")
If you can avoid verbal "choose NOW!" engagement long enough, he should start to calm down enough to realize what your daily life actions indicate--that you love him just as much as ever, and more so. The time to have the debate ideally is when he's no longer interested, because he's found the answer for himself.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, ... Her options as far as I can see seem to be (a) Choose God (b) Insist that she can have both or (c) pick the husband and completely give up faith. Options (a) and (b) will have the consequence of ending the marriage, and to her appear like a choice to do so.
It's a question of balance and in a way not different than when the homemaker gets a job or when a baby is born into the family, the spouse who is used to getting all the attention now has to share some of the attention with the baby or the job, and that can feel like loss of love. One friend went back to school and her husband divorced her because he felt abandoned, she was no longer centering her life on him.
Realize there really is a danger of reduced attention being given to the spouse, one friend said her husband spent all his time at church and spent all his money at church - don't do that! The problem, of course, is the church encourages focusing time and money on church, we don't have a good theology of how to do church in a way that intrigues the spouse into wanting to know more instead of alienating the spouse who sees resources taken away from the marriage to be spent on this alien love. No one wants to be a "church widower" just like wives complain about being a golf widow.
Really important to find ways to enjoy God and church without taking away from the spouse. That suggests do NOT be in church every time the doors open, do NOT impose "saying grace" or hanging religious art all over the house, it's his house too! Find a prayer group or church group that meets at times he is busy anyway. Or negotiate how much time a new hobby can legitimately consume, nothing unusual about spouses having some separate interests but the commitment of time and money has to stay within bounds of a healthy balance for the marriage.
The problem is we get all the stuff about God first and love God more than family and fully committed to God and yes if taken too literally it threatens to marriage. It threatens jobs, too, I knew a man who couldn't hold a job because his understanding of being fully committed to God meant spending work time witnessing instead of doing the job. He didn't understand that one can be fully committed to God ND committed to doing god work on the job AND committed to the wellbeing of a spouse AND committed to care of the children/elderly parents AND committed to whatever community cause one adopts. God is within and encouraging these commitments, not a conflict to them (unless the job or spouse is insisting on immoral activities).
Balance is the word. What are the husband's real needs? Find ways of using words and time and money that aren't threats to his needs. That may include giving no money to the church if all the money is theirs, his money should not be spent in ways that seem to him anti-marriage! It definitely includes not spending all her time with church people instead of with him.
But if he objects to her taking 20 minutes to pray once a day at a time when he is watching TV, or her being at church when he's not at home, they need to have a gentle chat about supporting each other's exploration of life. I'll bet he has some interests she doesn't share, most spouses do spend a little time on separate interests.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Years ago there was a woman at my church whose husband said exacatly this - well almost, as actaully he was a heavy drinker and he said it was because she spent so much time in church and he felt abandoned, and the only solution was if she gave up church.
She tood the option C and gave up church. While it did keep her marriage, together it did not make her particualarly happy and it did not stop the husband drinking either. In fact he at times came up with more 'if you loved you would do x y or z ultimatums.
The bottom line really, was that her husband was jealous, controling and manipulative and looking to make it her problem and not his.
I don't know the state of your friends marriage, only she and her husband know that, but I think she needs to be asking herself how typical/untypical is this sort of behaviour from him? Because if it is part of a pattern it will not end if she gives up God and may only make it worse.
Maybe she has to consider as well that even if it is completely untypical behaviour and she gives up God, it may end their marriage anyway, as she may be resentful, unfufilled, disatisfied,and still searching for something else to put in the hole in her life that is left by missing God.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
e) be very careful not to try and convert him or imply in any way that you want him to become a Christian. This would certainly make him wonder if you no longer accept him as a person.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I also think it's important to not demonize the husband as being some sort of malicious Jesus-hater.
How many of us in relationships haven't had the experience of learning to share our partner with a new interest, or of getting very involved in some project or cause that really isn't as interesting or compelling to our partner?
I know many women who, at midlife, start feeling new energy and assertiveness and embark on a new course of life -- whether it be continuing their education or starting a new career or some other aspect of personal reinvention. Sometimes this can be pretty disconcerting to a blindsided spouse. Likewise, when one partner retires, s/he sometimes uses that as an opportunity to take on new interests or activities that may make the other partner feel left out...or threatened. (After my father retired he developed a sudden interest in cooking, which really rattled my traditional/submissive mother, whose kitchen was really her only domain in that relationship. She told me at one point, "Now he wants to take that away from me too.")
I think others' advice here has been good.
If you read anything about family theory -- anytime you introduce a new individual to a group, you're going to create tension and dislocation. And that's what this woman has effectively done, at least in her husband's perception. (If you're Trinitarian, she's introduced THREE new Persons.;-)) You can't blame him for his feelings.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
If you read anything about family theory -- anytime you introduce a new individual to a group, you're going to create tension and dislocation. And that's what this woman has effectively done, at least in her husband's perception. (If you're Trinitarian, she's introduced THREE new Persons.;-)) You can't blame him for his feelings.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Yes, that marriage is going to be a little crowded.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There is a saying that all new Christians should be locked in a closet for six months.
They are sure they have found something wonderful (they're right) and they want everyone else to know the Lord in the same way that they do. It ain't gonna happen.
I think this wife should stop talking about religion and not let it infringe on her husband's life any more than necessary. At the same time she should be very loving and patient, going out of her way to do things that her husband likes.
I think that after a few months things will calm down.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Soberly, I agree that time may smooth this over. My immediate reaction, though, is that she may well be better off without a husband who issues an ultimatum, a dandy way to sabotage a marriage. If she gives in on this point, who knows what he may veto next?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Lots of good things have been said before now on this thread. Allow me to be the cynical old fart.
He is trying to manipulate her back to whatever they both were before her conversion. He doesn't like what she thinks now and he doesn't like her new buds. They take her away from what they had together before.
Whether or not his feelings are justified, they are real. So . . . ask him what aspect of her new faith troubles him most and start from there. Work on how they can accommodate and reaffirm each other and their relationship. Work on making him comfortable with her new buds and work on making her new buds comfortable with their old buds (letting new buds know that proselytizing will not happen for six months at least.)
Or
Tell him to put on his big boy underwear and celebrate her new faith with her.
The choice depends on whether or not hubby is worth accommodating.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
Well, if she was a Catholic Christian, then it would be relatively easy: marriage is a Christian vocation. If she's doing anything as a Christian which is damaging her marriage, she's getting it wrong; her marriage is her way to God - or at the very least, a major part of her way to God.
So as a Christian she should be more committed to her marriage than she was before; and as she has the example of Jesus's self-giving and total commitment to the Church, she will know what her self-giving and total commitment to her husband should be.
Perhaps if that's the way she lives her Christianity in her marriage, he'll start to see the advantages.
I don't know that all denominations would ask her to see it that way, though.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This isn't fair on Scots Lass as it isn't answering her question. But, Conjunx, despite two other distinctly odd contributions, I had thought what you said was the general Christian consensus. I wasn't under the impression that there was any specifically Catholic claim to that understanding.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scots lass
Shipmate
# 2699
|
Posted
Thanks for all the replies. I don't think that she's been trying to shove it all down his throat, and I certainly don't think she's projecting, quite apart from anything else she thinks that the whole Jesus is my boyfriend thing is a little bit creepy. Part of the problem is that the husband doesn't seem to want to give it time.
quote:
If she's doing anything as a Christian which is damaging her marriage, she's getting it wrong; her marriage is her way to God - or at the very least, a major part of her way to God.
Coniunx, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by marriage being her way to God - that doesn't really make sense to me. But as it appears to me, the problem is not what she's doing as a Christian, it's being one at all.
I happen to think the husband is all kinds of wrong in not being prepared to believe she can love both and in not wanting to wait to see, but that is obviously my perception. I would imagine that his view of the situation is a bit different. Zacchaeus's concerns about the end result are mine as well.
Posts: 863 | From: the diaspora | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Some churches demand so much out of their followers that they forget their earthly families. That attitude, though, is so unhealthy and I've sadly seen it lead to marriage break-ups amongst friends.
Instead, she needs to go to a boring, old, bogstandard church, where all she need do is turn up for one hour a week (while hubby reads the paper or watches the sport) and then gets home in time to cook him a special meal.
There are plenty of boring, old, bogstandard churches all over the country, which do not make unrealistic demands on the time of married women. There's no need to join a cult.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:
I happen to think the husband is all kinds of wrong in not being prepared to believe she can love both and in not wanting to wait to see, but that is obviously my perception. I would imagine that his view of the situation is a bit different. Zacchaeus's concerns about the end result are mine as well.
Do you know what level of Bible knowledge, if any, the husband has? The Revolutionist cited a couple of passages from the Epistles as being pertinent to the case, but nobody has yet mentioned Luke 14:26: quote:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
If the husband is aware of that then he has every right to feel unhappy or concerned that her conversion will have a negative impact on how she views him. More generally how would people explain that passage to the spouse of a new convert?
[ 31. October 2011, 16:07: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
A friend of mine has recently become a Christian, which has left her husband very unhappy.
You give us so little to go on. OK maybe that means I shouldn't post! But here we go.
Did she know in advance that her husband would be upset? If so that adds a different aspect. For example: I know my wife would be upset if I joined the RCC. Many christians would be upset if their spouse de-converted or became a JW or Mormon.
It's idle to suppose the marriage will not be affected and difficult to belief that this was unexpected. I can believe it was unintended, but would not even take that for granted.
We also have no idea of what the wife wants. Does she want to stay, or would she rather look elsewhere? If I was married to someone who had joined a religion which put me in the category of Unsaved and Going to Hell Unless My Wife Wins Me Over, I would probably just piss off . . or buy a dog. OK she may not push that but is it not the reality? And may it not also be the reality that she will only "stick" with him as part of her Christian Duty.
Of course, this may all be bollocks. We don't know. But often this type of life changing commitment is a sign of underlying unhappiness, so if the hubby thinks her conversion is a sign that the marriage is not all that great, he may not be that wide of the mark.
Equally, the husband may be a total jerk.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This isn't fair on Scots Lass as it isn't answering her question. But, Conjunx, despite two other distinctly odd contributions, I had thought what you said was the general Christian consensus. I wasn't under the impression that there was any specifically Catholic claim to that understanding.
It may be all denominations would see it that way, but I certainly can't guarantee it. Perhaps if those whose churches agree say so, we can find out!
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:
quote:
(Coniunx)If she's doing anything as a Christian which is damaging her marriage, she's getting it wrong; her marriage is her way to God - or at the very least, a major part of her way to God.
Coniunx, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by marriage being her way to God - that doesn't really make sense to me.
Being a Christian is living out a vocation of self-giving love; that's the way in which we actualise in ourselves, and thus enter more fully into the selfgiving nature of God. That's mainstream Catholic theology, most clearly expressed by Bl John Paul II in his Theology of the Body and other writings.
For the married woman (or man), the focus of that vocation is their spouse; the commitment made at the time of marriage is one of self-gift, and the Christian (and the new Christian, on conversion and on realisation of the Christian meaning of marriage), therefore finds the path to God primarily in that context.
quote:
But as it appears to me, the problem is not what she's doing as a Christian, it's being one at all.
Possibly; and if it is simply the statement that she is Christian which is so unacceptable, then the problem is his rather than hers; and he perhaps wasn't listening to what he said when he married her (the 'for better, for worse' bit, if he judges becoming Christian to be for worse).
But if it's his experience of her as a Christian which leads him to believe that she's somehow leaving him behind, or rejecting him, or trying to change him, then one might ask whether she has given cause for that.
I don't know, and I'm not judging him or her; but people can get the impression that one can be a married Christian without being as committed to marriage as to Christ, and that's not often the case.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
More generally how would people explain that passage to the spouse of a new convert?
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
Did she know in advance that her husband would be upset? If so that adds a different aspect. For example: I know my wife would be upset if I joined the RCC. Many christians would be upset if their spouse de-converted or became a JW or Mormon.
This interests me, because when I met my husband I was a practising Pagan. He never joined in, as such, but was happy enough to go along to moots and festivals and camps, and joined me in planning a handfasting. He didn't mind at all how often I referred to or invoked any number of Goddesses or Gods and cheerfully accepted whatever I felt the need to do in thanking the earth for things, celebrating, giving presents and so on. We celebrated Yule on December 21st rather than Christmas on the 25th, and Eostre in early April. We had a naming ceremony for our son at a Beltaine camp to which he was happy to invite his family, but all the while he himself kept apart, because he didn't believe in any of it. Does that make sense? He'd stand beside me, but not wish to speak, or have me say 'we ask...' on his behalf.
So when I converted to Christianity I naively imagined he'd be equally happy to go along with that - being social on the fringes without actively signing up for anything. Turns out he had a hidden antipathy for the church. It's taken 8 years to get any kind of non-hostile reaction to the church community and I've had to be patient and subtle and willing to put the church second in any number of ways. But it's church you (one ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) puts second - not God. One can continue to think about, praise, love, worship, thank, delight in, be with and generally be known by God without saying a word or raising an eyebrow.
If he wants to control her thoughts, he's not entirely rational.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
When I got married I made vows in a church before God. I believe that God expects me to take them seriously. Marriage first Church second. I would never had been ordained, If my husband who was not then a Christian, would have found my ordination in anyway a threat to our marriage I would have found other ways to continue to live out my Christian life as a member of our family and community. I would have struck some kind of agreement with my husband about the time I spent at church. This of course would have no change in my own private prayer, Bible study, and works of mercy. Yes, my husband attends church now, just not mine. This by the way is not a bad thing we discovered.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I wonder if the wife is being just too good and pious - there is nothing worse than being managed by a do-gooder!
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
More generally how would people explain that passage to the spouse of a new convert?
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.
My poor father is still flummoxed by this passage. He became a committed Christian rather late in life, mostly in response to my missionary brother I believe. But he has always been fiercely loyal and protective of his family. The whole love/hate dichotomy in the passage rocked him on his heels. At least three of us (family and priest) have tried to explain that ancient usage was different to modern English usage, but the word "hate" screams in his ears. And there is no way in hell he'd ever "hate" his family. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I hope Jesus will explain it to him some day.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
That may be the theory, but how it works out in practice can often be more difficult.
I am a Christian, and I still struggle with the idea that my wife should choose God over me in the event of such a choice having to be made. How much more will someone who isn't part of the church struggle with that knowledge - especially as them not being part of the church makes such a choice more likely to have to be made?
Incidentally, I wonder if people on this thread have considered what their reaction would be if the couple in question had started out Christian but one of them decided to renounce their faith. Would the spouse who remains in the church be expected to just suck it up and deal, or would any unhappiness or discomfort on their part be seen as justified?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
For what it's worth (not much then ), I'd say that both are entitled to their discomfort and even grief and anger for the way it used to be. It's hard when a person you love changes in a really fundamental way, even if it's a change that you firmly believe yourself is for the better. And if you don't believe that, ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It doesn't matter whether it's a case of one spouse suddenly becoming Christian or a case of one suddenly going apostate. It's going to hurt, and the hurt one is entitled to have that recognized and taken into account.
But in either case, you hope the couple will adjust to the new reality and continue loving each other. (and no, Marvin, I don't think the Christian spouse in a case like you mention is entitled to special privileges more than the nonChristian spouse of the OP. If anything, the burden of continuing to love falls more heavily on the Christian whose spouse has left the faith, because the Christian has the strength and help of Christ to lean on to get through the grief. A non-Christian spouse hasn't got the same resources and should probably be cut more slack.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.
Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.
Taken altogether what you are saying comes across as: "When we said nasty X we actually meant mild Y, and when we say you should put A above B, that's actually an indication of how important B is." To which the spouse could respond: "You really expect me to swallow all of that? That's how politicians speak when they want to dress up their real intentions to win over the voters."
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand
Is there any evidence for this? Other than that's what people need to believe to make the teaching palatable?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Echoing others. Better to be a relatively quiet Christian than a noisy one. Delay and reserve. Although it may be exciting and wanting the world to know etc, best to be calm and hesitant re spouses discomfort.
I would be careful of any form of marriage therapy until you know you can face the possible outcomes. Therapy often clarifies things such that decisions are inescapable, while they can remain suspended while things are less clear. And with marriage the decision can be to stay or to go.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.
Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.
I think you miss the point. Let's try putting it this way.
Yes, she puts Christ first; at the point of conversion, that's what she does. However, He immediately tells her that, in putting Him first, she has recommitted herself to putting her marriage first, as that is her way to know Him more fully.
By the time she tells he husband about it, he's back first - and there's a whole new level of authority telling her to keep it that way.
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scots lass
Shipmate
# 2699
|
Posted
Sadly, it's the belief that's the problem, not church attendance. Which makes the "wait and see" advice difficult. I don't think she ever realised that this would be his reaction, she's been interested for a long time and that wasn't a problem, it was the leap into faith.
I'm wary of saying too much, because it's not my problem and it may well just be my take on things. As a friend, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is in this situation.
Posts: 863 | From: the diaspora | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand
Is there any evidence for this? Other than that's what people need to believe to make the teaching palatable?
There's a ton of evidence, though we probably ought to be in Keryg to attack it. For the moment, though, just consider the fact that you have a born-and-bred Jew telling Jews in a Jewish setting to "hate" their parents--and they all have that Fourth Commandment thing going on in the back of their skulls... And nobody, but nobody, calls him on it. Which makes sense if they understood it as (deeply serious) hyperbole meant to point up a comparative, but not if they took it as straightforward "Detest thy parents".
You might also consider that this is the same Man who took care to provide for his mother even when he was busy dying on that cross--and who never by any report treated her badly. But he did on one or two occasions use her as one part of a shocking comparative.
[ 01. November 2011, 23:06: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.
Taken altogether what you are saying comes across as: "When we said nasty X we actually meant mild Y, and when we say you should put A above B, that's actually an indication of how important B is." To which the spouse could respond: "You really expect me to swallow all of that? That's how politicians speak when they want to dress up their real intentions to win over the voters."
It's very true, this change has shifted the balance of the marriage (in the man's favor, actually, but he can't be expected to understand that). And no doubt he feels betrayed, because everything ought to have gone on exactly the way it was on their wedding day.
But this is the real world, not some fantasy "Never, ever change" place. People have babies, and they demand attention--way too much of it, it often seems. People have ailing relatives who suddenly start demanding care and attention, and even house space, the spouse never expected to have to share. People get sick or unemployed or disabled, and suddenly they're no longer the package deal their spouses married. Compared with these common changes, Christian conversion sounds like a bargain to me. At least Jesus isn't threatening to come live in the study! Or needing his bum wiped and his face fed every two hours.
I have a close relative who divorced his wife after her sister died. The reason was, the sister left a young child with Down's Syndrome and nobody to care for him. The living sister, his wife, decided to take him in and raise him rather than let him go into god-knows-what state system.
My relative couldn't stomach the thought of sharing her love and attention. He ditched her.
Never, ever change. Humph.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.
Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.
I think you miss the point. Let's try putting it this way.
Yes, she puts Christ first; at the point of conversion, that's what she does. However, He immediately tells her that, in putting Him first, she has recommitted herself to putting her marriage first, as that is her way to know Him more fully.
By the time she tells he husband about it, he's back first - and there's a whole new level of authority telling her to keep it that way.
No, I get the point completely. Having been a Christian I understand Christianspeak.
But you are not getting my point. You are taking a text that that says you have to hate your [husband] to become a disciple and claiming it to be a sign of Christian glorification of marriage. Why should someone outside the Christian circle, like the husband in the OP, place any trust in a religion - or its followers - that twists words and meanings to such an Orwellian degree?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand
Is there any evidence for this? Other than that's what people need to believe to make the teaching palatable?
There's a ton of evidence, though we probably ought to be in Keryg to attack it.
I think that's worth a new thread in Kerygmania so I'm going to set one up for more detailed discussion of the meaning of Luke 14:26. I recommend to Shipmates that folks who are interested in that continue their discussions there.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's very true, this change has shifted the balance of the marriage (in the man's favor, actually, but he can't be expected to understand that).
Except that's not true, is it. OK, there might be the theoretical "Christians should love their spouses more" handwaving going on, but when it comes down to it the fact remains that henceforth, if the husband wants to do something that the wife judges to be against her new religious morality she is obliged to choose that morality over him.
And let's face it - Christians are known for having some 'fun' moral rules. Any one of a number of previously-insignificant things - using contraception, eating meat on Fridays, having disposable income without giving it away, lie-ins (or sports) on Sundays, not having a problem with homosexuality, taking the kids out trick-or-treating at Halloween, and many more depending on denomination and personal interpretation - might now be off-limits to her, which if he wants to keep doing them is going to cause problems.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh dear. Maybe I understand better what the problem is here now.
No, there's a difference between "Christ first" and "Christian morality first," particularly when those moral rules are ... dubious, and not accepted by even half the Church at large.
Choosing Christ first is a given for any Christian, yes, and not just over spouses but over one's own self too. (which is highly unpleasant I can tell you)
But Christian customs, "rules," and crap like that--no. The kind of thing you cited are indifferent matters--they're in a different class from (say) "Thou shalt not murder." I can have a lie-in Sunday morning if I so choose; it is no sin. Now Christ would have something to say to me if I continually, voluntarily, perpetually, made it a habit to avoid any Christian worship or gathering altogether any time, anywhere. But I can't see this husband being so unreasonable as to forbid her to visit worship ever, at any time, in any place. Is that your reading of him?
Same with wearing makeup, going to movies, having hot sex, trick or treat, choices about donations--all this crap is in the "work it out for yourself" category, not in the Big Ten of commandments. And really, I can't see this guy wanting his wife to break those--murder? adultery? um yeah. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) No. 3 (about the Sabbath) is covered above.
I really, really hope she hasn't got roped into a denomination that mixes up the essentials with these manmade traditions. Because it's damn hard for any Christian, let alone a newbie, so stand up to a so-called church authority and say, "You're talking nonsense. Christ does not require that of me."
Is it possible for Christ to require something a husband will contradict? Sure, but it happens more rarely than you'd think. He could (for instance) demand that she take part in prostituting their child (yechhhh). Or in some kind of murder plot (yeah, right). Or that she burn incense and worship (insert deity of your choice here), or the marriage is over. In those extreme cases, you have to make a choice. And the choice will be for Christ. Which in 99.99% of cases is identical to what we would call a choice for decency.
But from the little we know in the OP, it doesn't sound like this husband is the kind of freak who would demand such evils. If his only problem is with the human interpretations of manmade traditions that have only the most tenuous support from God's Word (if that at all!), well, then, he should be just fine. And if he is the kind of indecent jackass who WOULD force such obvious clear evils as murder and child abuse on a wife, she'd be better off without him. Christian or no.
Really, the whole "choose between Christ or me" thing is a pretty rare conflict to actually come up in modern Western-world lives. I've only had to make such a choice a couple times, and in at least one case the asker was clearly and doctor-certifiably out of his mind.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I really, really hope she hasn't got roped into a denomination that mixes up the essentials with these manmade traditions.
Sadly, that would be most of them. And even if the denomination doesn't, the individual church often will.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
[qb] Same way as to anyone else - it's hyperbole, translated from a language in which the expression referred to matter of preference rather than a complete love/hate opposition that we'd understand, and addressed first to people in a society in which clan / tribe / family tended to outweigh all other considerations. We (mis)understand it from a very different society and language.
Yes, it means you put Christ and God first, but as I've said elsewhere the fact of doing so makes one committed in a new way to marriage and to self-giving love for others.
In Christ we die and are resurrected; the resurrected us is more capable of loving and giving, and the spouse should be the first beneficiary of the change.
Which, however way you put it, means that the conversion has instituted a fundamental shift in the balance of the marriage, that the marriage and the husband are no longer first.
I think you miss the point. Let's try putting it this way.
Yes, she puts Christ first; at the point of conversion, that's what she does. However, He immediately tells her that, in putting Him first, she has recommitted herself to putting her marriage first, as that is her way to know Him more fully.
By the time she tells he husband about it, he's back first - and there's a whole new level of authority telling her to keep it that way.
No, I get the point completely. Having been a Christian I understand Christianspeak.
But you are not getting my point. You are taking a text that that says you have to hate your [husband] to become a disciple and claiming it to be a sign of Christian glorification of marriage. Why should someone outside the Christian circle, like the husband in the OP, place any trust in a religion - or its followers - that twists words and meanings to such an Orwellian degree?
Same way he understands any other sort of consequence of change?
This isn't specifically Chritian, after all.
If I move from one country to another, I then have to follow the laws of the other country. When I cross the border, I start working within that country's laws above the laws I left behind.
Does that mean I can cheerfully murder someone because I move to France, and so French law makes claim of sovereignty over me? No, because as soon as I fall under the law of France, murder becomes illegal again.
If you're being particularly argumentative about it, there may be a stage at which I'm between jurisdictions or a fraction of a second - at which I've turned my back on England and embraced France; and if I'm pretty ignorant I may not know that French law forbids murder (or perhasp can't read French and so haven't yet worked out what the language means); but the end result is that I'm equally required not to murder before and after the change of country.
That's not twisted, that's simply normal life.
(And I don't quite know where you get the impression that the 'hate' langauge is a sign of glorification of marriage; it's more a sign that Jesus used a different language from us. The glorification of marriage is elsewhere.
Or do you really think this guy is ignorant enough to think the whole of Christian life is stated in one obscure verse of the Bible? To stretch the analogy, perhaps if he travels to France he believs that driving on the right is the whole of French law, on the same sort of basis).
[ 03. November 2011, 14:57: Message edited by: coniunx ]
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Would you mind explaining what the purpose of your analogy is because, as far as I can see, it has no bearing on the issue in question.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Would you mind explaining what the purpose of your analogy is because, as far as I can see, it has no bearing on the issue in question.
You suggest that the man in questions considers it "twisting" to say that because his wife has a new allegiance to Christ, she is in fact still as much - or even more - committed to him, even though at the instant of that conversion she placed Christ first.
But unless you have a very strange scope of normality, it's not twisted to say that in moving from one jurisdiction to another, you don't change your status in respect to what is and is not illegal.
Deciding to obey Christ's law doesn't affect her marriage negatively; just as deciding to move to France and obey French law wouldn't affect her legal position on murder.
Just because the word 'Christian' is involved instead of 'French' doesn't make it twisted.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
But unless you have a very strange scope of normality, it's not twisted to say that in moving from one jurisdiction to another, you don't change your status in respect to what is and is not illegal.
Tell it to the jurisdiction you've just left.
Your analogy is, in fact, not analogous to the conversion in the OP - the wife has gone from a situation where she places her husband first in her affections to one where she places him second. From his point of view she's left his jurisdiction and moved to another.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
But unless you have a very strange scope of normality, it's not twisted to say that in moving from one jurisdiction to another, you don't change your status in respect to what is and is not illegal.
Tell it to the jurisdiction you've just left.
Your analogy is, in fact, not analogous to the conversion in the OP - the wife has gone from a situation where she places her husband first in her affections to one where she places him second. From his point of view she's left his jurisdiction and moved to another.
So you're accusing her of being disobedient to Christ? That's a bit judgemental of you, isn't it?
Or have you still not got the point that it's only by placing her husband first that she can obey Christ?
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
