CFM Boards

by **Absalom** on Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:16 pm

Geez, I am sorry guys. I really have to learn to define my terms better.

Every line of every post has to be precisely correct, since it can be taken out of context to crucify the poster.

"Older and wiser" is a common expression, because although life is lived with increasing wisdom as a result, decisions made younger have farther reaching consequences.

When a person "grows up," "wakes up" or whatever, and decides to start a family, there are lots of reasons to regret not doing so earlier. When wisdom produces this regret response for a forty-something, the natural conclusion is that wisdom was not being followed when the same person was a twenty-something. To "miss the mark" in this way is the very definition of sin.

Not that anyone has a right to condemn a person who makes that unwise choice, but to pretend it is wise is quite foolish.

Let's say the choice is not "when to get married" but rather "whether to have an abortion." The regret years later when you *want* children, but cannot because of infertility brought about by the earlier choice is quite real.

Wanting people to understand and avoid this kind of regret is loving, kind and likely to be misunderstood. "You just want to impose your values on others." "No, you are very likely to regret the choice you are making, and I cannot serve a loving God and not tell you that."

That conversation can happen whether the person being counselled is seeking a decade as a single before marrying or seeking an abortion.

Helping people make wise decisions is the very definition of compassion. Or is it?

Cheers!

by **JadedGuy** on Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:09 pm

I suppose I have concerns about a philosophy that equates a man's worth and happiness with sexual conquest of women - even when said philosophy is proffered under the pretense of a man "doing his biblical duty of marrying and obeying God's creation mandate [sic]." That's one reason I take issue with Debbie Maken and others. Marriage, per se, is not needed for salvation or sanctification, nor it is needed as an earthly necessity meriting charitable action. So how can any single man without any attendant obligations (like children) be required to marry?

Men are not sexually dependent on women for their worth and happiness. The moment men wake up to and internalize this fact is the moment they strike a major blow against lust and other sexual sins.

by **whynot42** on Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:51 pm

I do not feel that men are bibilically obligated to marry and bear children.

BTW- marrying and having children do not have to go hand in hand.

One thing that I do have to wonder though- and maybe this is where many of the "young men" are.(not being in church and all). Maybe I am stupid, but; I find it hard to believe that christian singles- this lady is talking to christians right-are remaining celebate. If so- I would tell these guys that they are wasting some of the best years of their lives.

Are women the only ones who have a desire to have children? If not- there definately is something for men to consider by "putting off having children." Personally, I think older fathers make better fathers. This is just from personal experience. However, it sure is getting to be a long haul for my husband. Me, not so much because I am not bearing so much of the financial load and responsibility.

by **Absalom** on Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:42 pm

WhyNot42 wrote:I find it hard to believe that christian singles- this lady is talking to christians right-are remaining celebate.

Your credulity is right on track...
The biblical pretext: all the verses on remaining celibate. The Truth: that is a smokescreen. They have taken no vow of celibacy (come on!). Most either fully intend to get married and have children "some day," or have never given it much thought, but someday will.

The choice to remain single rests entirely with the chooser. I don't have a dog in that fight, and nor does Maken. She is addressing a macro problem with macro language and individuals are taking offense because "the shoe fits."

_________
IF you are going to have children, it is far better to have them when you are young (male or female). My wife had our youngest at 43. The risk factors increase exponentially after 30. Our children are great; no problems. That is not the case with every "older mom."

IF you are going to have children, it is better to have them when you are young enough to enjoy your grandchildren. I may never see my grandchildren short of heaven.

IF you are going to have children, it is better to have them when your parents can still remember your name :wink:

and enjoy their grandchildren.

IF you are going to have children, and you choose to delay either their birth or meeting their mom until you are "older" (whatever that means to you), there is a very high likelihood that you have foolish, ungodly reasons for that decision. If you have wise advisors, they will help you explore why you are making that decision, with the hope that you may make a better decision.

"The only one hurt by my foolish decisions is me" has a nice solid ring to it, but it is not true. Every foolish decision any of us makes affects others in ways both profound and significant.

Maken is not saying (or should not be saying) that all men are obligated to marry and/or have children. But surely most are going to do exactly that. Her concern is, as WhyNot42 noted, that "they are wasting some of the best years of their lives." If you are going to marry someday, DO NOT LIE to God and say you have a temporary celibacy vow going on. Instead, say, "I choose to remain single." Nothing more, nothing less. Don't try to justify it with a lie. Just live it.

by **JadedGuy** on Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:45 pm

There are a number of men who would like to marry and have children, but (1) Christian women pass them by in search of some cultural construct of Biblical manhood, (2) these men look at how many men are "rewarded" and back away from a prompt decision to marry (i.e., the "Marriage Strike"), (3) are actually discouraged from marriage by the System ("Oh, please marry soon ... but we are not going to let you unless you are financially accomplished and make more money than your wife, enough to support her Suburban dreams."), or (4) they keep running into women who are not Prov. 31 women, but Prov. 25:24 women.

The churches insensitivity to these matters is saddening indeed. All it can do is pipe up, "That's not our problem. Suck it up and be a man" (or at least that's the way it seems). And religious leaders wonder why some men find them irrelevant. In principle, it is unwise for a man who plans to marry to delay marriage ... but there are nonetheless some factors that are dissuading men from marriage. If we ignore these men's concerns, then we do so at the peril of making Christian communities a friendlier place for men.

by **DarkJudge** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:11 am

"I'd like to get a sense of where the sentiments of this board lie. Do you men feel that guys are generally required by God to marry and bear children?"

I intend to write a Nice long Blog post on this, but in short... NO. As a twenty three year old male, I don't feel I have a duty to put a ring on someone's finger and become their breeding stock. I have issues with Debbie's take on things.

Assuming that she is correct in her take in I Corinthians 7 (which I'm not at all in agreement with her diatribe on that, simply because if you read the words of Apostle Paul, I don't think he's talking about a famine because 1. That doesn't exactly make sense to me... or maybe I'm just not connecting the dots there. 2. As he continued to address the issue, he does so not in light of the famine. "And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: " (I Cor 7:31-32)) she still has failed to point out where precisely, in the Textus Receptus WHERE it says that a guy cannot be a bachelor and where it is a sin for him not to get married. I see past cultural/historical arguments, but not a Biblical mandate. Further, it seems that the arguments laid down really to me, don't hold a lot of weight as she can't point specifically WHERE in the chatechism (sp?) this is proclaimed a sin, further, this is NOT the scriptures. (Not to mention the fact that people fail to recognize that people died very young in those days.)

Now granted, you can use the mandate from Genesis stating "Be fruitful and Multiply" but I'd argue that God is mandating this as a result of A. The flood, which HAS happened. B. He mandated this at the beginning of creation. This was a specific command to Adam and Eve. At least, that's how I read it. I hope I'm not twisting or contorting the scripture here, but... that's how I read the scriptures.

In short, I kinda put this argument in the same stack as the people who think Rock Music, D&D, Video games, etc. are all evil.

My two cents, FWIW.

by **JadedGuy** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:21 am

DarkJudge wrote:"I'd like to get a sense of where the sentiments of this board lie. Do you men feel that guys are generally required by God to marry and bear children?"

I intend to write a Nice long Blog post on this, but in short... NO. As a twenty three year old male, I don't feel I have a duty to put a ring on someone's finger and become their breeding stock. I have issues with Debbie's take on things.

Assuming that she is correct in her take in I Corinthians 7 (which I'm not at all in agreement with her diatribe on that, simply because if you read the words of Apostle Paul, I don't think he's talking about a famine because 1. That doesn't exactly make sense to me... or maybe I'm just not connecting the dots there. 2. As he continued to address the issue, he does so not in light of the famine. "And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: " (I Cor 7:31-32)) she still has failed to point out where precisely, in the Textus Receptus WHERE it says that a guy cannot be a bachelor and where it is a sin for him not to get married. I see past cultural/historical arguments, but not a Biblical mandate. Further, it seems that the arguments laid down really to me, don't hold a lot of weight as she can't point specifically WHERE in the chatechism (sp?) this is proclaimed a sin, further, this is NOT the scriptures. (Not to mention the fact that people fail to recognize that people died very young in those days.)

Now granted, you can use the mandate from Genesis stating "Be fruitful and Multiply" but I'd argue that God is mandating this as a result of A. The flood, which HAS happened. B. He mandated this at the beginning of creation. This was a specific command to Adam and Eve. At least, that's how I read it. I hope I'm not twisting or contorting the scripture here, but... that's how I read the scriptures.

In short, I kinda put this argument in the same stack as the people who think Rock Music, D&D, Video games, etc. are all evil.

My two cents, FWIW.

The Force is strong with this one. :wink:

by **Absalom** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:10 am

I *really* like the "breeding stock" comment, Jaded Guy.

I don't think anyone should marry a particular mate with this kind of expectation on either side. The rules have indeed been skewed away from men as a general practice., and in the absence of a lot of relationship-building work, the typical marriage today is likely to be gynocentric in exactly the way you decry.

"The typical marriage is hostile to the husband."

"Husbands in typical marriages today are breeding stock."

"The culture and church conspire to put men 'In their place.'"

Even if you grant all these are true, that does not mean that a specific man cannot pursue, win the heart of and marry a specific women on vastly different terms.

Fact is, marriage today is a minefield for the average man. Two options:

1) Recognize that fact and avoid marriage like the plague, since as an average man, you are toast.
2) Become above average and correct the situation one marriage at a time.

I submit that of the two options, (2) is the godly one.

Cheers!

by **JadedGuy** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:51 am

CR wrote:I *really* like the "breeding stock" comment, Jaded Guy.

Breeding stock comment? Which comment was that?

I don't think anyone should marry a particular mate with this kind of expectation on either side. The rules have indeed been skewed away from men as a general practice., and in the absence of a lot of relationship-building work, the typical marriage today is likely to be gynocentric in exactly the way you decry.

"The typical marriage is hostile to the husband."

"Husbands in typical marriages today are breeding stock."

"The culture and church conspire to put men 'In their place.'"

Even if you grant all these are true, that does not mean that a specific man cannot pursue, win the heart of and marry a specific women on vastly different terms.

Yes, he can pursue this, but it will be difficult at best, and his chances of success are not going to be as high as otherwise.

Fact is, marriage today is a minefield for the average man. Two options:

1) Recognize that fact and avoid marriage like the plague, since as an average man, you are toast.
2) Become above average and correct the situation one marriage at a time.

I submit that of the two options, (2) is the godly one.

Cheers!

CR,

I respectfully disagree with the above reasoning. Godly single men have so many hours in a day. To become "above average" in order to find a good woman and a good marriage is requiring an increasing amount of material assets, social finesse, grace under pressure, time, and just plain good luck. The current of gynocentrism and misandry that many men are swimming upstream against is becoming more forceful. Some single men, in desire to be good stewards of their time, are devoting themselves to those pursuits that have the best likelihood of contributing to their welfare. In short, they are moving on with their lives and doing productive things, instead of spending their times searching high and low for the Great Pumpkin of Matrimonial Bliss. In short, I don't condemn men who are trying to be circumspect with their time and the other things that God has blessed with them with as being just "average" or something less. It's inconsistent to talk about wisdom, and yet fault men who appreciate the gravity of risk and investment of what they have. If they are not married, then shall we blame them or should we blame the Status Quo, which turned the Game of Love into a casino game (where the house always come out ahead of the starry-eyed gambler)?

by **Absalom** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:20 am

Jaded Guy,

The comment was by Dark Judge.

I respect your passion on this issue. Further, I find your case compelling. Finally, I wonder how many married men as swimming against the same tide? The cultural bias against men surely affects men who have become married. Some of the single men must be observing this phenomenon and using this fact in their decision-making.

Women have the upper hand in marriage, because of the culture's worship of them. Mom gets the kids in a divorce, so Dad had better stay on Mom's good side, etc.

The biblical standard is "the husband is head of the wife." The culture has turned this standard upside down. Some will say that no, marriage has been democritized. This is impossible. Somebody is going to come out on top in decision making. Unless the woman chooses to honor her husband's leadership through biblical submission, ultimately she will rule the roost.

How many marriages are female-headed nightmares? How many men will be man enough to admit it? Sounds like a new thread to me...

by **p27:17** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:29 am

We are all guilty, men and women, because we don't know or don't follow God's instructions for relationships/marriage. God programmed us to desire and enjoy one another (men and women) with in the confines of marriage. The church follows the cultural tide by not addressing this enough or in proper context. We blame one another or the church or society, when the rules of engagement are right there in the rule book.
Paul was pretty clear about marriage...but he thought it better to remain single...Not all are called to be married but those that aren't are supposed to be celibate. Those that can't control those desires need to find a mate and enjoy themselves so they can back to the business of praise and worship.

by **Sax Machine** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:06 am

Hi, guys. I'm new around here, and here's my opinion.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number...

I suspect that many people use this verse to justify their belief that God requires us to have children. The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret this command:

1. God is speaking only to Adam and Eve. Thus, the command to have offspring only applies to Adam and Eve.

2. Adam and Eve are often thought of as representatives of all mankind. Thus, by commanding Adam and Eve to "increase in number," God is commanding the entire human race to do so. Note that this is much different from commanding each individual member of the human race to reproduce. As a whole, the human race has been quite effective in producing children.

By the way, I think the command to "increase in number" is the only one which mankind has faithfully followed. Not coincidentally, this command is directly linked to sex. Hmmmmm...

(It's too bad that all of God's other commands are not linked to having sex. I think we would all be a lot more obedient. :wink:

)

by **p27:17** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:29 am

SM...welcome...

I believe we are directed to have sex with in the boundaries of marriage...to procreate...and to practice, practice, practice... :lol:

by **whynot42** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:41 am

O.K. So. As usual it all comes back to sex w/you guys. So Christian sex is within the confines of marriage. So, if this discussion is about putting off marriage or not and being a "good" Christian husband. I guess I would have to say that perhaps you guys are obligated to get married at a younger age. :shock:

Have I got news for you guys- not only is a woman's biological clock ticking away so is a man's. :shock:

by **Sax Machine** on Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:53 am

I realized that I forgot to address the "mandate" to marry. It is my understanding that many passages of the Bible (which have already been mentioned) speak highly of marriage. However, Paul says:

I Cor 7:
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

The bottom line: marriage and singleness are both acceptable. It's up to you.

CFM Boards

Who here supports Debbie Maken?

Who is online